Saturday, May 20, 2006
Stranger WWII Weapon
Yes, ladies and gentelemen, this is indeed a bat bomb. Good luck getting this through today, what with environmentalists and such. Not that I think it is such a good idea. Interesting, inventive, sure. Good, not so much.
Return Desk (1)
Strange Sign
"Bagged Horse Shavings: $3.50"
I don't think I want to know what one does with bagged horse shavings...
Return Desk (8)
I don't think I want to know what one does with bagged horse shavings...
Monday, May 15, 2006
Home!
We've just decided on a house. We're about to buy a house. A nice, big, shiny house. In about a month, we'll be in.
Return Desk (2)
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Sure to Earn Flames....
Yeah, I'm sure what I'm about to post will get me flamed or something. But it's a honest series of thoughts that I've had, and objective feedback is welcome. Because I am kind of confused...
Ok. So one of the things that I've heard/read used as an argument sometimes for homosexuality being fine and right is that it is genetic. This kind of throws me. Now, I'm no expert, but from my understanding, that makes this supposed gene one of two things: a trait passed from each generation, or a mutation. It is obviously not a universal trait, like having skin or something (I know, not the best example, but I'm not in my element here). So that means that some people have it, some don't. In which case....how the heck does it get passed on? Forgive me for being blunt, but homosexuals cannot directly reproduce. They could adopt, but that's not passing on a genetic legacy. I suppose there are artificial means, but those would, ah, work more for females, and would give, at best, a 50/50 shot of the trait going along. And considering how this people group has been treated in the past, I see somewhat less chance for passing it along in the numbers present today. Now, obviously, you are going to have people who are married and have kids, who still lead this life. Probably happened in the past, too. But it just doesn't seem enough to really get a strong genetic presence going.
On the other hand, there is the possibility it is a mutation (at least in my limited understanding of genetic stuff). Meaning it is an unintentional change or deviation from normal genetics. But it seems too common for that, and no other physical signs for what is really a mental and emotional condition. So that seems unlikely.
So maybe this has all been said before, and the theory debunked. But I sadly don't read every single peice of news, so I could have missed that. Am I off track here? Or is what I said making sense?
This isn't a post about whether this behavior is right or wrong; I addressed that in personal conversations and a post a while back. This is just focused on the "genetic" idea.
Return Desk (4)
Ok. So one of the things that I've heard/read used as an argument sometimes for homosexuality being fine and right is that it is genetic. This kind of throws me. Now, I'm no expert, but from my understanding, that makes this supposed gene one of two things: a trait passed from each generation, or a mutation. It is obviously not a universal trait, like having skin or something (I know, not the best example, but I'm not in my element here). So that means that some people have it, some don't. In which case....how the heck does it get passed on? Forgive me for being blunt, but homosexuals cannot directly reproduce. They could adopt, but that's not passing on a genetic legacy. I suppose there are artificial means, but those would, ah, work more for females, and would give, at best, a 50/50 shot of the trait going along. And considering how this people group has been treated in the past, I see somewhat less chance for passing it along in the numbers present today. Now, obviously, you are going to have people who are married and have kids, who still lead this life. Probably happened in the past, too. But it just doesn't seem enough to really get a strong genetic presence going.
On the other hand, there is the possibility it is a mutation (at least in my limited understanding of genetic stuff). Meaning it is an unintentional change or deviation from normal genetics. But it seems too common for that, and no other physical signs for what is really a mental and emotional condition. So that seems unlikely.
So maybe this has all been said before, and the theory debunked. But I sadly don't read every single peice of news, so I could have missed that. Am I off track here? Or is what I said making sense?
This isn't a post about whether this behavior is right or wrong; I addressed that in personal conversations and a post a while back. This is just focused on the "genetic" idea.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Home!
After about 8.5 hours, I am now home. Much of my stuff will probably stay packed, since my family is currently house-shopping, and will be moving in a month or so. Here's to hoping that goes smoothly.
Now I just need to find a job....*Prays*
Return Desk (1)
Now I just need to find a job....*Prays*
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Chaos!!
That's what it is right now, as we pack and clean around here (mostly pack right now). In fact, I am mostly boxed up right now. I've got clothes for the next few days, basic toiletries, and this happy little computer that aren't in some stage of being packed, or prepared for packing. Now I just hope I can get everything into my car that I plan to...
I can hardly wait to go home...
Return Desk (1)
I can hardly wait to go home...
