Runa, the fact of the matter is there are situations where it is necessary and or appropriate to circumcise for health reasons of the child.  You can argue all you want against it, but if I'm a parent and my son frequently is getting urinary tract infections, or experiences phimosis or paraphimosis he's getting a circumcision if our doctor feels it's necessary.  Your opinion that it's barbaric doesn't matter.

Circumcised men make due.  Yes, uncircumcised men have the added benefit of the foreskin providing sensitivity, but the area where the foreskin once attached in uncircumcised men is equally sensitive.  The glans adjusts.  The human body, in that respect, is amazing.

Show me the science that proves your opinion is correct.  The only credible science that you can provide that remotely supports your opinion would relate to the levels of testosterone and estrogen during fetal development and or during puberty.  And so far, the only evidence supports the levels of estrogen in males being related to environment.  Even in children born with ambiguous genitalia you're often dealing with a hormone imbalance related to environment, not genetics.

Sexual orientation is an incredibly complex area, but some researchers have tried to find a single genetic or environmental cause for homosexuality. This now does not seem to be the case according to the latest findings (June 2008) from the world's largest study of twins.

The work was carried out by Dr Niklas Langstrom and colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the studies were of all adult (20-47 years old) twins in Sweden. Many genetic studies use identical and non-identical twins to tease out genetic and environmental influences. Identical twins share the same genes and environment and non-identical twins share half their genes and all their environment. If there is a greater similarity in trait between identical twins compared to non-identical twins, genetic factors are deemed largely to be responsible. So if scientists observe that same-sex behaviour is more common amongst identical twins, then there must be genetic factors at work.

In this research the scientists asked all participants (same-gender twin pairs) about their sexual orientation and amount of same sex and opposite sex partners they had slept with

They found that genetics accounted for about 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and non-shared environmental factors about 64 percent.

In homosexual women, 18 per cent of the variation in same-sex behaviour was accounted for by genetics, non-shared environment 64 percent and shared environment about 16 per cent. 

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/7033.aspx

Again, if homosexuality is a learned behavior, which the research strongly suggests than if desired the behavior could be unlearned.  Albeit with great difficulty.  I don't believe it to be an easily unlearned behavior, because once ingrained sexuality is a much stronger force than other behaviors that may be construed as bad.  Sexuality, regardless of the sex involved feels good.  Only when there is a negative associated with a behavior can one develop a need to change it.  And again, you can argue all you want, but the evidience suggest sexuality is largely environmental, therefore it is a behavior that is largely learned not genetic.

No, it isn't racism.  I defined absolutely no race to anything I said.  A stereo-type isn't racist just because a stereo-type largely involves a particular race.  Some people who use stereo-typing to define people may be racist, but a rapper being into gang and or drug culture isn't racist.  It's a stereo-type of a rapper.  There are more rappers that are into drug or gang culture than there are clean stereo-types.  So impressive in the need for rappers to be associated with either that some have actually claimed falsely to be a part of them.

There are lots of people who fail to overcome opinions that other people have.  They succumb to those opinions whether or not they are fair.  Racism may be involved, but whether that person falls prey to racism in that regard or not is an environmental issue, as I said, not a biological one.  This can also happen if they don't have the support structure to excell.  Again regardless of race.  Trust me, I've personally dealt with it in working with teenagers in Scotland.  A very white country where the primary issues are economics, opportunity, parental guidance to steer a kid right.  When more than 50% of a class drops out at 14/15 because no one in their family expects them to do more, to do better, you have an environmental issue.  When a person opts to take benefits over a job, even when they're offered one that would fulfill their economic needs, that's an environmental factor not a race one.  Again, not in the US, still Caucasian. 

As I said, and as you completely ignored, I wasn't speaking to exactly what yo were talking about but rather an environmental issue.  In some cases race may be involved, it isn't the limiting factor, but that doesn't mean race may not influence the limiting factors.

With regard to evolution, I wasn't arguing your point.  I was offering you a means of arguing the point to people who would argue it.  Those people at this point tend to be largely religious people who believe in creationism.  To each your own.  You can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

The argument regarding Global Warming has moved beyond myth, as most people tend to now argue between Global Warming being man-made or natural (cyclical).  Again, keep trying to attract those flies with vinegar though, I'm sure they'll come.

Nothing I said regarding guns was incorrect.  What a tool was intended for and how it is used are two very different things and the latter is a very valid point.  If a gun is used for hunting, to sustain oneself, than regardless of whether or not it was intended to kill, it doesn't make it a negative thing.  There is a very real benefit to its use. 

I'm neither wrong nor are my points invalid.  Unfortunately you're closed minded to opposing points of view even if they aren't fully contrary to your own.  You'd be sadly mistaken in calling me a zealot.  I'm a moderate Democrat, a progressive on social issues.  Just because my viewpoints don't mesh up with yours doesn't make me a zealot.  You remind of an evangelical minister in a documentary regarding the 2000 election between Bush and Gore, in which he described everyone who had a view point that didn't fit with his, even if they were Republicans as he was, as being Liberal (e.g. a Democrat). 

Just so, your opinion doesn't define me.  I'm a well read individual, who keeps up on the issues and facts.  As much as I possibly can.  Over MY 40 years, I've had the benefit of talking with many people, gay and straight, and learning their personal stories in order to form my own opinions, not to mention the data that has surfaced from research.  Thank you very much! 

With this post you once again proved that you have no idea how scientific research works. Educate yourself a bit and you'll see.