Now, on to the Register.
Homophobia is on the rise today, and the first two letters take two different tracks in showing it.
First, Aaron LaCock of Ankeny:
“Homosexuality cannot hurt anybody in a way that heterosexuality can’t.” And, “The fact is that every one of the health risks he identifies is equally true for heterosexuals.” ... For heterosexual men, dividing 5,149 by 124.2 million shows your chance, per year, is .004 percent to contract AIDS. This simple math calculation shows that you are at 50 times greater risk, per year, to contract AIDS if you engage in male-to-male sexual contact.
Then, Chuck McLaughlin of West Des Moines:
The rectum is not designed (by God or by nature — you pick) to be used as a sex organ.
Its lining consists of only a single layer of nonflexible, highly absorbent cells, which aids in the absorption of water and nutrients, but also makes it susceptible to tearing. Tears in this lining allow direct contact between the feces and the bloodstream.
There are health problems associated with this. Seventy-eight percent of homosexuals contract a sexually transmitted disease during their lives. Hepatitis (caused by fecal contamination) is epidemic among homosexuals.
I'm not sure I can make this any simpler. If you object to anal sex, then don't have it.
Maybe I can draw you a picture instead: I don't have studies on hand but my guess would be studies have been done showing that the repeated consumption of alcohol makes you more likely to commit domestic abuse, experience liver failure, drive erratically...etc. But we as a society don't ban alcohol. We encourage people to drink responsibly.
In this case, homophobes across the metro area oppose the gay lifestyle, so instead of encouraging responsibility, they're encouraging outlawing the practice. As an aside, does anyone really think banning gay marriage is going to deter gay sex?
Moving on: Cindy McDonald from Iowa Falls has decided coaches make too much money.
I propose the Register add a sentence about the salary earned by the athletic coaches at the major universities. Report how much of the salary is paid from the university budget as supported by tuition and taxes.
Coaches are faculty members and part of their salary is from the same budget as English and economic professors.
The problem is, that's simply inaccurate. Take, for example, Kirk Ferentz at the U of I. He makes millions of dollars annually, but he also has repeatedly taken the Hawkeyes to New Years Day bowl games. Those games alone generate new revenues for the University to the tune of millions of dollars.
Compare that to Baylor. I wasn't able to immediately find a salary for Baylor's head football coach, but it's safe to assume it's significantly less than what Ferentz will take home this season. I can tell you that Baylor has won a grand total of 5 games over the last two seasons, 2 in the Big 12. They have not reached a bowl game in several years, and their game attendance and TV revenue are dwindling.
So I guess the argument for competitive coaching salaries is simple in my eyes: Better teams generate more income, so if you can prove that spending more on a coach will improve the team, go for it. And if the coach doesn't produce, you're going to fire him anyway.
I'm off to Wisconsin again in a couple of hours, so unless something major breaks, this will be my last post until I return on Monday.