Climate Change is most certainly a thing and needs to be addressed.

1.  This is debatable.  Evidence to the contrary suggests that there are indeed medical benefits.  Mainly in the prevention of disease/illness.  Should parents hold off on circumcising for as long as possible?  Sure, but there are issues that a parent may run into during infancy that require the child be circumcised.  Namely recurring urinary tract infections, as well as a few other conditions.  To say there are none is just ignorance of the issues that exist, most likely because you've never experienced them.

2.  Again, debatable.  My personal opinion is that sexuality is a choice.  It may not be the same kind of choice that you make when you decide to eat at Subway instead of McDonald's, but I do believe one's environment helps determine paths and choices.  Likewise, I don't believe hormones dictate sexual preference.  It boils down to the experiences of that person and how they influence them.

3.  Again, debatable.  If you believe sexuality is a learned response, then change is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe that could be beneficial.  Just as changing the behavior of someone with OCD or TTM has a beneficial outcome.  You believe people are hardwired for sexuality, I don't.  I believe what we are hardwired for is to eat, breath, drink, and have sex.  Everything else and in between is a learned experience, including what to eat, what to drink, what to breath and who to have sex with.

4.  Again, debatable but sadly I think this is due to environment.  There are two issues at work here, some people are in an environment where it is too difficult to break out of (i.e. it is easier to follow a certain path and they are not challenged to follow a different one) and others are pigeon holed.  In terms of the latter, there are unfortunately people who stereo-type and because of that they fall into that stereo-type.

I can speak from personal experience, where a person I know is going down a path contrary to their upbringing simply because they want to fit into a specific culture.  Granted, neither this nor my initial response is quite what you're talking about.  You're talking very literally, where I'm implying people can fall into a stereo-type.     

 5.  Your challenge here is in framing it with respect to religion.  Only those fervently religious will deny evolution.  So how do you frame it within the context of religion?  Simple.  If God is perfect, and Adam was made in God's image, Eve was made from Adam's rib, and DNA is composed of 26 chromosome pairs, then why do we not all look alike?  All men would look like God, and all women would look like a female version of God.  So why are there blonds, brunettes, red heads, blue eyes, brown eyes, green eyes, and everything in between?

6.  This doesn't address the brunt of the argument, which is global warming a man-made thing or is it a naturally cyclical thing.  The argument that it is naturally cyclical is what most people who now argue against global warming use, but the problem is the world was different during the last warming.  The problem is that some people see the world as static, never changing, so the world we see today was the same as the world that existed during the last warming cycle.  It isn't.  There is a significant difference in that the land bridge between North and South America (essentially Central America) didn't exist during the last warming cycle.  The currents flowed from the Pacific to the Atlantic helping to keep th oceans warmer.  When this land bridge finally formed, those currents were cut off and the planet cooled significant sending us into an ice age.

If that isn't enough, there is significant evidence that shows the impact of naturally occurring phenomenon on the environment, not to mention the impact of human carbon dioxide production since the industrial age and our overall impact on the environment since the rise of modern man over 20,000 years ago.

7.  They can however, also be tools for hunting or as a hobby for shooting.  You can't argue your point without also accepting the other two points.  What a tool is designed to do and how people use them are two different things.  A hammer is designed to pound a nail into a board, but you'd be amazed at how many people use it for a screw driver. a mallet, or an instrument of death.  Likewise, knifes were tools invented for killing as well, but they've also been utilized as a utensil for eating, an implement for preparing game or fish, letter/box opener, and for sport/hobby. 

This is where I stopped reading

This line consists of two separate statements, neither of which I agree with. Sure climate change, but the statements implies something different.

Debating this further is rather pointless however and both sides have their 'crazies'.

No it hasn't. Learn to peel the skin back, you'll be fine.  Plus, urine is sterile, it actually CLEANS around the glans as it passes through.  we have the foreskin for a reason, to protect the sensitive glans from the elements.  While there certainly are SOME diseases that are protected against, cutting the skin off puts your dick at risk of just as many, if not MORE diseases, making it a trade off, not protection.  Also, cutting the skin decreases sensitivity by exposing the glans to external stimulation, permenently altering his sex life.  

If you chose to do it as an adult, that's your choice, but doing it to your kid at birth is a horrible abuse with no defined medical benefits. 

I won't pull back the skin because my barbaric parents had me circumcised.  Do you see how this might sound to someone?