The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20110210172226/http://www.news-medical.net:80/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
Advertisement

Recent Comments

Comment RSS

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

23. October 2006 16:28

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."

Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".

Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.

Comments

5/15/2009 2:00:14 AM #

Josiah Jeong

I enjoyed reading this article so much. It is pretty interesting that you veered our fervant attention on 'homosexuality between human beings' to that of between animals.

I was aware that masturbation among animals is common, but this fresh phenomenon is just astonishing. Homosexuality between animals seems to be humorous, but homosexuality between men and women is not a light issue. I believe that our sex is more than instruments that help us achieve sexual pleasure. If that is the case, it would be pointless to restrict people from bizzare crimes involving our sex.

Josiah Jeong United States | Reply

6/13/2010 4:08:01 PM #

Leigh Sabio

I'm sorry, Josiah, but that comment came off as a bit homophobic. Not all gays or lesbians use each other just as instruments of sexual pleasure. Many have sex for exactly the same reason that a straight couple with no intention of having kids would have sex: because they're attracted to each other, in love, and want a physical and emotional connection with the one they love.

There is a world of difference between homosexuality and "weird sex crimes." Namely, that difference is consent. Homosexuality is nothing like bestiality or pedophilia, because an animal or a child cannot give consent, but a person of the same sex as you can.

Leigh Sabio United States | Reply

11/6/2010 2:50:50 PM #

Brittany

I totally agree with you on that. I am a lesbian not for sexual reasons but because I am attracted to women the way men are attracted to women so people need to get it together and stop only looking at the sexual aspect of what's going on in a homosexuals bedroom....

Brittany United States | Reply

11/3/2010 8:35:19 PM #

Erika

Josiah - look up the term speciesism and come to realize that humans are not above animals...

Erika United States | Reply

2/9/2011 8:03:10 PM #

Eric

The fact that nature partakes in homosexuality is irrevelent to humans partaking in homosexuality. They do not have the same ability to reason as humans do.

Eric United States | Reply

6/9/2009 3:46:00 AM #

Patrick

I found this article VERY interesting, being homosexual myself. The only thing I sort of had an issue with was the line about the ducks and geese where it says "It has been observed that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples." How do they judge this in the animal kingdom?

Patrick United States | Reply

8/27/2009 2:19:01 PM #

GP

That's true Patrick... how would they know this... did they sit down and talk with hundreds of geese parents and do surveys? lol...

GP United States | Reply

10/9/2009 3:54:44 AM #

ramael

DUHH! they study them!

ramael United States | Reply

5/19/2010 1:41:08 PM #

Kiwi

They will have observed the local population of geese (or ducks, or swans) and measured things like:
- How many of the eggs hatch?
- How many of the goslings (ducklings, cygnets) survive and for how long?
- The weight and other condition indicators of the babies. - The future reproductive success of the young once they reach adulthood since in biology the 'true indicator of fitness' of an animal is in the number of grandchildren it ends up with.

Male-male pairs can usually guard larger territories than male-female or female-female pairs, so that is often also taken as a sign that they will be more successful due to having access to more resources.

Kiwi United States | Reply

11/4/2009 9:31:04 PM #

kenneth

My guess would be just the overall survival rate of the young being raised by the homosexual couple versus the survival rate of the young being raised by the heterosexual couple.  There may have been a statistically significant difference in these survival rates.  But I don't know because I'm not sure what studies are being cited and have not familiarized myself with any (yet).

kenneth United States | Reply

8/20/2010 2:57:13 AM #

David N Taiwan

Because of being raised by 3 adults rather than 2, the offspring has greater protection and access to food.  Their survival rate has been measured and is greater than the survival rate of offspring raised by 2 adults.

David N Taiwan Taiwan | Reply

6/9/2009 8:31:45 AM #

billdave

I grew up on a farm. The ducks I grew up around had sex with anything, including inanimate objects. I never observed any significant pair-bonding. Maybe the article is referring to some very specific breed of duck...This article seems to have a bit of an agenda, but since it's my agenda too, all is forgiven.

billdave United States | Reply

1/28/2010 1:18:21 PM #

Sean

Well its possible that the duck breed was specific but also remember that these guys were studying them - quite possibly other animals don't associate the whole exclusivity thing that's become popularized in human culture but that doesn't mean they wouldn't at the same time have a significant partner

Sean Malta | Reply

6/9/2009 9:33:26 AM #

Dennis Bergendorf

Yes, and nearly 100% of animals with mate with their own offspring. Many species eat their young.

Dennis Bergendorf United States | Reply

7/5/2009 8:31:05 PM #

isa kocher

Parents virtually never mate with their offspring. Some species of mammals may eat the young of others. Never their own. Most species do not eat the young of their own species. Whoever made the statement that they do is simply not well informed. Human serial killers do eat their co-specific victims though. Not something any other animal does that I know of.

isa kocher United States | Reply

8/17/2009 4:21:45 AM #

ashley

My cat had kittens 3 months ago and her son is already trying to mate with her. I also had brother and sister cats that tried to mate when they were like 5 months old before I got them fixed. My ferret poops in my shower. Animals do all kinds of weird things. People make choices.

ashley United States | Reply

11/8/2009 4:14:22 AM #

John Thompson

Yes, humans make choices, but who you are attracted to is NOT one of them.  As a heterosexeual male, I have never been attracted to a man.  I hate that religious fanatics honestly believe that gay people CHOOSE to be gay.  It just doesn't make sense.  

John Thompson United States | Reply

3/11/2010 8:11:58 PM #

Ileonna Matthews

True, animals do all sorts of weird things, but so do humans. The only reason that we believe that animals do weird things is because us, as humans, don't actually do the same things ourselves.

Ileonna Matthews United States | Reply

12/3/2009 9:49:58 PM #

Jeff

Currently the cat sleeping on my bed is the daughter and sister of a cat that has since disappeared. There are two cat's next door who are inbred. When I had siberian hamsters as a child, they had babies. If I didn't remove the male before they gave birth the male absolutely would eat the young. In nature the male would not have remained present through it's pregnancy. Later one of the 3 siblings got it's leg caught in the wheel and damaged itself. The next day the other brothers ate him. All that was left was blood. Soon after for no apparent reason, another gets eaten. And then eventually the sole survivor died. Tell me that didn't happen why don't you?
Oh and for the record, those hamsters were inbred also. 4th generation spawned from a combination between a female of the 2nd generation and a male from the third.  

Jeff United States | Reply

12/5/2009 12:03:37 PM #

Valerie

Umm...do you think all of these additional behaviors might have occured because they were inbred in the first place?

Valerie United States | Reply

1/4/2010 1:38:37 AM #

John Edwards

It's a behavior that occurs among almost all domestic hamsters. In the natural habitat, the male hamster will rut, then leave. The eating of the offspring/litter mates by the parent and each other is likely created by forced proximity in an artificial environment.

BTW, anyone who's read a book on the hamsters they are raising would know that scenario would play out. Breeding animals in captivity without even basic research before hand is reprehensible. Jeff should be ashamed.

John Edwards United States | Reply

3/12/2010 12:59:28 AM #

Jeff

I was only 8 years old, and they weren't my responsibility. I did state "had as a child" but should have phrased it, witnessed my Mom's hamsters... Either way, what place do you have judging anyone? But I'll leave it up to you to decide which way you feel about your behavior.

Jeff United States | Reply

1/4/2010 1:32:11 AM #

John Edwards

Domestication is not the natural state for most animals. If you could find me significant examples of incest occurring in the natural habitat of Siberian hamsters, or incest between large cats, then this might hold some water.

John Edwards United States | Reply

12/6/2010 1:45:43 PM #

Tina

Isa,

We raised rabbits and rabbit moms can and do eat their babies if they are disturbed (and sometimes if they are not!).  It is quite a disgusting phenomenon.

Furthermore, some breeds of chicken will peck a member to death if it gets an open sore.  They just keep pecking and pecking and pecking.

Tina United States | Reply

12/7/2010 8:53:40 AM #

luckilee

Sadly male lions will eat or just kill baby males in their own pride to limit competition ...thoretically....I am sure it is instinct and not reason. Females with male newborns move far away until they are nearly yearlings to protect them.

luckilee United States | Reply

6/11/2009 12:55:29 PM #

OJ

An interesting article. Unfortunately it seems biased to me, too eager to prove homosexuality as a natural occurrence. Now, I'm not saying it isn't, as I don't know enough about homosexuality outside of the human race to argue a case, but were there some referencing or manner of proof provided I would be more willing to see this as a point of academic study as opposed to yet another unsupported attempt to justify ourselves.

However, Peter Bockman does mention with a sense of bitterness a few reasons to account for this. Personally I would be very interested to visit this exhibition, and look further into the subject.

OJ United Kingdom | Reply

7/5/2009 8:23:14 PM #

isa kocher

Plenty of academic research referenced in detail at the wikipedia article on homosexual behavior in animals.

Roughgarden and Bagemihl have done extensive research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Roughgarden

en.wikipedia.org/.../Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bagemihl

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10139001.php

www.amazon.com/.../031225377X

www.amazon.com/.../ref=sr_1_3

isa kocher United States | Reply

11/30/2009 6:28:46 PM #

Ed

Isa, you are a wiki scholar?

Surely you are not quoting wikipedia to prove a point!

Wiki is a joke. Many incorrect things have been posted on Wikipedia as gospel by its loyal followers.

This is hilarious. please, you are joking, right.

Ed United States | Reply

11/30/2009 9:31:22 PM #

David

Oh right. I forgot. That means everything on wikipedia is a lie. Idiot. It's a valid resource. Especially when the vast majority of information on wikipedia is cited.

Perhaps Isa was too lazy to follow the footnotes and cite the original scientific articles, but you're a fool for discounting the facts in that manner.

David United States | Reply

3/30/2010 6:02:58 AM #

Blain

Actually wiki is not a valid source of information. Writing any essays at University level would be an instant fail if you quoted from Wiki because it's just so simple to change the information.
If they had linked from the original source, then fair enough.

A friend of mine had once changed the entire "Roman Catholic Church" section of info on wiki to "Does not exist." That stayed up for 3 days. He also became the King of Tesco's for over a week, is wiki is to be believed.

Blain United Kingdom | Reply

11/16/2010 3:43:51 AM #

Rik

What I find interesting in culture, is that a man knows that he shouldn't relieve himself in public (or french-kiss a man either) but some people are not decent enough to realise this. As a result, God gave 10 commands so that we would always know what is proper or not. Some Chinese people relieve themselves alongside the road where anyone can see. They don't know any better.

Those of us in the Judeo-Christian cultures with access/prior knowledge to what God requires know better than to murder, lie, steal, etc. Most people do know these things, but without laws to guide them, they are completely ignorant. It's interesting that other cultures (with our traditions) do not have these laws 'written upon their hearts' and they will steal at any opportunity when no one is looking. Many today will cheat on their spouse if no one is looking, when God's laws are not written upon their hearts.

Rik United States | Reply

12/6/2010 3:19:23 PM #

zach

To often faith is used as a method to avoid logic.  It's easy to say, "I don't do this or you shouldn't do this because the bible says so".  We all need to remember that the bible was written by men to control humans and that any topic referred to in the bible is only there because the authors for some reason found that topic pertinent during the time it was referenced.  In other words, let's not take religion too seriously.  With regard to the Christian Bible, we obviously don't still sell our daughters into slavery, disembowell people, or sacrifice animals.  Thankfully, we're slowly disregarding some guidelines in the Bible as not relevent to our society.  How long until we decide that the entire Bible is not relevent to our society?    

zach United States | Reply

7/7/2009 11:18:43 AM #

Glenda Parrott

What a sinful waste of time, effort, and money for this research.  Humans are not of the animal kindgom.  We are a genetic component of God.  HE made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve for sexual intercourse. HE made the perfect design of the males anatomy to fit correctly into a womans vagina.  Having intercourse in a human anus is unreal as that is our sewer outlet. How sicking for a person to engage into this kind of sex.  Having oral sex and sex in this anus is very different. True germs and disease can be gotten and spread both ways, but anual sex is where our bowel movemenets come from--and they are expecelling all the bacteria that thrives there and anyone that has sex in that area is asking for the terrible diseases that exsist there.  Yes, there are diseases that exist between hetrosexuals, but nothing like those between homosexuals.  If you ask God to fogive you of this perverted thinking and resarch HE will--then correct this article so that others will not be condemmed to a unclean lifestyle.  Let the animals do their THING and humans, hetrosexuals, do their THING---THE RIGHT THING.

Glenda Parrott United States | Reply

7/8/2009 10:50:01 AM #

jay

Humans... not part of the animal kingdom??    

jay United States | Reply

8/27/2009 2:26:02 PM #

GP

And Glenda, why waste your time worrying about what other people do. It's their choice... do you really want to be so negative towards people just because of their preference in a mate. I'm a heterosexual man, but it's not my place to say what people can and can't do. If it's wrong and God deems it wrong, then let God deal with it... not you!

What was that one famous saying "do not judge, lest ye be judged"

That may not be the exact words, but you get the point!

GP United States | Reply

1/1/2010 2:37:00 PM #

noone

Judge not lest ye be judged.  But if you look at it in context, it's not really telling you not to judge.  But if you judge, you should be prepared for those to judge you as well.  The bible also says the saints shall judge the world.  The saints are those who have been saved and gone to heaven.  Interestingly, the Greek word for judge in both cases points to human judgement.  The judging of one human to another, and not righteous judgement.  Anyways, we have the option to judge, and if we live a holy and sanctified life, we really shouldn't have a problem when others judge us.  Firm in our beliefs, you know Smile

love you all

noone United States | Reply

7/8/2009 11:10:59 AM #

Denis

We are of the animal kingdom - we share most of the same genetic material and our bodies are *very* similar to that of mammals, even down to having the same kinds of bones and nerves.  How dare you assume what God is made of - the bible was written by MAN, not God, so it is flawed.  How dare you also assume God has a gender and is male!  A Penis also fits elsewhere dear -- if you don't think so, study some anatomy and being gay is not all about sex just as the article is not all about sex, but bonding, etc.  The mucousal lining of the anus and mouth are very similar to the vagina -- that's why you can get diseases of any of these anywhere these mucosa exist.  Vaginas are also where dead/putrid uteral material is expelled from.  You are right that God will forgive you for your hate, but you also have a responsibility to love your neighbor and all created things.  You have the perverted thoughts it seems.

Denis United States | Reply

7/26/2009 8:36:14 PM #

Lori

From a medical perspective, the anus is by far the "dirtiest" of openings in the body! The shedding of a woman's uterus is a very natural process for a woman,and cleanses the womb to prepare for a growing human being! You are obviously a gay "man" who does not believe in a higher authority than yourself! You are participating in immoral sexual behavior. It is about sex, not bonding! As a homosexual, you will never understand what bonding truly means!Your own words show that you are the one with the hate...don't try to hide behind a forgiving God that you obviously don't follow!

Lori United States | Reply

9/16/2009 10:22:48 PM #

Wally

I have never in my life, witnessed any one person, sect, group, organization or otherwise, promote hate and indignaties, more than do those of a very high percentage of the christian belief. I am virtually, always astounded at how they, more than anyone, continue to judge and undermine those outside their level of thinking! I show no degree of surprise that their narrow minded belief system has contributed more to upheaval and brutality on the planet, than any other single event, since the dawning of the evolution of our species. Homosexuality, gaylifestyle or whatever one chooses to label it, is here to stay, always was and will remain so until the sun ceases to shine. And what of mankind, including Homosexuals, who lived here many thousands of years before the arrival of Christianity and subsequently, the bible? Are they doomed to this place they call, Hell, too? Oh no. I forgot. "Christianity applies only to those who lived from the time of Constantine, 353 A.D or so," I can hear them say. I have total regard for anyone who might find comfort in any form of spirituality but don't delude yourself into thinking that you are some rightful messenger, here to preach and broadcast to me, about matters concerning my life. I am gay, and truthfully happy and content in my skin. If there is a problem with that, then THAT is EXACTLY what it is! Your problem! NOT mine! Get over it!                

Wally Canada | Reply

9/30/2009 1:00:13 AM #

David

One of the comments that seems to be repeated over and over is that homosexuality is a choice. I have only ever heard heterosexual people say this. I am heterosexual myself - but I have only ever heard from homosexual people that being gay is a part of who they are, and that it's something they realize and decide to accept about themselves, not something they decide to be. I have never heard a homosexual person say that they have decided to be gay.

This is an interesting article about the subject that I found - I believe this, that homosexuality is a result of both biological and environmental factors:
http://www.narth.com/docs/hom101.html

And as you yourself state Glenda, if "annual sex is where our bowel movements come from", I imagine you must be pretty constipated by now. It sure sounds like it.

David Canada | Reply

11/14/2009 9:14:06 AM #

kj

They don't shed the Uterus... rather the placenta!

kj United States | Reply

11/27/2009 3:33:00 AM #

stace

Um, you sure about that? I seem to "shed" my uterus every 28 days. Think they call it a menstrual cycle. Look it up. I might be wrong!

stace United States | Reply

3/30/2010 6:11:20 AM #

Blain

No, the point was that you don't shed the uterus. You shed the Placenta. If you shed your uterus, you'd only ever have one period in your life because then you wouldn't have anything to bleed from to have a child grow in.

Blain United Kingdom | Reply

3/30/2010 6:26:18 PM #

Sean

Menstruation is bleeding caused by the breakdown of the endometrium (the endometrium being the deepest part of the uterus)

placenta develops when an egg is fertilized and actually embeds itself into the endometrium; ultimately via hormones preventing the endometrium from breaking down while the egg-foetus-baby develops

seriously dude Tong

Sean Malta | Reply

10/11/2010 1:46:38 AM #

Kitty

KJ, Stace, and Blain: it's neither the uterus nor the placenta. Sean got it right, why can't you? It's the uterine LINING/endometrium.

Kitty United States | Reply

3/31/2010 7:31:22 AM #

Kim

News for you:

- Straight people have anal sex too
- Not all gay men have anal sex

I'm also interested in the special extra gay diseases the OP references. Pray tell?

Kim United Kingdom | Reply

12/10/2009 11:55:20 PM #

astrid

The article clearly states, animals. Last time I checked, I didn't widdle a shiv to stick in my box or rub my genitals up against a tree.  Not comprehending the fear and threat some of the Christians resonate about homosexuality.  (Being raised in Scandinavian where these topics aren't approachable for discussion). God grants them so much grace but can't relieve that fear that grows into that putrid display of hate and a missed grammar class. Or five.
I take issue with a garden of vaginas getting slandered because of a religious nutter who can't spell anus. Each of us came from one. Ueber respect vaginas.
Sure, the article seems biased. So much research is. Educate yourself.  Read, study and then discuss.  Or, start flinging excrement onto a comment blog.  

astrid Norway | Reply

7/8/2009 11:21:14 AM #

Chloe

God is a woman, have you not heard? SHE might forgive your ignorance Glenda, but most of us are just going to laugh at you. Smile

Chloe Australia | Reply

12/7/2009 7:35:41 PM #

Ashlee

I love you comment, hun. I agree full-heartedly. Laughing

Ashlee United States | Reply

7/8/2009 12:02:36 PM #

Dr. Scott

Dear Glenda,

You wouldn't know what "the right thing" was if it walked up and bit you on the bum!. Your archaic ideas about sin are repulsive, and your use of the preposterous phrase "God's DNA" clearly demonstrates that you have no grasp of either metaphysics or science.

God made some people heterosexual and some people homosexual, and some in different flavors too.  Who do you think you are to contradict God's creation?  

Dr. Scott United States | Reply

8/30/2009 11:56:31 AM #

Cade

This homosexual animal infestation could be easily fixed with a M61A1, a helicopter and Sarah Palin (She has a little extra time this days). It might be hard to hit the gay worms, so maybe a few bombs as well.  

Cade United States | Reply

7/8/2009 2:45:56 PM #

dalia

Glenda you are absolutely right, I really liked your article, I think people are mixing up the humans with the animal kingdom, what a comparison to convince humans that being homosexual is normal, Adam and Steve from animal kingdom are open minded , whilst Adam and Eve are odd in our era I guess!!

dalia United Kingdom | Reply

7/11/2009 1:17:24 AM #

albie

Glenda, you're so funny.  I almost took you seriously until I realized your blatant stupidity was meant to be ironic.  Adam and Steve!! So clever and original.  I hope to meet you one day and hear the rest of your comedy material...you really should consider a career in show business!!

albie United States | Reply

10/9/2009 4:02:40 AM #

ramael

We are not part of the animal kingdom? so, which is our kingdom then... plants? rocks?

A genetic piece of god!!! ???? LOOOOL OMFG!!

Where is your proof?, please, do us all a favour and go get a life, or even better. I cannot believe such amount of ignorance can be contained in one single human.

ramael United States | Reply

12/9/2009 6:48:19 PM #

Deanna

"I cannot believe such amount of ignorance can be contained in one single human."

As much as I respect that ALL religions have a right to believe what they want, there is more than one human with this amount of ignorance. There is a long line of never-ending popes with the same lack of knowledge.

Also, remember Amadinajad(sp)? He said that Iran has no gay people there! LOL

Deanna United States | Reply

10/26/2009 3:49:19 AM #

Kathryn

What a jaded mindset you have! You know, even heterosexual couples have anal and oral sex. There are no specific diseases that attack homosexuals. Diseases are non-discriminatory and would just as well attack a hetero as well as a homosexual pair. The way people such as you with "holier than thou" attitudes parade around making comments such as these-- that actually turns away people from the LORD God. If you want these people to 'repent,' then you should sit down with them-- take them out to dinner and befriend them. Then by example (and not slapping them in the face with it as I'm sure you would!) they will see for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Making your prejudiced comment was wrong-- and also sinful. You are causing people to stumble who could come to our LORD. Be more open minded about things such as this, but do not give up your views. Please just be patient and kind and loving when dealing with people like this--or anyone you don't agree with. You find in time that the views of some churches are actually just the sentiments of older men who are unhappy or hateful. I myself belong to the LORD, and I want everyone to be able to talk about these issues. I don't min if you don't agree-- just be able to say "Hey, I don't quite agree here (or I will never agree), but why don't you explain this to me so I can understand where you're coming from."

I don't mean this to be hateful if it seems such. I applaud you for your strong beliefs. If you wanna discuss this, you can email me at thaniphobia19@hotmail.com

Kathryn United States | Reply

1/13/2010 8:34:49 AM #

nSJ

Glenda, you are really funny. I am sorry but you are like my mum. Too emotive to ponder facts instead of feeling emotions.To other readers, I am not referring only to her rationale, but to that which is partially common to all persons that think more or less the same way.

Human experience and knowledge are god, IMHO.  What's defined in our society as right and wrong are nothing but paradigms. Social paradigms are constantly being redefined. If a  different and new idea is formed by a group, its progression will be positive if gradually being accepted by other groups and individuals, whereas its progression will be negative if other groups and idividuals do not accept it.

It becomes very interesting if we consider that every new fact is being processed by every human being that comes into contact with it.  The sentence defined as bad or good that reaches majority can also be defined as a social paradigm. It is a different, but undoubtless, natural selection force in action.

As ideas are recycled, new concepts born just as obsolete ideas go to grave and cease to be paradigms. Because we elaborate/construct/rearrange old concepts into new ones, our behavior has been through  self-inflicted natural evolution/improvement. Human paradigms and behaviour, the latter which is based on up-to-date knowledge, have been under construction since the first atoms glued together into a molecule and shall continue.

nSJ Brazil | Reply

3/13/2010 10:55:17 PM #

EEE

Oh Glenda. Please tell me where you heard that heterosexuals' (note spelling) STDs are different from homosexuals'?

EEE United States | Reply

3/31/2010 7:33:34 AM #

Kim

I'm waiting for these extra special gay diseases too! I didnt realize we were so special! I imagine God sees you bumming someone and strikes you down with a big pink thunderbolt.

Kim United Kingdom | Reply

3/24/2010 11:06:02 AM #

ahem

Imaginary friends make us feel glad. Not gay, just happy. Hip hip, chin chin to scientific reason and whatever fills your blank.

ahem Canada | Reply

4/14/2010 9:31:11 PM #

sarah

Aww, cute. Look how brainwashed by the church you are. Do me a favor, and stay out of the scientific community if you can't be bothered to have any grasp of understanding for it. Go back to your church and Man In The Sky.

sarah United States | Reply

7/7/2009 11:08:24 PM #

Gems

""Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other.""


Should we start letting our human children lend a helping hand in the bedroom?   This article is very biased.  

Gems United States | Reply

7/8/2009 10:44:56 AM #

jay

That is confusing two different issues. The thrust of the point being made is that the 'unnatural' argument won't work. The fact that there are similarities doesn't mean there are not valid differences.
The puritans and religious bigots will just have to fabricate other intolerant arguments instead, I suppose.

jay United States | Reply

7/8/2009 9:38:52 AM #

David Rowan

To Glenda, I'm sorry but that's the most incredulous argument anyone can make. First off, if you knew anything, yes people and animals excrete waste from the rear, but 90% of the time its pretty much empty so its just as clean as vaginal sex. Secondly, contrary to what you may believe, the penis also fits quite well into the anus, infact better as men who are larger can be accomodated better into the anus, as the muscles there tend to strech more than the vagina, and the vagina ends at a point, the anus and rectum go quite a bit farther. And lastly, the "Adam and Steve" arguement. Oh the ever faithful psycho christians favorite argument. Let me point out first that I'm not anti-religion. However if you want to be historically accurate, and i'm sure you would, homosexual behavior in HUMANS existed long before and long after biblical scripture was written. So for you to assume that God made people for exclusive heterosexual sex is blatantly wrong and historically innaccurate. Also, the fact that you even brought up adam and eve reveals to me that you obviously put no creedance in science so i dont know why i'm bothering to argue, but this article makes a vaild point. If it exists in nature, then its natural, and bible thumpers and bigots such as yourself should realize this. Yes this article has an agenda, but its only to prove that homosexuals, such as myself, aren't godless sodomites who are doing this because we "want to". Our very nature has more to do with it than you may want to admit, but here we are.  

David Rowan United States | Reply

8/17/2009 4:37:18 AM #

ashley

If it's only about bonding, then why have sex? I don't get, it I bond with my children and my parents and my friends and I don't have sex with any of them. I think gay guys are afraid that girls won't like them so they pretend not to want them either. Have a friend. Bond without being gross. Sex in the anus is gross and dirty and there is new evidence linking anal sex with colon cancer in particular when the "man" carries the HPV virus as 2 out of 3 men unknowingly do. There are reasons for all of this. Be careful people take care of yourselves.

ashley | Reply

9/16/2009 10:35:57 PM #

Wally

Bravo, David. I had not seen your entry until I had submitted mine, above. Our points are very similar.

Wally Canada | Reply

10/10/2010 8:49:32 PM #

Sag

Some of your comments are neither scientific nor accurate.  It is unbelievable the level of ignorance surrounding the Bible and Christianity. Some of you claim to be intellectual but have never given a second thought to your own spiritual education.  And of course, had you ever read Genesis, you would know that God in fact did make Adam and Eve for "exclusive" heterosexual sex so they could populate the Earth!  And as for the animals, they fell to a sinful nature at the same time Adam and Eve fell. The animals began to eat the meat of their own species rather than the vegetative diets they had enjoyed before.  So David Rowan, your statement, "If it exists in nature, then its natural", is wrong! The animals you are speaking of have a sinful nature and you are misrepresenting the Bible in its entirety.  

Sag United States | Reply

12/6/2010 12:43:40 PM #

Ron

If Adam & Eve were the ONLY copulating couple to exist when God made the earth, then their siblings had to commit incestual sex for the world to become populated with heterosexuals, homosexuals, and incestual behavior!!

Ron United States | Reply

7/8/2009 4:51:06 PM #

ARaine

I read and reread trying to find a clear bias.

I think the overall point the author is trying to make is this: Sexually related interaction, that humans may reject on a moral basis, is quite common place in other species. Its a glimpse into a social environment where intimacy is not clouded by our own stigmata.

Though I could be entirely wrong. The giraffes may be doing Hail Marys even as I type this.

ARaine United States | Reply

7/9/2009 10:01:08 PM #

C. Valdez

Interesting article. I already knew some animals had homo or bi tendencies. He states hermaphroditic animals are purely bi, but the word is meant to describe someone with both male and female genitalia.

I disagree that ducks are purely homo. It is true that they stick with one partner for life, but I've only seen hetero ducks.

C. Valdez United States | Reply

7/23/2009 8:24:35 PM #

Learned

C. Valdez: Sexuality preferences within a hermaphroditic species is of moot point precisely because both parties have dual-gender reproductive gear.  Within such a species there can't be any practically determined sexual preference because each lucky partner to choose from will always be both male and female.

It is worth noting that this article is providing a strict definition of gender as defined by one's sex organs. (Excluding other potential factors - such as behavioural masculinity/femininity - which often shape human categorization in modern argument.)

Learned Canada | Reply

7/12/2009 11:46:16 AM #

Hudstar

In reply to Glenda. I was told by a stoic devout christian that the bible does not include people (humans) as part of the universe or any part of nature - p.s forget that we were sailing past one of the most magnificant sights in the South Pacific. I got this earful of come-me-down because of my "pagan" remark about mother nature. I then learnt we are the only living things created in this "god's" image therefore we are very lucky to be here. I thought god (pick any one - mainly a homophobic male) is failing miserably with humankind. I lean towards the big bang theory myself but I kept quiet hoping this freak of nature would shut up. I was then told we must spend our existance repenting for a sin we were all born with. Now us (humans) being seperate from nature, that is just stupid beyond belief. I never read the bible nor was I raised with gods so this sin was new to me. I guess I would rather feel part of all I see than living blind by biblical guilt. It's interesting the presence of homosexuality within herds seems to "take the focus away from violence". Maybe pent up testosterone smothered with self repression fuels great acts of violence. We also hear about male on male "rape" in war yet that is an act of domination. Interesting seperation. I think this research needs more study but it is certainly a step in the right direction in understanding ourselves as societal creatures. We are definately unique. As for the description of gay sex by Glenda....ummm, thats a bit pornographic for a god fearing mind. In some cultures, women are believed un-natural and evil and have to live seperately from everyone else while they menstruate. In other cultures such as the tribes in New Guinea, male on male sex is seen as part of masculinization. Young adolescent men have been taught how women can be dangerous to then and that they can even die from heterosexual intercourse -(procreation time must be a joyous occasion!) Maybe Glenda's god forgot about them...... oh wait, that's right, the missionaries brought god to Paradise (that's another story, another blog, another subject) I guess if human homosexuality is proven natural, people like Glenda and her religion, or men in power that use religion will lose this self given authority that gives them a sense of superiority and rightfulness over others. If this god given role was to be removed, what you would have left is a society of downgraded ignorant people living without purpose or significance - too dumbed down to believe they are infact relevant and have the knowledge to be protective of all that exists.  Animals don't have gods, we are just animals that somehow evolved to have imagination and what a gift that should be.

Hudstar Australia | Reply

8/17/2009 4:51:19 AM #

ashley

God is not failing, and for someone who doesn't even believe you should not be making assumptions like that. God wants us to come to Him (or Her) willingly. That's why he gave us the choice of Free Will. Animals don't have this choice, they act merely on instinct and impulse. We are the ones who are failing. And we are not born with sin, we are born into a world where there is temptation and there is choice. Temptation is from the devil and to submit to temptation is to submit to the devil. Choose God and temptation won't tempt you any more.

Attempting to make a woman look stupid who is actually making a good point and giving people something to think about is only the devil working through YOU and you should do something to change it. You have a choice.

On another subject, The people who segregate the menstruating women are simply uneducated.

And if homosexuality being natural is your best argument, I leave you with this. Morning breath is just natural, but do you live with it or do you get up in the morning and brush your teeth?

ashley | Reply

9/3/2009 12:57:03 AM #

L.J.

Did you just compare homsexuals with morning breath? I find that kind of ridiculous, but I think I understand what you are implying. You are saying that homosexuals can simply get up and decide to not be gay anymore. For anyone who is not genuinely gay, I can understand this concept.

You see, I've been raised in a preacher's home my whole life. I am the son of a southern baptist pastor. The thing is, I am also gay. Untill recently, neither of my parents knew, so they were always making a big deal about gays on TV or in real life.  Now, being around all of that prosecution for years and years on end, you'd think I'd switch sides, right? Beleive me, I've tried! I simply am not attracted to women.

Before anyone says anything, I'll explain that my mother, father, aunt, grandmother, and even myself have prayed that whatever comes of my realtionships, thatit be in god's will. Of course, they're hoping that i'll meet some girl that will turn me around. i simply told them, that I'll do what I feel is right.

About Glenda's statement, I have have mixed emotions. Most of them are sadness. I'm sad because this person cannot possibly know how offensive and abusive these comments are. Someone who has never experienced homosexuality, or even prosecution should always be willing to take both sides of the "Homosexual Debate" into perception.

This article is obviously biased, but it does spell out one point: even animals, who i beleive are uncorrupt(being void of certain human psycological concepts), think of homosexuality as natural.

L.J. United States | Reply

8/17/2009 4:53:58 AM #

ashley

PS you admit that gay people are acting like animals and not using their higher intelligence to make choices and are acting upon impulse.

ashley | Reply

11/4/2009 3:41:28 PM #

Hannah

I read this entire article, every reply, every word, everything. And I wanted to reply, but I really didn't have much of a drive to until your little comment.

Explain to me where L.J. is saying that? The closest thing I can find is 'even animals think of homosexuality as natural' and I don't see how that can be saying that...

I mean, I'm gay. I don't agree with everything this article says, for sure, but that just made me mad. The LAST thing that being gay is is an impulse. I know I'm not impulsive when it comes to relationships-please, Ashley, before you get on here and say things like that, check the wording.

Ugh.

Hannah United States | Reply

7/12/2009 12:42:26 PM #

Hudstar

I did some bible study to be fair to religion vs everything else. I read up on Adam and Eve.... the original procreators from gods garden. I understand the fable of creating people out of this god's rib - makes a story about how we are in gods image, adding his rib is like adding egg to a cake mixture - helps it hold better. So adam and eve are us, one man and one women.... ok like a mum and dad placed on this new earth.  Now I get confused. So this eve ate an apple because a snake told her to (snakes are scary I guess, I can't see bambi telling her to do something bad so already Im thinking mind manipulation at work here) So anyhow snakes are bad, eve is good. Eve ate the apple and then knew all about sin , .... so then how could we have evolved if she only had sons? No mention of her bearing a daughter? So, according to the bible and looking at it in basic logical terms, we evolved out of incest?   Sorry, that is sooooooo ridiculous! I know archeological fossils provide evidence of human evolution. I like the theory of two human species competing and Neanderthal missing out. DNA proves more in linking us with our closest relatives.... so I'm being creative here - maybe one of eves' sons met up with a chimpanzee and you know..... procreated to create Neanderthal people and giving us close DNA matches. Maybe out of that match some family members skipped the bogus gene pool and evolved into modern us. Either way, each scenario tells us we are animals. Face facts, imagination made up of ego, domination and some unknown fear is what creates such fear about sex - unionship that is not found in animals. We are just a species of animal so I guess this research is a real threat. I seriously cannot view any religious argument as evidence for an argument.  

Hudstar Australia | Reply

7/14/2009 5:47:20 AM #

Kate

I grew up in an extreme born again Christian faith from birth until my early teens, so i am very familiar with the "arguments" put forwards by our little friend Herr Glenda here. The funny thing about my background, and the fact that I have since rejected and distanced myself from it almost completely (in faithful circles this gives me the title of "backslider" lol) is that I have had a chance to be completely immersed in two very different subcultures within western society. I am someone who finds blind, dogmatic Christianity extremely distasteful and dangerous - and yet some of the extreme, dogmatic Christians I knew were women who changed my nappies and loved me like a daughter. Their way of showing their love was to help "raise me right" according to their view of the world. This is of course, just one persons opinion, but I feel like someone needs to say this at some point. Here goes...

When you are a christian, the teachings and messages that you are brought up with can be very intense. Especially in born again circles. (I am from Australia by the way, but the church I attended was actually an import from the bible belt region of the US)You aren't really supposed to associate too much with regular western culture, whether that is buying 'pop music' or having non-Christian friends etc. Your whole world becomes the church (and it's not just Sundays either, you can actually be expected to attend anything up to 4/5 church events per week) Your peer group is small and 'cliquey' and it's pretty much the only one you have, as you are not really supposed to socialise outside it (except to "preach the word" of course) So everyone who's opinion matters to you is sort of locked into this intensely scrutinised competition to see who can be the better Christian. I read somewhere that all humans have a basic drive to make themselves feel important, and I guess in a 'born again' church you don't have many other avenues left to do this except by "excelling at Christianity". I know I'm waffling, but I'm trying to help paint the picture for people who struggle to understand the often very single minded approach that Christians can take...

...okay, and in the same way that individuals everywhere do, you absorb the messages about what is or isn't appropriate behaviour from the people around you. If you hear enough people that you trust saying something with enough conviction enough times, you will eventually believe it (just ask the Germans circa 1940 right?) And that's the key here...believe me, I know how it can seem when you catch one of these people in a rant. It's alienating and hurtful and and to be honest they can seem down right vile...But they are actually more scared of you than you are of them. They genuinely believe that you and your values pose a real threat to the world and that in some way (perhaps with satan whispering in your ear) you are trying to spread an evil and cause chaos and suffering to humanity. They stop seeing you as a person, you become more of a caricature figure, representing a larger issue. And here's where the Christians need to listen up...

...These people are NOT out to get you! They do not sit at home, trying to think up ways to undermine the righteous and plant seeds of evil in the minds of the innocent. You guys need to try, at least a little to understand, like a rational thinking grown up, why these people you have decided to despise things the way that they do. Liberal thinkers, intellects, or whatever you would like to call them most likely see you as the aggressor, or the perverting influence here. Christians say the things they do because essentially, they care about the state of the world, and think that the liberals free thinking, permissive ways stand to threaten it. And liberals fight against the simplicity and close-mindedness of the Christians because to them, this mind set is dangerous and threatens humanity and its moral compass. Both sides are trying to make the word a better place in their own way and both sides see the other as a real threat to what they are trying to do.

From my own experience, being a liberal thinker comes from a place of vulnerability, of outrage at a sense of certain injustices we see as being committed by the "smug conservatives". The other side seems to have the upper hand, making unfair, arbitrary judgements on things about which they know and understand very little. Their approach is different to ours. We ask "why?" Why is something the way it is, why should I believe your version of this story? The conservative chooses to construct their values around faith. They start with the story they are told, they accept it at face value and then defend it rigorously...

Kate Australia | Reply

9/3/2009 1:08:07 AM #

L.J.

I totally agree with everything you've said! Perhaps this debate would go better if we ALL saw both sides of the argument!

L.J. | Reply

10/2/2009 9:16:44 PM #

michael_tsark

CONTENTS:

Section 01 ….. SEXUAL EVOLUTION.
Section 02 ….. CAUTION.
Section 03 ….. DEAR KATE.
Section 04 ….. ANCESTRAL COMMON DENOMINATOR.
Section 05 ….. SINGLE FAMILY SPECIES.
Section 06 ….. TABOO AGAINST NATURAL NUDITY.
Section 07 ….. MARY ANN WADE.
Section 08 ….. HUMAN SEXUALITY DEFINED.
Section 09 ….. JUXTAPOSITION OF SEXUALITY AND AGGRESSION IN LOWER BRAIN.
Section 10 ….. POWER OF ABSTRACT REASONING.
Section 11 ….. MARY EDITH BARNES AND SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL.
Section 12 ….. RONALD DAVID LAING AND LOREN RICHARD MOSHER.
Section 13 ….. PINK ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
Section 14 ….. MEDICAL MISSIONARIES LIVINGSTONE, DAMIEN, SCHWEITZER, THERESA.
Section 15 ….. ATHEIST VINCENT RUNYON.
Section 16 ….. PROTOTYPE BIBLES.
Section 17 ….. NO ONE OWES ANYONE ANYTHING.
Section 18 ….. CATHOLICISM AND ORIGINAL SIN.
Section 19 ….. WHO’S KIDDING WHO?
Section 20 ….. XEENA’S LAW.
Section 21 ….. FLAT EARTH.
Section 22 ….. GALILEO GALILEI.
Section 23 ….. GALILEI EQUIVALENCES.
Section 24 ….. TIME.
Section 25 ….. JOGGING.
Section 26 ….. SMOKING CIGARETTES DOES NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER.
Section 27 ….. JUNGLE LAW.
Section 28 ….. PSYCH-SYSTEM.
Section 29 ….. BEST KEPT SECRETS.
Section 30 ….. ROBERT S. MENDELSOHN.
Section 31 ….. STREET DRUGS PROHIBITION.
Section 32 ….. CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
Section 33 ….. RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON.
Section 34 ….. FRANCIS BACON.
Section 35 ….. PSEUDOSCIENTISTS.
Section 36 ….. TRUTH BE TOLD.
Section 37 ….. CONCLUSION.
Section 38 ….. MISSING PERSON REPORT.

SECTION 1.  SEXUAL EVOLUTION:
Key Elements within the Sexual Evolution of Plants and Animals and How It Relates to Primates and more.

SECTION 2.  CAUTION:
Everyone is entitled to forming their own opinion and you are welcome to disagree 100% against my personal perspective which is perfectly okay because we can’t always realistically save everybody and unfortunately sometimes all we can do and the best we can do is feel sorry for others from a helpless distance for we are creatures of habit with a natural tendency to resist change.  No matter who you are or whatever walk-of-life you come from, I sincerely do not want anyone to get hurt and so if anyone remotely experiences harmless sleepy drowsiness from a ‘brain-drain’ due to neuronal brain circuitry making automatic self-readjustments, but then if maybe you START experiencing more of a light-headedness or dizziness then please be on the safe preventive side and sit or lay down to avert any possible risk of injuries from fainting due to a drop in blood pressure, thank you.  Some will call me crazy while others may call me a medical heretic but please don’t call me late for dinner and some will quite understandably want to kill me because of these thoughts I freely share which is perfectly okay too but you still need to take a number and no cutting in line so please wait until your turn, thanks againSmile

SECTION 3.  DEAR KATE:
www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

While web surfing on animal evolution I luckily stumbled upon a link which led me to your post and found your intellectual empathic insight into the human psyche to be so nicely refreshing and which I’ll address further but later on in this reply.  However no replies are necessary since my only purpose here is to offer optional informational support to be either accepted or rejected-without-debate because it makes absolutely no difference to me whomever and how many may disagree with me because I’ve already spent a good lifetime getting used to things and the only thing that really matters most is for people to always be happy with their own chosen non-violence belief system because all-in-all the most important is everyone’s freedom to make their own personal wisest choices best suited 24-7 for each themselves.

SECTION 4.  ANCESTRAL COMMON DENOMINATOR:
There’s a good scientific connection between animal reproduction and our bible compilation as they relate to our family species’ psych-System which has been secretly influencing the course of our human evolution for the past tens-of-thousands of years and it’ll take me more than a few pages’ worth to explain some of it but I’ll try my best to keep it simple while along the way summarizing our ancestral common denominator and so I’m thanking you ahead of time for having patience with me.

SECTION 5.  SINGLE FAMILY SPECIES:
The “greater good” of our ancestral common denominator is the avoidance of outbreeding global food supply.  According to one realtime clocking estimate at http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop which accounts for realtime births and deaths, our global population count is already over 6.9 billion and so for the sake of quick discussion I’m arbitrarily choosing the number 700 billion as the arbitrary number it would take before outbreeding global food supply commences, equivalent of seeing 100 people instead for each 1 person we now see today.  Within my own lifetime I’ve already seen our global population more than double in size since 2.8 billion when I first heard a number count for our global population when I was an elementary school kid and had it not been for this ancestral psych-System influencing the destiny welfare of our family species, and if things instead had been left unchecked by our ancestors then we would’ve reached maximum 700 billion capacity hundreds or maybe thousands or hundreds-of-thousands of years ago and meanwhile our family species would’ve been suffering repeated cycles of global war as global resources dwindle resulting in repeated cycles of global famine followed with global cannibalism becoming our acceptable social norm until global resources are up again, and then down again, and then up again etcetera until our family species learns to stabilize its global breeding rate with 2-offspring-per-individual in order to stop the worst case of two evils from happening.  Fortunately for everyone our ancestral psych-System has thus far managed to spare us from this worst case scenario but there’s no guarantee involved and that’s what makes this psych-System operate so diligently in stifling our saner citizens who might be prone to talking out loud haphazardly too much.  The common denominator is “Thee Almighty Cause” as to how come it’s so vitally important and necessary for our minority-sane be psychiatrically labelled as insane, persecuted, ridiculed and stigmatized and be made to appear seemingly crazy in the minds’ eye of our global populace just like we did to Galileo Galilei while our unsuspecting psychotic majority still don’t know what’s going on in true physical reality because they weren’t and aren’t supposed to know until culling ourselves is no longer a vital necessity.  At some given point in the future it will be common sense sanity for all individuals to voluntarily strive towards having 2-offspring-per-individual in order to stabilize global breeding rate so global population number essentially freezes for all eternity at whatever the global number population count happens to be at that given point in human evolution and this will automatically render all of our variable constraints within our ancestral common denominator as needless, archaic and obsolete including such things as inducing wars and superstitions as well as it being no longer necessary for culling ourselves.  Likewise at some point in the far off future our family species will also become thoroughly hybridized to the point where our entire family species will only have one phenotype and everyone will resemble the so-called ‘third-world’ facial features and skin color, and by then any stupid illogical bigotry over skin color won’t even exist anymore because we’re all going to end up with tannish skin color.  Apparently our family ancestors started off with our black ancestors and eventually some relatives eventually sub-branched within our family species into our asian-oriental ancestors who later hybridized again with our black ancestors to producing our polynesian ancestors and meanwhile other relatives also sub-branched to evolved into our white ancestors, but nevertheless we’re still primarily just “one-genetic-race-only” family species, so-to-speak and without the semantics.  [But if with the semantics, then it’s because there are proponents to the viewpoint our Neanderthal human cousins were incorporated into our modern Homo sapiens bloodline as being the reason for their somewhat abrupt extinction some 30-odd thousand years ago.  Any human family species smart enough to have been able to make and wear clothing, fabricate spears for weapons, control fire, take good care of their elderly-handicapped, have rituals for burying and honoring their dead and display the same mental intelligence level as modern humans do then of course that’s obviously a clear sign of being human which means it’s possible Neanderthal human ancestral bloodlines may have been completely incorporated, infused, hybridized into our modern human bloodline which would mean we could actually turn out to be a “two-genetic-race-only” family species after all?]  But as I was saying for the sake of simplicity there’s only one human race of hybrids where all of our black DNA hybrid cousins already contain some white DNA along with asian-oriental DNA, and likewise for our white and asian DNA cousins who are already all genetically mixed hybrids as well.  Bigotry may appear to be illogical all the way around but offers good application into the common denominator whenever and wherever our ancestral psych-System successfully manages to make groups blindly hate each other over illogical silly reasons such as skin color, sexual preferences, which invisible ghost to believe in, or which end to break open an egg, etcetera.  It’s usually just a small minority of bad folks out of any given group who can give the whole group a bad name.  In other words most our atheists are good people but a minority percentage are not and likewise when it comes to most of our christians, most our muslims, most our Europeans, most our Middle Easterners, most our Asians, most our Central Asians, most our Southeast Asians, most our Africans, most our South Americans, most our Middle Americans, most our North Americans, most our Greenlanders, most our Australians, most our Pacific Islanders, and most of our blacks, tans and whites alike and whomever else I forgot to mention, we’re all of the one and of the same single family species where some of us happen to be especially naughty while most of us strive to behave goodly whether we be a bunch of police officers or firewomen and firemen, or bunch of nurses and doctors, or teachers and administrators, or cooks and dishwashers, or nuns and priests, or a bunch of heteros and gays, etcetera, …bigotry-prejudice mentality is so psychotically stupidly insane considering the fact human evolution is consistently proving that groups including sub-groups and even subset-groups not to mention just about everyone’s own family has inherited their own share of a minority percentage of problematic individual or individuals who can give the rest of the group a bad name and practically no group nor family is exempt to this natural predicament that I can ever think of, but anytime our psych-System successfully manages to pit humans against humans for any illogical reasons whatsoever it adds nicely towards constraining overall global breeding rate which paradoxically is a good thing for the benefit of our common denominator towards the overall protection of our single family species.

SECTION 6.  TABOO AGAINST NATURAL NUDITY:
What we have here is a well-tuned and highly sophisticated secretive ancestral psych-System which is so cunningly tricky it successfully hides right out in the wide open in front of everyone but most people can’t see it or don’t see it because we reject it as being real because the truth often goes against the very grain of the educational propaganda we’ve been taught to blindly believe in, albeit again all for the good reason of the common denominator in avoidance of making too many babies.  Practically everything illogical going on in human evolution can be directly attributed to our common denominator which helps us all to avoid making too many babies whether it be organized religion, taboo against nudity, sanctions of war, or stifling our saner ones like Galilei by labeling them crazy, they all fit nicely into the common denominator and makes perfectly good rational scientific sense as to how come things in life happen to be the way they are.  If anything seems overly bizarre then it likely has to do with our ancestral common denominator for instance the seemingly illogical taboo against natural nudity.  Despite the fact all humans are born naked, the policy of covering up the genitals and prohibiting public fornication has successfully been incorporated into practically every current culture on earth from within modern cities to remote tribal villages and the customs varies between almost full nudity in some cultures or to that of a young woman wearing a mini-skirt in other cultures while in some other cultures we only allow women’s eyes to be seen in public but practically everywhere the reproductive genitals are covered.  The only exception I heard of where full public nudity is legally sane 24/7 anywhere around town nowadays is in a town or city somewhere in France and in fact I believe in some areas full nudity is mandatory or else I suppose wearing clothes could insanely be considered a crime?  Once upon a time in evolution it was perfectly legally sane everywhere on earth to be fully naturally nude and this was the normal sane way of life on earth which lasted more than 99% of the time throughout all of hominid and prehominid evolution until sexual taboo needed to be very recently implemented.  This would seem a daunting task for our ancestors in convincing all cultures around the world to the necessity of instilling sexual taboo against natural nudity and to somehow managed to enforce practically everyone in the world to covering up human genitals but apparently it turned out to be just about as easy as said as done given over the course of tens-of-thousands of years to work on it until all cultures finally ‘got-it’ as well as appreciated our ancestral common denominator which links and bonds us all into the single cohesive family species unit which we secretly are today and that’s whether we like it or not, appreciate it or not, or even know it or not.

SECTION 7.  MARY ANN WADE:
The common denominator combats the fact that if things were left unchecked we can easily have a swift global overpopulation explosion from making too many babies too fast under unconstrained breeding conditions because our average human is capable of producing between 300 to 400 descendents within our own life time before we die of old age, [although of course males can produce many times more than that but right now that’s besides the point].  A classic example is Mary Ann Wade (1777 – 1859) who was one of our mothering founders of modern Australia who left behind 5 generations of 300 living descendants by the time she died at age of 87 which was only a mere 150 years ago [Pardon me for detouring the subject for just a brief moment but Mary Wade wasn’t too long ago because one of my own grandfathers (my dad’s dad) was born just 5 years after Mary Ann Wade died, however as a side note, my other grandfather was born in a grass shack and was 4 years old the day our last Hawaiian monarchy transitioned into a provisional government in 1893.  And interesting to note King David Kalakaua (1874 – 1891) was the world’s first monarch to have traveled around the world, and built our Iolani Palace which is now a museum but it currently costs monies for nearly all of our family species to look-see inside otherwise it seems we’re not willing to share it freely and it is conveniently situated in ‘your’ downtown Honolulu, Hawaii and is still the only royal residence to be on American soil and the first royal palace residence in the world brightened by electricity and equipped with telephones even before our American White House.]  The common denominator addresses the reality we are top predatory omnivorous family species who starts breeding several years after birth plus lives for a relatively very long time and capable of producing 300 to 400 blood-relatives within the course of an individual’s lifetime before dying.  Only hypothetically-speaking but if all women today were freely allowed to exercise the same lucky privilege and be free to multiply as Mary Wade was able to do a mere 150 years ago and produced 300 living descendents then earth’s human population would approximate more than a trillion (3.5 billion x 3 hundred = 1,050,000,000 trillion) in a mere 87 years from except we may or may not deplete global food supply before approaching 1 trillion but if breeding were left to continue unconstrained then it’s a guarantee the next 87 years, after the first 87 years, would over-do it with a population count of 315 trillion people after another 164 (= 87 + 87) years from now, and hence for our ancestral’s critical need for inventing our common denominator in protection for defending all of us against overbreeding ourselves.  Mary Ann Wade had 23 children of her own and it’s only recently been between 1 to 2 generations ago since the average American family household typically practiced having 12 to 15 or more offspring and so did all of their neighbors and it had been this way non-stop consecutively for hundreds of years whereas today in the swift manner of 1 to 2 generations it’s now typically around a-few-kids-or-less per individual, per couple, per family and not by any voluntary coincidence but by influential design initiated by our ancestors and carried forth by their descendents.

SECTION 8.  HUMAN SEXUALITY DEFINED:
Our innate desire for sexual reproduction is equally as important a trait as it is for a new born infant to suckle for nourishment as both traits are vitally necessary in ensuring preservation of family species.  The evolution of sexual desire itself is most often underestimated and not taken into sufficient consideration for determining what’s going on in reality.  Isolated trivial facts standing alone may each seem insignificant but when combined they present a holistic realistic explanation of what’s going on with our family species during this particular era of human evolution.  A crucial fact is the starting age of puberty which currently runs between 8 to 13 for girls and 9 to 14 for boys.  All other animal species I know of naturally attempts to start reproduction upon reaching puberty whereas we humans not always but nearly all of us are a drastic exception to this natural practice or in other words after a billion years of animal evolution on earth it is very unnatural to not-attempt breeding upon reaching animal puberty and almost sort of but not quite analogous to tossing a bunch of newborn monkey babies into a big cage with lots of trees and branches in the cage but never allowing any monkeys to swing nor climb on any of the trees nor on the cage bars which may or may not adversely affect these monkeys’ psychological development throughout adolescence due to being unnaturally constrained in captivity compared to other monkey brains living freely in a natural habitat and so in which case for humans, allowing our children to breed at puberty is of course not the solution but rather to allow the natural physiologic experience of orgasms via masturbation without undue hindrance from societal norms.  We need to fix this throughout more of our global media content and educational systems especially since the problem is not the orgasms but rather things becomes a problem from lack of foresight in making too many babies or in other words beheading is not the best cure for our podiatric (feet) patients even though it’s guaranteed to work, [therefore, all pertinent media personnel please follow-up as you choose, thank you.]

In regards to homosexual behavior, I used to be content with thinking it was probably just an aberrant trait mostly peculiar to humans until I learned about our primate Bonobo chimpanzee cousins of Africa and it forced me to re-define human sexual evolution after all.  When I learned other primates also engages in homosexual activity it boggled my mind because I had no choice but to sanely accept the fact homosexual behavior is indeed a natural, although more of a dormant and not dominant, genetic trait built within primate genes BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN all humans are prone nor inclined towards homosexual conduct as in the same principle how we are currently top predatory family species on earth with natural capability to kill BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN all humans are prone nor inclined towards murderous behavior even though each one of us have our genetic potential for exploiting into our instinctive killer urges if so desired and my sanity knows every human on earth has more than likely had at least one or more private secret harmless fantasies of wishing another person would die but the fact remains we are primarily DNA dominant-specific for heterosexuality while all other sexual urges is just a secondary side-effect of sexual evolution as in the same biological token how strict vegetarians, which is perfectly fine by nature and perfectly fine me, are still primarily DNA dominant-specific for being omnivores but it doesn’t mean we all have to act like herbivores for it’s a matter of personal choice and odds are in favor of most people choosing what we are likely most DNA dominant-specific for but I fully understand the deep sentiments which compels some of us omnivores to practice a herbivorous lifestyle due to the emotional kindred we share with all the rest of our animal kingdom cousins but I also equally feel the same sentiments about our plant cousins who also share the same root DNA of life itself which all us animals have in common with our plant cousins but I’m not squeamish about eating plants and I would feel silly to myself if I tried living the life of a strict carnivore just because of my omnivorous emotional sentiments over the DNA family of life we all share in common with all of our plant cousins who come from the same ancestral DNA plant ancestors we come from, however, whatever the chosen lifestyle we personally partake the main point is respecting other people’s preferences or in other words if they are not bothering us and doing no harm then we do not go and bother them but instead we let them be.  So then, in rewriting the definition of human sexual evolution I decided we might as well keep it simple and this definition is based rather on how I know things as they simply are, as opposed to why they are, for instance as in how we humans can adequately explain how life is or how our known universe is but we cannot realistically explain why it is, (whether wittingly or unwittingly asking 'why' often leads into a trick question for engaging into endless philosophical debate leading nowhere).  I see how our prosimian (earliest primate) ancestors onward from 70 million years ago at some point in time or another engaged in an awful lot of excessive sexual behavior.  It stands to reason mammals dramatically flourished 65 million years ago only because dinosaurs along with many other large animals dramatically went extinct 65 million years ago after what appears to have been a combination of a double disaster involving an asteroid hitting earth along with huge increases in volcanic activity both adding up into creating a thick blanket of dust particles in earth’s atmosphere blocking sunlight resulting in death of much plant life with the demise of animals who rely on plants for food.  I’m guessing it was likely the huge impact force of the asteroid itself upon hitting earth is what may have jolted and stirred earth’s huge increase in volcanic activity?  However, the key point is mammals including our prosimian ancestors did get to flourish which is another way of saying our prosimian ancestors bred and multiplied like crazy after dinosaurs went extinct and it was somewhere between 65 million years ago up to 200,000 years ago when our pre-modern-human ancestors did a lot of extensive fornicating in order to physically generate highly sexual DNA hybrid primate offspring which eventually evolved further into producing primate descendents with DNA libidos that now function 365 days out of the year instead of only during ‘heat’ and ‘musk/t cycles which is how it used to be a ’seasonal’ thing in the old days during the evolution of our prosimian ancestors and normal reproduction per se is still seasonal for nearly all animal species in existence today except for a comparatively very minute percentage.

Okay now, based on everything we know we can all sanely agree heterosexual intercourse logically serves the sensible purpose of reproduction for the preservation of family species.  Sexual behavior can then be simplified under two distinct categories, there’s sane heterosex and then everything else can be categorized under insane kinky-sex but not unnatural by any means, for instance oral sex is illogical for reproduction other than perhaps being sometimes used as foreplay leading up to reproduction and therefore it’s not unnatural whenever a guy can’t seem to know any better to insert into a gal’s correct orifice nor is a guy’s tongue equipped for ejaculation but oral sex minus intent for reproduction is still a natural act, specifically that is, oral sex minus intent for reproduction is an imperfectly, illogical, irrational and insane but nevertheless a natural kinky act strictly as a matter of preferred personal choice.  And we know homosexual activity is of course kinky-sex but what in the world is it doing existing in primate DNA in the first place?  While there’s logic to the inherent capable instincts to consciously choose to kill for survival if necessary or else be killed, and while there’s also logic to our DNA having the heterosexual instincts and libido to copulate for sake of reproduction, but then why is homosexual behavior in primate genes when it clearly doesn’t function at all for reproduction?  Again, I don’t know why because asking ‘why’ is a philosophical abstract trick question demanding a philosophical answer to which all philosophical answers are theoretically equally as valid as the next since everyone is equally entitled to having their own opinions to their own belief/logic system and therefore I prefer instead to just surmise as to ‘how come’ kinky-sex is in our animal DNA in the first place.  To adequately figure out what’s it doing in primate DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid is a self-replicating molecular apparatus for making life grow), requires taking into utmost serious considerations the origins of life itself and to fully recognize and appreciate without underestimating its raw power behind the potency of instinctive urges whether it be the aggressive type urges in different colonies of algae species vying to occupy precious real estate on a piece of coral rock or an infant’s natural life’s instinct to suckle without needing to think twice about it.  Now here’s the catch, sexual instincts in conjunction with other intrinsic survival urges began a whopping three-and-a-half-billion years ago when life on earth began and that alone explains a heck of a whole lot.  Life’s processes has been continuously on-going for 3.5 billion years and animal kinkysexuality today is a byproduct to our plant and animal sexuality that has been evolving all along.  Sexual desire per se is a very big deal but it still doesn’t matter to the impartial laws of nature whether it takes its form in the act of reproduction or masturbation or kinkysexual activity.  Sexual urges is exactly what it is, roughly 3.5 billion years worth of accumulated on-going evolving sexual urges inherited from our plant and animal ancestors and everytime a person deliberately delays their orgasms before achieving climax they’re in effect withholding back 3.5 billion years worth of stored pent up sexual urges until mind and body finally explodes into spawning ecstasy.  We human creatures are capable of reaching puberty within several years after birth but we begin experiencing overwhelming sexual urges within a few years after birth as well as a few years even before reaching puberty which is an extremely dangerous trait for any top global omnivorous predatory family species to have if were to be left unchecked and insatiably unconstrained upon an innocent defenseless wilderness planet with a limited finite amount of available resources.  Our instinctive tendency towards outbreeding global food supply if left unchecked is this same exact DNA life urges which makes algae fight for space on coral rock in order to have room to multiply, and is also this same exact DNA life urges that makes toddlers naturally masturbate without their needing to be taught nor for them to think twice about doing it naturally upon themselves, and it’s this same exact instinctive DNA life urges which compels a rather most bizarre wide assortment of different animal species to engage in sexual experimentations of all conceivable possibilities with other different animals and/or with inanimate objects etcetera, and it’s also this same exact DNA life urges which drives humans into either preferring to primarily exploiting our heterosexual urges while yet others of us may prefer primarily exploiting upon any secondary variety of our kinkysexual urges, hence-therefore:
HUMAN SEXUALITY IS DEFINED WITHIN SANE STRICT ACCORDANCE TO THE IMPARTIAL LAWS OF SEXUAL NATURE ON THE CONDITIONS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR DOES NOT MAKE TOO MANY BABIES, BE ALWAYS CONSENSUAL, RESPECTFULLY COGNIZANT, NON-ABUSIVE, AND NO INFRINGEMENT ON PERSONAL CONSTITUTION, THEN ABSOLUTELY NO HARM IS EVER DONE BY WAY OF POLITE DISCRETION UPON ALL PREFERRED EXPERIMENTATIONS IN EXPLOITING ANY OF OUR OWN PERSONAL SURPLUS OF DNA NATURAL SEXUAL URGES WHICH HAS ITS EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGICAL ORIGINS IN OUR ASEXUAL-SELF-REPLICATING ANCESTRAL PLANTS FROM 3.5 BILLION YEARS AGO AS THEY ENDURED ANOTHER BILLION TO 2.5 BILLION MORE YEARS BEFORE BRAINS EVOLVED.

SECTION 9.  JUXTAPOSITION OF SEXUALITY AND AGGRESSION IN LOWER BRAIN:
I forget which specific mental health book it was back in the 1980’s I had read which mentioned a case file about a former psychiatric patient who proclaimed himself an ex-homosexual and he was seriously adamant the psych-System was secretly trying to turn society into becoming ’gay’.  My first reaction was to skip over this case file but then I started to think back about what the prominent Dr. Joseph H. Berke had written about a former psychiatric survivor named Mary Barnes and how more-often-than-not, the person who gets psychiatrically labelled in the family is usually the sanest member of their family, and so I backtracked to see if the former patient’s case file actually had anything worthwhile sane to say and it surely turned out he wasn’t entirely wrong but nor was he accurately correct as his sixth sense had noticed something which most of us were oblivious to.  I’m a product of the 1950’s generation when heterosexuality in the media was by far much more prevalent during the 1950’s and most of 1960’s unlike the percentage it is today in 2009.  I don’t know for sure but it’s possible our psychiatric survivor may have attended catholic school and noticed how the boys are ushered to be with boys while girls with girls not to mention the closet-gay lifestyle of our nuns and priests, and our psychiatric survivor noticed how slowly but surely since the latter 1960’s our American media had begun deliberate methodic saturation of homosexual content to where now much of our broadcast programming often contains some degree of blatant homosexual content whereas prior to our hippy movement of the latter 1960’s it was comparatively rare to see it in mainstream media.  This increasing saturation of homosexual content in contemporary late 20th and early 21st century media is quite surely by influential design but rest ascertained IT IS NOT trying to force anyone into being so-called gay, it’s just part of the overall transitional adjustments carved out and prearranged by our ancestors for evolving our psych-System to fit the appropriate given needs of the given era of its given peoples and that’s all it is and I’ll elucidate but please also bear in mind we’ve already scientifically labelled for intrinsic purposes and taxonomized more than approximately 2 million animal species but have observed only approximately 1,500 animal species engaging in homosexual activity [like in comparing $2 Million American dollars ($1.37 Million Euros) in one’s own bank account versus only having $1,500 American Dollars ($1,000 Euros)] which gives clear indication the majority percentage of our human family species will surely likely always be more apt to utilizing and exploiting our heterosexual DNA life’s urges while a smaller percentage minority of us won’t mind preferring to exploiting our homosexual, or bi-sexual, or tri-sexual (as in “try anything”) DNA’s kinkysexual urges.  Likewise is the significant percentage gap for primates as estimates range between around 200 to 400 different living primate species and it’s the smaller percentage, not bigger percentage, of primate species that have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior giving further indication our DNA life’s urges is dominate-specific for heterosexual reproduction compared to other sexual DNA life’s urges which is of course only to be expected, or in other words again, our basic DNA instructions is geared for natural sane sex leaving natural kinky-sex as one of its optional byproducts, so-to-speak.

In regards to what our psychiatric survivor was able to tune into whereas most others fail, in our current era we really no longer need the implements of war as an important component for our common denominator the way it used to be because we are now so much more highly efficient at using modern know-how in constraining our breeding rate, hence the resulting transition from a mandatory military active duty service of males in the United States converted into voluntary militarism in direct tandem to our hippy movement going popular during the latter part of the 1960’s which no coincidence is highly associated with homosexual permissiveness.  Historically-speaking the majority of deaths from past major American modern wars prior to our hippy movement of the latter 1960’s ended up dying from diseases way much more so than from our bullets and bombs combined and this has always been a crucial part of the secret equation for sanctioning such major wars and how come our financiers of world wars 1 and 2 supplied monetary funding for both sides of the wars.  I don’t readily have estimated figures on world wars 1 and 2 where deaths in battle accounted for millions in each world war alone but these other previous war estimates offers the gist of things when it comes to bullets and bombs versus diseases:
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
American Revolution (1775 – 1783):
British Royal Navy,
1,240 died in battle,
18,500 died of disease.
– – – – –
Continental American Army,
8,000 died in battle,
25,000 died of disease.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
American Civil War (1861 – 1865):
67,058 died in battle,
43,012 died of wounds,
224,586 died of disease.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Spanish-American War (1898):
280 died in battle,
65 died of wounds,
2,565 died of disease.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The influential transition from mandatory to voluntary militarism is in direct correlation to how the lower brain area is constructed where both instinctive urges of sexuality and aggression are seated.  The former psychiatric ex-homosexual patient had sensed our ancestral psych-System does indeed work towards suppressing the minds of our family species and sometimes when the pressure gets too far and pushes the consciousness level down from the upper brain cerebral cortex to the midbrain level and then pushed down further still, that’s when the mind’s conscious is at the lower brain level and the psyche energy is going to translate into whatever the lower brain is designed to do, such as either sexuality or aggression or both, including the possibility of bringing out latent DNA homosexual urges for those who may happen to be more predisposed than others for choosing to experiment with exploiting into their own personal DNA kinkysexual urges, and this may or may not be part of the reason how come our psychiatric survivor had misdiagnosed our psych-System as supposedly trying to force everyone into homosexual activity, but in fact the only thing our psych-System is doing is evolving our family species behavior into becoming less aggressive and more peaceful now that we modern humans have evolved and progressed as far as we have to where wars simply aren’t as necessary for our common denominator anymore like how it used to be because in comparison to warfare our ancestral psych-System now has a much, much more loving, gentle and humane way for effectively handling things without all the unnecessary and needless violent atrocities of warfare.  This juxtapositioning of the two traits sexuality and aggression of both being located in the lower brain region also explains how come violent aggression can sometimes easily be the instant automatic heterosexual response to witting or unwitting homosexual advances tit-for-tat as one lower brain activity instinctively responds to the other’s lower brain’s initial advances, and also the rationale for needing our “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as the better part of discretion in our American militarism to prevent disruption among ranks where some, but not most, of our military homosexuals would more than likely be emboldened towards making kinkysexual advances upon our military heterosexuals if it were to be a permissive open sexual policy, however, the tit-for-tat can also work in reverse most notably in prisons to those who may happen to exhibit a bit too much machismo for their own good.  One of the functions of our American militarism is for the sake of defending American sense of values and ideology and was never conceptualized for the purpose of sexual intentions.  Our don’t ask, don’t tell sexual policy in American militarism is still our best suited appropriate course of action befitting this particular juncture in human evolution although probably in the not-too-distant-future our descendants will be most comfortable with freedoms of homosexual expression because they will be born and grow up in a new world environment which is much more permissible than it has been for those of us who were products of our 2nd half of our 20th century.  Many of us from the post-world war 2 generation called baby-boomers are still alive today but in future generations after our baby-boomers are all dead and gone there will most likely be the day when new policies regarding sexuality will be fluently incorporated as new times requires it but as of 2009 it is still not a requirement and therefore requires much patience in regards to human evolution.  

The juxtapositioning of sexuality and aggression in the lower brain is also responsible as to how come some couples swear that having make-up-sex after an argument is the best sex, as well as explains how come we humans have this tendency towards exclaiming sexual profanities when we happen to be angry even though having sex is the last thing on our minds when we’re preoccupied with being angry and yet we still tend to blurt out sexual words due to this juxtapositioning factor, and this also explains how come male prisoners about to be executed are noted to exhibit involuntary erections.  The psyche of such a person is suppressed down to the lower brain region that governs our survival instincts the most and since the person is a prisoner in custody the person can’t utilize their flight or fight response mechanisms of the lower brain, and so where else is there for the lower brain energy to get channeled to, hence the involuntary erections.  And this doesn’t only happen to just prisoners who are about to be executed, this phenomena of heightened sexual urges may normally occur to either gender who knows they are soon enough approaching their own deathbeds.  Thee most disturbing translated truthful quotation I’ve ever heard in my entire life comes from our history’s greatest ruler of the largest contiguous empire to date and has to do with this juxtapositioning of sex and violence who said, quote, "Man's greatest joy is to slay his enemy, plunder his riches, ride his steeds, see the tears of his loved ones and embrace his women.”  Genghis Khan (circa 1162 – 1227).

SECTION 10.  POWER OF ABSTRACT REASONING:
DNA sexual urges from our plant ancestors continued evolving throughout all of reptilian, amphibian and mammalian evolution as functions of the lower brain structure that’s attached to the top of the spinal cord brain stem and governs the autonomic or involuntary nervous system for things like breathing and heartbeat as well as functions for the instincts of sexuality and aggression.  Sexual as in the same instinctive inherited sexual urges for the sake of perpetuation of any family species and aggression as in the same inherited aggressive urges our plant ancestors used when vying for valuable real estate on coral rocks because all family species must need to occupy 3-dimensional physical space in order to exist or not.  Our lesser-aggressive plant ancestors perished while those with the stronger aggression passed on these strong aggressive DNA urges onto their animal descendents along with sexuality urges and both these urges sits in the lower brain which was the first section of the brain to exist in evolution.  After the lower brain evolved there was something for the midbrain to attach onto.  The midbrain region evolved motor skills and visual center of the brain as well as the instinctive emotions of love for the family unit which in turns greatly aids in preservation of animal family species who has the instincts to protect their young or at least protect their unhatched fertilized eggs.  After the midbrain evolved then the upper brain called cerebral cortex had something to attach onto.  The cerebral cortex plays a key role in memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, consciousness and is also directly responsible for our current degree in power-of-reasoning.  The human brain currently consists of some 100 billion brain cells and some folks have agreed to the estimated consensus of the human brain being capable of calculating 20-million-billion bits of information per second but whatever the real proximate number may be, the fact remains the hominid cerebral cortex can out-process a significant greater amount of bits of information per second in comparison to all other not-yet-extinct creatures on earth including our primate animal cousins the chimpanzees and other apes.  I don’t know what the exact proximate count would be for the other animals on earth but for the sake of simple clarity I’m arbitrarily picking the number as 1-million-billion bits of information that other living primates are capable of processing as well as most other comparatively trainable family species such as dogs, cats, dolphins, etcetera.  Using this same scale it would mean reptilian brains may be able to process only as high as perhaps 500-billion in comparison to the 20-million-billion in humans.  Although these numbers are quite arbitrary you get the gist of it that the human brain generally out-performs other animal brains in most tasks only because we have more brain cells particularly in our cerebral cortex which in turn makes us capable of processing more bits of information compared to any other living animal family species today although we’re not always necessarily better at it.  Apes have proven to have much better short-term photographic memory and are much more quicker and keener at it than we humans are.  Apes were taught the proper sequence of several numbers and when the bunch of numbers flashed upon a computer screen for a super-fast-split-fraction of a second in random locations scattered around the screen, apes routinely and vastly out-numbered humans by an extremely wide margin on easily and quickly picking out where the numbers had been located on the screen before the numbers quickly vanished as well as pointed out each number in their proper sequential order.  Who’da thunk?  There was no contest to that short-term photographic memory experiment exactly the same way there would be no contest in comparing who can swing through the trees better, faster, swifter and more agile by a wide margin, apes or humans?  The numbers flashed so fast I think could probably maybe or maybe not be able to manage to eventually learn to get a number at best if given enough practice at it, but probably not unless by lucky chance I happened to be staring at the exact spot of the screen where the number 1 happens to randomly flash but meanwhile the apes consistently quickly pointed out all the numbers in exact locations in proper sequence as though the numbers had never left the computer screen.  People who believe humans are not part of the animal earth kingdom may likely well refuse to accept these experimental results as factual but then not everyone is supposed to know the real world of reality.  Imagine dogs or cats or monkeys or horses always persisting they are not part of our animal kingdom because they are utterly convinced they are way far more superior and they think so highly of themselves into believing they are way too special to be mere animals compared to all the rest of us other lowly creatures to our animal kingdom, well they would sound rather ridiculous if not clear-cut mentally insane now wouldn’t they?  The illusion of us seeming to be more than just ordinary animals largely comes from our cerebral cortex’s overly abundant capacity for processing excessive bits-of-information that permits the human conscious to flow from power-of-reasoning into power-of-abstract-reasoning without hardly noticing the slightest difference had just taken place.  Our capability of being able to process a significantly higher amount of bits of information per second in comparison to others of our animal kingdom is in fact also what gives us the power-of-reasoning which allows us to comprehend the true nature to the rotation of stars and planets.  If we view back in time far enough we’d see prehominid ancestors who were not as evolved nor as capable of processing as many bits of information as we do today, and likewise if we go forward in time ahead enough we’d likely find descendents of today’s apes perhaps evolved at finally having as many number of brain cells as humans do today and therefore other primates in the future may also possibly be able to process as many bits of information per second as humans do today, and it is this power-of-abstract-reasoning from having an over-abundance of brain cells which makes it easy for us to get lured into the self illusion of believing we’re not part of the animal kingdom and makes it easy to seem as though as if we really are god-like in nature in comparison to other living primates, although that’s partly because other human family species than homo sapiens have already taken their turns at going extinct otherwise our animal connection to animal kingdom would likely be a lot more obvious in comparison to other living primates if other human family species had manage to survive along homo sapiens.  These genetic ‘missing-links’ phenotypes connecting us to the animal kingdom is just far wide enough of a gap to enable presenting the illusion into human minds that we’re not primate animals because the next closest living example is our primate ape cousins.  But those of us with the inclination for utilizing our sixth sense have no difficulty in recognizing we’re animally related to apes by way of a common early pre-primate ancestor who was neither ape nor human but rather was a prosimian still in the process of evolving towards genetic branching whereas those of us who remain in strict denial and refuse to exercise our sixth sense only goes to prove not everyone is supposed to know for the greater good of our ancestral common denominator [and that includes please making sure to ban this information from appearing anywhere in any headlines news media and making sure this is safely buried among literature and away from all headlines while yet still be made publicly available for people to find this information somewhere but only for those who make effort in taking the time searching for truth because it is absolutely wrong for us to try forcing people to know the truth instead of letting them learn naturally at their own comfortable pace or else and I really, really, really mean or else dire things can sometimes happen no matter how good our intentions might be in trying to help others because we have no right to force people into knowing what they do not want to know right now therefore just have years of patience and if worse comes to worse then let them be some of the last persons on this earth to know the truth when it’s at a most convenient time for them and when it won’t hurt them to know because by then they’ll gladly and eagerly want to know everything and won’t mind at all knowing the truth or else otherwise I hope it won’t be too necessary to remove this information from the internet as long as this information is wisely shared amongst those who are already sanely inclined to question our global propaganda or else you’’ll need to quickly learn to keep this information to just yourself without trying to force the truth upon anyone else who doesn’t want to know right now in the first place and doesn’t need to know right now to begin with, therefore please, UTMOST DISCRETION is always required, please, and thank you.]  The brain size of our neuronal capabilities which enables us the power-of-reasoning as well as the power-of-abstract-reasoning is the same trait which allows us to be easily tricked into believing into the illusion we are somehow supposedly so special to the fanatical point into believing the false notion we could somehow be god-like.  Those who are of this persuasion in being convinced they are god-like do not know nor suspect they are mere ordinary creatures of our animal kingdom and they’re not supposed to know consequently for the greater good.  I’m reminded of my favorite aunt (my mom’s twin) before she passed away some years ago.  We had gotten into a small debate over this issue but then I had quickly lost the debate when she squashed me with presenting a dictionary to prove her point in black and white and that rotten dictionary had said something appropriately propagandistic to the effect “a human is an earthly entity other than an animal” and so there was nothing I could do except feel sorry for her from a distance because unfortunately she wasn’t ever supposed to know and yet at the same time she easily comprehended other best kept secrets about our ancestral psych-System with no problem at all whereas nearly all other folks automatically reject as true.

SECTION 11.  MARY EDITH BARNES AND SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL:
One of our psychiatric models is called the “socio-psychological model” which recognizes the extent in how our brains as bio-computers are susceptible to absorbing bits of information from our given environment most notably our family environment, but in particular how an individual responds to accumulated negative stimuli of adverse social pressures.  It’s a best kept secret that the cause of mental illness had already been accurately pinpointed by our early 1800’s psychoanalysts when the socio-psychological model was well observed, noted and charted as an established psychiatric model.  In stark contrast is our most popular “medical model” which continues to be our prevailing and most often practiced model based on the presumption that those of us who think differently from mainstream society must be insane and therefore should automatically be place on prescribed psychiatric medications and whose thinking should be made to conform to societal norms.  And this is how come our voluntary psychiatric patients have to accept our pharmaceutical psychiatric medications or else be denied admission into our secured psychiatric facilities.  As noted by prominent psychiatrist and author, Dr. Joseph H. Berke, quote: "Long before I ever heard of Mary Barnes, I had begun to realize that what is commonly called 'mental illness' is not an 'illness', or 'sickness' (according to the prevailing medical-psychiatric use of the term), but an example of emotional suffering brought about by a disturbance in a whole field of social relationships, in the first place, the family.  In other words, mental illness reflects what is happening in a disturbed and disturbing group of people, especially when internalized in and by a single person. More often than not, a person diagnosed as mentally ill is the emotional scapegoat for the turmoil in his/her family or associates, and may, in fact, be sanest member of this group”, unquote.  A hypothetical example is a dysfunction family who might happen to routinely engage in illogical conflict equivalent to poking each other in the ribs and every time someone in the family gets poked in the ribs their family custom is to poke the other family members back, but when one family individual happens to be different and refuses to engage in the family’s routine illogical conflict then it’s that specific singled-out individual family member who ends up most often receiving the most amount of illogical conflict by the rest of the other family members because they are not worried about getting poked back in their ribs, so-to-speak.  What usually happens is the family scapegoat takes the brunt of the family’s emotional turmoil just as Dr. Berke described until eventually the scapegoat’s behavior explodes into an untoward adverse or perhaps angrily response and that’s when other family members are likely to point fingers at the family’s scapegoat and exclaim, “See, schizophrenic!” and this is what may have likely happened in Mary Barnes’ case file until she separated herself from dysfunctional familial dynamics.  Suicide is sometimes called the silent killer, because often although not always, those who are closest to the abused victim don’t want to know, don’t care to know, and aren’t supposed to know, but interesting to note, most often it’s some of those immediate family members who secretly wants their scapegoat dead the most and deliberate work in covert unison to pushing their scapegoat towards suicide because it’s the scapegoat’s saner sanity which threatens and scares the rest of the family to death, so-to-speak, and once their scapegoat victim is dead so is the remaining clear evidence of family abuse so they can now finally afford to relax and put their guilty consciences to rest and go on pretending amongst themselves as if a covert family murder had never taken place, which is simply part of the strange ugly but true in how System-protects-the-System to protect family species’ destiny.  Dysfunctional familial dynamics of our socio-psychological model may be even more pronouncedly exacerbated if any significant inheritance is involved whereby pushing the scapegoat beneficiary to suicide becomes even more of an incentive for a family to kill one of their own.  

SECTION 12.  RONALD DAVID LAING AND LOREN RICHARD MOSHER:
Beloved Dr. Ronald David Laing (1927 – 1989), authored Sanity, Madness, and the Family, and Mary Edith Barnes (1923 – 2001) was a patient of Dr. Laing’s and she later became famously described as 'an ambassador for Laing' and co-authored a book with Dr. Joseph H. Berke who was the resident psychiatrist.  She also became a respected artist and painted evocative works based on her experiences and died in 2001.  The Philadelphia Association is a United Kingdom "charity concerned with the understanding and relief of mental suffering" and founded in 1965 by psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Ronald David Laing along with Sid Briskin, David Graham Cooper (1931—1986),  Joan Cunnold, Aaron Esterson (1923 – 1999), John M. Heaton, Morton Schatzman, Clancy Sigal, and Joseph H. Berke.  The first of their community houses was founded at Kingsley Hall and existed from 1965 to 1970 where Dr. Ronald David Laing was responsible for having done a 5-year experimental program which proved a full 100% success rate at curing the condition known as schizophrenia by merely providing a mentally healthy and nurturing living environment as opposed to a dysfunctional one.  After the 5-year-test period ended, the funding approval to the continuance of the test project needed to be denied and the project was permanently terminated due to its 100% success rate in curing schizophrenia.  The main criterion for entering Dr. Laing's experimental program was every patient must had to agree they would NOT use any type of pharmaceutical drugs whatsoever whether it be any psychiatric drugs or any other pharmaceutical medications barring physical medical emergencies, hence, in conjunction with a stress-free living environment then a 100% success rate for curing mental illness is of course to be expected.  A similar study with same full 100% success results was done by beloved Dr. Loren Richard Mosher (1933 – 2004) in 1971 through 1983 called Soteria Project.  Dr. Mosher was former Chief of National Institutes of Health Center for the Study of Schizophrenia as well as an author.  These are the only two instances I know of throughout our modern medical history when our “socio-psychological model” were temporarily implemented in lieu of using our “medical model”.

[I deliberately waited more than a month until this first week of October, 2009 to post this reply because this is National Mental Illness Awareness Week in our United States and I naturally chose the 2nd because it was my dad’s birthday and just-to-mention he was always a working-family-man with a very pleasant personality and lived an average humble lifestyle who once owned his own title insurance company.]

Although this next quote of Dr. Laing’s pertains to schizophrenia it can still be equally applied to all functional psychoses of which there are no etiologies which means there are no physical germs to causing them whether it be schizophrenia, attention deficit, bi-polar or etcetera, and whose diagnoses are based solely on an individual’s personal interpretations of observations based on symptoms alone, or in other words based purely on someone’s opinion with no etiology unlike how real illnesses do have etiologies.  More specifically it means our psychiatric labels of these kinds of functional psychoses does not exist in nature other than in someone’s opinion and are in fact make-believe albeit all for the esoteric greater good of course.  Our socio-psychological model has been and is still mostly a best kept secret since early 1800’s until blabber mouth upstarts like Laing comes along, quote: "Specifically, no attempt is made to present a comprehensive theory of schizophrenia.  No attempt is made to explore constitutional and organic aspects but this is clearly because the theory is one of interpersonal and familial processes, as well as wider issues of the sanity, or alienation, of society at large.  The experience and behavior that gets labelled schizophrenia, is without exception, a special strategy that a person invents in order to live in an unlivable situation.  He/she cannot make a move, or make no move, without being beset by contradictory and paradoxical pressures and demands, pushes and pulls, both internally from him/herself and externally from those around him/her", unquote.  I had repeatedly observed this same exact socio-psychological black sheep syndrome phenomena which afflicted Mary Barnes when I had once worked part-time as a house-parent counselor at a teenage runaway shelter and witnessed family counseling sessions where all our teens were obviously the sanest member of their family groups but each teen was outnumbered and treated by their families and by staff as well, as being blamed as the only source and the sole cause of their family’s problems all within well accordance to our prevailing psychiatric “medical model” perspectives.  I particularly remember one teenager whose entire family of several members were all overly obese and things were fine until she sanely decided to lose her excess weight and eventually her whole immediate family persecuted and ridiculed against her for wanting to be healthier because she transformed herself into a gorgeous slender teenager but it put her on the edges of having a nervous breakdown due to family pressures for being different, and this socio-psychological phenomena applies to all 100% case files whenever a single and sanest family member decides to be different from the rest of the family and ends up being the only member labelled has supposedly having psychiatric or psychological mental illness disorders when in fact of reality these scapegoats most often are indeed secretly the sanest members of their group.  Our persecuted teenager refused to remain obese and lost everything most dearest to her in exchange for pursuit of her own sane health whereas superstitious believers as well as most of us in general are not inclined to risk losing everything most dearest to us in exchange for seeking our own sanity. The family dynamics among all the other teens were unequivocally identical with only insignificant details being varied or in other words all case files had fit snuggly and cleanly into our socio-psychological model and it wasn’t the only organization where I had repeatedly witness the same family dynamics where we consistently applied our “medical model” regimen upon our socio-psychological patients the vast majority of the time as within accordance to the greater good of our ancestral common denominator.

SECTION 13.  PINK ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM:
The popular chicken and egg question is likely meant to allude there’s no clear answer to certain questions but nevertheless just to semantically answer this question as to which specifically came first the chicken or the ‘egg’, then of course the ‘egg’ came first as a matter of a hybridized or possibly mutant embryonic egg before the first chicken hatched and had ever been seen and then consequently taxonomized (labelled) as a chicken by a human, whereas if in the other question of which specifically came first, the ‘chicken-egg’ or the chicken, then of course the hybrid or mutant chicken came first after being labelled as a chicken by a human prior to providing the first ‘chicken-egg’, and similarly the question of what is natural sex versus unnatural sex also happen to be a misleading question in presuming there are actually such things as natural versus unnatural sexual behavior which is equivalent to asking what is sane versus psychotic based on the presumption they can both be clearly defined but in reality sanity is not so easily defined as something clear-cut-real, however, Dr. Ronald David Laing surely said it best, quote: “Sanity or psychosis is tested by the degree of conjunction or disjunction between two persons where the one is sane by common consent”, unquote.  Most often the distinct difference between our therapists and our schizoid patients is one will generally attempt to draw the other person into adopting their own perceived world-view of reality and attempt to mold the other person into accepting it as real and not-to questioning it, whereas the other person usually attempts to communicate in unique forms of communications but most often our psychiatric patients consistently fail to communicate.  In one psychological experiment at a secured psychiatric facility I decided to write out Dr. Laing’s quotation about sanity and psychosis on the black board 15 minutes prior to a group therapy session in order to gauge the reactions of our patients versus our staff.  Nearly 100% of all our patients who read it and a couple of our staff instantly 'got-it' whereas most our staff did not, including the person who finally showed up to conduct and lead group therapy session who walked up to the blackboard and read it and then quickly gave a huge exaggerated puzzled look on her face as if she considered Laing’s statement as sheer nonsense and then she hurriedly erased it and turned around and acted like nothing sane had just been written out loud.  Our PDR or Physician’s Desk Reference book is our physician’s bible just as our Diagnostic and Statistical Manual happens to be our psychiatric bible and Dr. Laing’s quotation in effect fully renders our psychiatric bible thoroughly moot and so at that very awkward moment when she quickly erased it and turned around to face the room, the room stunned momentarily into a pause of still-silence as there was this monstrous pink elephant standing in the middle of the room and the majority of the people in the room had no difficulty seeing it clear as daylight but not everyone could innately see it and recognize it, including our person in charge of group therapy session.  The atmosphere in the room was so thick with awkward silence it immediately compelled her to asked the room out loud, “What?”, but no one was about to point it out to her nor to most other staff who didn’t ‘get-it’ because if they didn’t ‘get-it’ then they weren’t supposed to ’know-it’ as for the greater good of the common denominator although staff’s ignorance was not their fault but more a matter of influential design for whomever might happen to be innately too lazy to using their DNA’s sixth sense to figure things out for themselves.  Oddly enough it’s like saying most of staff were unable to see the invisible pink elephant because they had lazy-mind’s-eye-syndrome just like the rest of most of our mainstream society and it’s exactly like blabber-mouths Laing and Berke have been yakking about the truth all along about how our psychiatric patients being more-often-than-not the sanest members of their families and/or of society-at-large which is how come nearly all of our psychiatric patients ‘got-it’ whereas nearly all of our staff did not ‘get-it’ which only goes to show the degree of mental illness inflicted upon our own medical and nursing establishments as it rightfully, fairly and properly should be in the first place as for the greater good of the common denominator.  It’s no coincidence how come our psychiatrists have a higher rate of committing suicide in comparison to general population as well as highest suicide rate within comparison of our other medical specialties who are also committing suicide.

SECTION 14.  MEDICAL MISSIONARIES LIVINGSTONE, DAMIEN, SCHWEITZER, THERESA:
Each person’s true net worth is judged upon our own deathbed as to how much good we’ve accomplished in helping to make this world a better place for everyone but also in comparison to how much damage we are leaving behind, for instance, no matter how many of our atheistic critics may have opposed Father Damien of Hawaii and Mother Theresa of India, and regardless of how much Damien and Theresa devoted much of their entire lifetimes indulging in superstitious practices, preachings and rituals, a person’s actions always speaks louder than words and therefore in terms of true net value it is a sane fact the likes of Damien and Theresa clearly and undisputedly super-outrank practically all us atheistic scientists combined by all meaningful perspectives because it is always the real down-to-earth true folks such as our beloved medical missionaries like Dr. David Livingstone (1813 – 1873), Father Damien (1840 – 1889), Dr. Albert Schweitzer (1875 – 1965), Mother Theresa (1910 – 1997) and all others who also risk getting dirt on their own hands and/or risk their own lives in routinely helping those less-fortunate in order to make this world a better place for everyone and gives all the rest of our family species a really, really, really good name to be human.

SECTION 15.  ATHEIST VINCENT RUNYON:
Kate, I know your intentions are pure but eventually in time you’ll learn the inevitable that inviting any engagement into superstitious conversations with our superstitious believers is pretty much futile but only rather encourages their superstitious practices unless you’re prepared to do it right as you would for deprogramming the brainwashing of occult victims where it’s not a matter of trying to attempt reasoning with them but rather of out-numbering and out-telling the truth repeatedly until reality finally sinks in instead of trying to engage into futile casual conversation within their context of their own superstitious terms and format which only strengthens their convictions because in their minds they’re making progress in spreading the ‘word’ especially whenever they’re usually succeeding in getting anti-religious folks to talk more and more about superstition over and over and over, as in the-more-the-better.  Judging based and on syntax and subliminal programming potential of dialogue, most often it’s usually our believers who ends up winning these debates by successfully putting more superstitious thoughts and words into our non-believers’ minds and speech instead of vice-versa.  Unless proper deprogramming techniques are implemented it is practically useless to attempt instilling sanity through casual dialogue because of how the psych-System is designed in the first place.  For instance the word 'atheist' itself is a tricky misleading religious word in its subliminal application but most people of course don’t realize this including our atheists whenever entering a religious debate with the premise of proudly calling ourselves an atheist which is equivalent to entering any heavily brainwashed cult on the cult’s own turf under their cult terms and cult conditions and then futilely attempting to reason with the whole cult under these restrictive cult premises using their own religious cult words with its cult connotations, …well, it just ain’t gonna happen.  There is hardly a person on this planet who would disagree with me that the typical accepted definition of an atheist is: “Someone who does not believe in God, or denies the existence of God or gods, or someone with the absence in the belief of a Deity or deities”.  This very definition is universally accepted and taught to our world for us to believe-in-without-question in practically any dictionary in any and all languages despite the fact there’s a whole mighty lot of bad, wrong, unreal, tricky and not-so-good things about this particular definition whom atheists and non-atheists both-alike commonly agree in accepting without even questioning it, so then let’s question what we’re agreeing to?  This standard dictionary definition automatically implies an invisible ghost already exists and particularly with more emphasis whenever using a capital first letter in making reference to an invisible ghost.  Less often will a dictionary use a lower case first letter in naming a popular invisible ghost but never have I heard nor seen any dictionary define an atheist as “someone who knows there are no such things as invisible ghosts”, or “someone who knows invisible gods are all make-believe”, or “someone who knows deities aren’t real”.  According to our accepted common definition of the word atheist, there are no indications anywhere within this standard definition to imply an atheist is non-superstitious but rather the definition limits an atheist to only denying the existence or lacking in the belief of a god or gods while restricted within an already pre-laid context to the presumption an invisible ghost could somehow already exist in the first place and this subliminally induces the automatic image of an atheist to be merely in denial, a ‘non-believer’ but not a ‘knower’, and furthermore our standard definition still doesn’t rule out other forms of superstitious practices an atheist might happen to dabble in whether it be in numerology, or extraterrestrial alien crop circles and abductions, or tarot cards, or astrology, or ‘Time’, or E=mc(squared) [the c(squared) is strictly for propaganda purposes], or black holes, or even investing in real estate, etcetera, as the term atheist all the way around is a religious word bearing nothing but religious connotations from the get-go, hence both sides of our religious debate most often equally knows-not-what-they-do as most people aren’t supposed to know until the time becomes appropriate for the descendents of our ancestors to revising all dictionaries in time for meeting utopian standard requirements.  Our atheists may only seem to stand a better chance than our christians of not getting culled but in the real word there’s no real significant differences to speak of that I can think of at all because in the real world our average typical self-proclaimed ‘atheist’ is generally just as equally unwittingly brainwashed into believing-without-question more or less just as many other forms of induced superstitious notions by way of locally given propaganda without being consciously aware of being superstitious but just so-happens to be naturally aware and resistant to our religious one, that’s all.  Doesn’t matter if atheist or non-atheist, if they don’t happen to know about our common denominator, then they don’t happen to know and aren’t supposed to know as sacrificial complements destined for the greater good of our ancestral common denominator.  The culling process takes into account each individual’s innate inclination to question what we’ve been taught to blindly believe in.  Case in point, a superb endeavor taken by a 40 year old former pastor who gave up his 12 years in the pulpit in search for his sanity and his book is called Why I Left The Ministry And Became An Atheist (1959), (www.infidels.org/.../left_ministry.html).  We humans are born as sociable creatures who like to be liked by others and the passage to sanity for Vincent Runyon included losing for the most part practically his entire social circle including family, friends, colleagues and parishioners.  People’s minds generally aren’t inclined nor as well equipped as Vincent Runyon to voluntarily endure such a drastic endeavor of taking on all the ensuing persecutions and covert ridicule from those who mean the most to them.  Our believers’ reluctance to sheer logic is not-so-much the silly notions our believers chooses to adhere to out of wishful thinking as in the placebo effect but rather the underlying real truthful cause of the matter is we are all born as social creatures with this natural tendency to abhor loneliness especially whenever we lose intimate contact with our families, friends and close colleagues and especially when it happens all simultaneously whether it be through drastic change of ideology and lifestyle or caused from a natural catastrophe which wipes out a village while a resident happens to be far away on work or vacation.  Asking or hoping for our reluctant believers to debate and question their own superstitious beliefs is equivalent to asking them to contemplate separating themselves from their entire social network and become the so-called ‘black sheep’ of their own families.  Most people don’t have the emotional endurance to take on such a lonely task in relinquishing their belief system at the request of a non-believer unless it just so happens the believer’s whole family circle or their entire given culture also happens to be willing to give up superstitious mentality all at the same time, and then we’d surely find our reluctant believers would be most eagerly happy to easily, quickly and with no hesitation give up superstitious mentality along with her or his social circle instead of adhering to a superstitious belief system at the risk losing the intimacy of one’s entire closest group of associates much like how many herd-species are naturally inclined to follow the herd whether it be humans, cows, or wilderbeast otherwise it’s like you had correctly noted when you said, “…the same way individuals everywhere do, you absorb the messages about what is or isn't appropriate behaviour from the people around you.  If you hear enough people you trust saying something with enough conviction enough times, you will eventually believe it”.

SECTION 16.  PROTOTYPE BIBLES:
I had been supposedly so-called born and baptized a catholic and then raised in a superstitious educational environment including superstitious pre-school followed by superstitious kindergarten, and then superstitious grade school followed by one year of superstitious high school and therefore I, too, know how it felt to be routinely surrounded and outnumbered by superstitious mentality but fortunately, like Hudson in his reply, my home environment was not a particularly religious one at all, but whenever reading a bible or a catechism book and substituting the word ‘nature’ in exchange for the word ‘god’, it oddly enough did seem to make the reading material rather on the realistic side of things, a little less far-fetched and little less superstitious.  As for directly relating science to religion, more specifically the bible, here’s what I accumulatively know but I long forgot where any of the sources for the information came from nor can I remember the specific time frames but I can still offer you the gist of it.  We already had at least a scant few prototype bibles prior to year zero and each prototype bible was composed somewhere around 1 or 2 hundreds of years or so apart from each other and were written as post-historical accounts of how given populaces reacted to their given popular revolutionary pubic hero figures of their given times.  Eventually we gathered all the prototypes together and although I can’t really remember any exactly centuries but it could’ve been perhaps somewhere maybe or maybe not around 200(?)AD (Anno Domini, “in the christian era”), when we finally took all of these loosely written accounts of different eras of public reactions to their different revolutionary heroes for the task job of combining all prototypes into forming a single make-believe one-fits-all bible, but then hundreds of years later at different times a couple or so different versions further stemmed out of this original prototypes compilation version.  In further regards to all these prototypes, this planet has experienced at least several different so-called messiah-syndromes at different time periods.  Once upon a time in 5th century BC (Before Christian era) Siddhartha of Guatama known as sage Buddha (circa 563 – 483 BC) was the world’s most famed #1 popular messiah-syndrome image of the times.  Once upon another time around a hundred years later after Siddhartha in the 4th century BC the world hailed a whole new different popular #1 messiah-syndrome image of the times by the name of Mo Ti (Mo Tzu, or Mozi) (470? – 391? BC), who was a Chinese philosopher evolutionist whose writings on evolution needed to be thoroughly burned and destroyed by our authorities of his time and all for good sane logical reason with respect to our common denominator.  Centuries later by the time all of these prototype bibles which played off of the accumulated public reactionary responses instigated by such upstarts like Siddhartha and Mo Ti and others like them, these prototypes were revised into a creating a single story of the ultimate fictional super-character based on the combined qualities of all previous writings on upstart blabber mouths like Siddhartha and Mo Ti and the other prototype bible others so that our fictitious super-character would lead populaces into superstition which is exactly the opposite of what real revolutionary figures like Siddhartha and Mo Ti and comparable others tried to accomplish.  By the final draft of our compilation, our ancestors were already sufficiently well aware to utilizing propaganda techniques in influencing minds and behavior upon any given so-called civilized populace.  The earlier individual prototype bible propaganda tools were like vague historical accounts of how previous messiah-syndrome psychological profiles affectively influenced their given populations of their own times and cause annoyances for our ruling authorities of the times whence the compilation-variations of our modern bibles employed today is nothing more than just another very useful scientific propaganda tool used for constraining our family species’ breeding rate and nothing more and nothing less than that.  If our family species’ breeding rate were to be left unchecked it would automatically and inevitably lead straight to the worse case scenario of out-breeding global food supply and then lead further onto cannibalism out of pure necessity just to make sure our children don’t go hungry.  Our catholic symbolic gesture of eating bread and drinking red wine while pretending it represents the body and blood of a fictional character called jesus christ is just another scientific clue as to how important this seemingly silly book of superstitions really is at protecting ourselves from inevitable cannibalism if things were left unchecked.  Also note how our catholic schools tend to separate our genders.  Even when it’s co-ed, our classroom seating may likely be arranged in distinct alternating columns of either all boys or all girls.  During recess on our catholic school playgrounds we’re likely to see hardly any mingling of the genders if any at all in comparison to what we can witness at our public schools even though the genders still mostly tend to keep separate during recesses in public schools as well.  And we’re not likely to see any of our school children playing naked during recess either because our ancestors already instructed their descendents to cover up the genitals just like how it’s instructed in the propaganda manual compilation about the eve, adam and fig leaf parable after having bitten an apple from the tree of knowledge of scientific evolution.  And the parables about hell, purgatory, heaven and limbo may easily symbolize the differences between choosing worst hellish case scenario on earth as the worst of two inevitable evils, versus this purging transition period which our family species has to endure towards carrying out the greater good of our ancestral common denominator, versus eventually evolving into a heavenly utopian-like global System, and lastly versus those who aren’t supposed to ever know which is the kind of mindset that eventually gets culled out into limbo, so-to-speak?

SECTION 17.  NO ONE OWES ANYONE ANYTHING:
Not only our nuns and priests aren’t allowed to breed but strict catholicism also strongly prohibits pre-marital sex upon the populace, as well as forbids divorces while strongly advocating only single lifetime marriages despite the fact a paper marriage is realistically nothing more than another greatly induced imaginary invention towards helping to suppress global breeding rate.  In the real world a ‘loving-couple’ stays together for however long they might happen to be together and this is how it naturally is long before any notions of marriage were ever invented, plus it’s also still natural for humans to love more than just one other person throughout the course of any individual’s entire lifetime.  In the real world common law marriages are more real than any make-believe paper marriages and yet the bulk of society at large still adheres to all of our given propaganda surrounding a paper marriage as if it’s something real instead of recognizing it as just another induced abstract concept albeit all for a good holistic secretive reason, of course.  I personally view paper marriage as merely a very nice romantic gesture but nothing more of any real value than just that.  [And I’m so eagerly anxious to see the day when all of our descendents will finally be sane and never subserviently bow down to another person again except for of course only in romantic gestures for example as in marriage proposals but otherwise inducing that type of demeaning subordinate manipulative degrading tacky mind-control insane nonsense upon our family species will finally stop someday and not be needed again because according to impartial laws of nature humans are born equal and I fully concur.]  Paper marriages do not have any realistic value which explains how come it’s possible for a paper-married couple to be permanently separated while yet both be busy making babies with other people.  In the real world paper marriage relationships lasts only as long as the parties are willing to be together which is non-coincidently the same thing how common law marriages work in nature as well.  This kind of ties into a little of what I mentioned earlier about land ownership not really existing in the sense neither does the abstract concept of “owe-ing someone”, it doesn’t physically exist, it’s make-believe.  But in terms of ‘owNing’, (not ‘owe-ing’), and aside from sanely agreeing we can only own our own bodies, it’s physically impossible to own anything else including the land we live on, the air we breathe or the moonlight we rely on to see with at night because nature realistically limits us to only ‘using’ such things in life.  Likewise for the concept of “owing someone” which also doesn’t really exist either because in the real world nobody really owes anybody anything and that’s a fact of physical reality and yet not all of us but near all 7 billion of us are inclined to instinctively reject the true notion that “nobody owes anybody anything” because we’ve been taught to accept without question the abstraction of “to owe” as if somehow the abstract notion of ‘obligation’ is supposedly a physical reality when in fact it is most certainly not real at all but it sure makes for a wonderful abstract tool towards helping to constrain breeding rate.  The act of giving or receiving has no true bearing to the other act as both acts are realistically independent to each other, which is how come it’s physically possible a person may give without necessarily receiving anything in return and vice-versa.  Each and every act of giving and/or receiving is in truthful fact a voluntary act with no real bearing to the concept of ‘owing’.  If the abstract concept of ‘owing’ someone due to unrealistic promises made a wedding alter were at all something physically real then no divorces could ever physically occur in life, and likewise if owing someone actually existed in physical evolution of nature then it would be a physical impossibility for any parent to abandon their new born infant upon a stranger’s doorstep which conclusively and indisputably proves that in physical reality nobody realistically, physically, truly ‘owes’ anybody anything in life and it all really boils down to how much each person is willing to independently give and/or willing to independently receive.  And that’s how come something like our bible compilation is saturated with parables of a person owing their mind, body and soul to an invisible ghost  except it’s another best kept secret there’s no such thing as a soul either.

SECTION 18.  CATHOLICISM AND ORIGINAL SIN:
Our priests and nuns aren’t allowed to breed which indicates how powerful our ancestors felt about protecting their descendents by way of inventing and implementing catholicism as another variable to feed into our ancestral common denominator so we needn’t cook our elders to feed the kids.  We are all naturally born to breed and multiply whereas in stark contrast celibacy is so utterly unnatural which makes it the biggest personal sacrifice for any individual to give in loving devotion to our ancestral common denominator for the betterment of all animal-kind.  And as with any other ‘Prohibition-like’ situations of victimless crimes, our nuns and priests don’t often breed and therefore homosexual urges simply goes ‘underground’ into the ‘closet’ to get satisfied.  The religious abstract concept of original sin in our bible compilation is direct scientific reference to the inclusive nature of our DNA sexual urges since the time of our original plant ancestors, not a mere 6 thousand years ago but billions of years worth of accumulated evolutionary continuum of sexual urges always evolving to get stronger and better at it as time goes on and it’s no surprise 3.5 billion years later earth ends up with a family species who can easily wipe out its own global food supply within short duration of a single lifetime if left unchecked.  The original sin is in reference to our DNA sexual urges inherited upon us by our ancestors through no fault of our own as we were all born unto this common curse of our ancestral common denominator.  The original sin scientifically alludes towards explaining how come we’re suffering through this transitory journey towards eventually evolving a utopian-like sanely organized family species and how come it was necessary for our ancestors to compile these prototypes bibles and did not hesitate to use it as our first mass produced book to massively educate our global populace or in other words our first propaganda book in mass production for massively brainwashing entire family species as much as possible to the accordance of the proper guidelines set forth within the ancestral common denominator.  About the same time we released our first printed copies was the same time the Renaissance uproar had cause to take its shape.  One would expect our world’s group of non-superstitious intellectuals would naturally react unfavorably to our first massed produced book turning out to be a book on superstition and they weren’t going stand still for it and it’s our first bible compilation publication that probably touched off that whole darn Renaissance ruckus in the first place.

SECTION 19.  WHO’S KIDDING WHO?:
As for any direct connection between homosexuality and religion, let me simply put it this way, …who’s kidding who?  Although in the real world ‘closet’ homosexual behavior is our unwritten prerequisite for entering any of our catholic nunneries and monasteries and our strictly non-gay persons soon quickly learn they don’t belong there but then again nobody’s really kidding anybody because the fact of the real matter is homosexuality including closet homosexuality is as equally scattered among both superstitious believers and non-believers alike and so trying to pretend there’s any serious direct connection between linking homosexuality and religion as in any terms of any cause and/or effect is rather nonsensical except for how they both happen to share into our common denominator along with all of our other variables.  Our catholicism has needed to pretend to publicly frown on homosexuality along with the rest of our mainstream majority because that’s how this has needed to be done since the old days when we first invented catholicism and induced it into our populations and the only reason our catholic priests happens to be infamous for being pedophiles is because their profession in getting caught happens to be in greater favor of them getting caught the most often due to their lifestyle which our society secretly encourages right out in the open since the very beginnings of our catholicism via our confessional booths and to believe otherwise is equivalent to believing that none of our gynecologists nor any our proctologists has ever had any vaginal-anal sexual fetishes whatsoever as our primary reasons for not-choosing a different specialty if so desired, uh-huh.

SECTION 20.  XEENA’S LAW:
You mostly did quite well towards avoiding the common trap where too often our ‘non-believers’ will try to debate with saying something like, “If god this, or got that, blah-blah-blah” whereas not-often does our ‘believers’ ever say, “If an invisible ghost cannot exist, blah-blah-blah”.  Most often our anti-religious anti-christian fanatics tend to end up quoting our superstitious believers so much to the point there’s scant evidence of a debate because both our parties sound like we’re all superstitious believers unless a third-party listener actually takes the time to listen in and focus onto the dialogue content for awhile before eventually learning one of our parties actually turns out to be anti-religious.  For examples, and not-withstanding her sane achievement in being responsible for removing at least religious superstition out of our public classrooms, the anti-religious television programs by the sadly murdered Madeline Murray O'Hare family as well as the anti-religious movie called Religulous both unwittingly promoted superstition in their films more than demoted it because of how they typically chose to talk about it, that is, too often our anti-religious anti-christians fanatics sound exactly and equally as superstitious as our superstitious believers themselves do.  Hypothetically speaking, if we were to fill a theater room with toddlers and had them watch 8 hours of reruns of the O’hare’s anti-religion tv shows along with the satirical anti-religious movie Religulous and without telling our toddlers ahead of time what types of films they would be seeing, I’ve no doubt in my mind all 100% of our toddlers would come out of the theater believing they had just watched 8 hours of all PRO-religious films and none of our toddlers would have ever suspected any of the films were ANTI-religious because the bulk, style and syntax of the dialogue word-for-word and second-by-second spoken most often by both parties happens to be PRO-religious in context, mind and content.  But who’s kidding who because there’s no reality-winners in superstitious debates on superstition, however for the sake of clarity and in terms of the “abstract world” where most of our human communications are being performed then it’s clearly our believers who usually prevail close to 100% of the time although our non-belief debaters may typically swagger away in denial thinking they had just won another illogical debate from spending and wasting more of their own time and other people’s time discussing more and more superstitious kind of talking and instead what they inadvertently accomplish is helping to subliminally spreading the word of our superstitious gospel compilation as in they-eagerly-know-not-what-they-do, even though as you noted, our anti-religious-fanatics have good intentions just as our anti-atheist-fanatics also have good intentions.  The main thing is that as long as both sides of the religious debate, as opposed to a reality debate, keep their minds preoccupied with yakking about superstitions and away and off of physical reality then that’s what counts the most for our greater common good because such mentalities are already slowly culling themselves out of evolution all within the due course of natural selection.  And likewise for ill-greed and criminal mentality which are not desirable DNA traits whenever the mind of a human predator typically utilizes their lower brain aggression for the sake of preying upon others including their own family members which indicates the core of their consciousness is mostly seated at lower brain aggression level instead of at least midbrain level where our emotional thinking for protection of family unit is located, however, animal evolutionary phases included our reptilian, amphibian, mammalian, pre-primate and primate brain tissues and although the typical criminal mentality enjoys taking delusional pride in thinking they’re a superior predator for surviving primarily with their reptilian instinctive life’s urges but they’re already getting themselves filtered out and automatically culling themselves out of our DNA human genetics slowly and surely as natural selection moves on, and as we can all plainly see, people with honest DNA vastly continue to progressively outnumber our criminal DNA element because it takes a lot more than reptilian mentality to figure out how dangerous reality really is for all of us especially if it hadn’t been for our ancestral psych-System protecting us all this time since way-back-when and it could maybe take another 200,000 more years or less of modern human evolutionary progressive culling of our reptilian criminal mentality before it’s sufficiently out of human DNA as in full proper conformity to XEENA’S LAW: “GIVEN AN INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF EVOLUTION, WHAT CAN GO RIGHT IS GOING RIGHT NOW.”  

You’re smart towards avoiding the usual trap by setting the premise of not-accepting final answers that typically ends debates with, “…but you must have faith.”  You’re free to do whatever you want, Kate, but I’ve found it’s easiest to either seriously deprogram their brainwashing leaving absolutely no time for debate or else just let’em go and just let’em be happy the way our psych-System had intentionally designed, programmed and expects them to be because they aren’t even supposed to know about true physical reality in the first place lest everything defeats its own purpose.  Our family species’ psych-System went through millenniums of accumulated laborious efforts to help provide what’s best for our entire family species as a single whole unit and that included the necessity of inventing and inducing superstitions and a lot of it has depended upon being a well best kept secret amongst many others aside from no invisible ghosts including the abstract concept of money is not real, the concepts of ‘own-ing’ and ‘owe-ing’ aren’t real, smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer, black holes in outer-space do not exist, there’s no speed limit to nature and earth is most certainly not flat, etcetera, although the latter secret about earth not being flat is pretty much out of the bag for the most part although not completely out for such is the power of propaganda.

SECTION 21.  FLAT EARTH:
I used to think it must be only a joke when I first heard there had been a time when civilized educated society taught schoolbooks saying earth is flat but it turns out it really did happen some hundreds of years or so ago and I think it was in our Great Britain.  I don’t readily know offhand how many earlier hundreds or thousands of years all of our civilized societies had been schooled that earth is supposedly flat, but with the exception of some cultures who had already known better that earth is not flat, the belief was near-universal among our family species until about 4th century BC when in 330 BC ancient Greek scientists and philosophers proposed the idea earth is a sphere or at least rounded in shape similar to how all liquids such as a rain drop in air naturally wants to be spheric in shape instead of being flat and by early Middle Ages it was widespread knowledge throughout Europe that earth is spheric and certainly not flat.  But how did some cultures already know better, that is, how come the belief in a flat earth was only nearly-universal but not completely fully universal throughout all cultures like the established taboo against natural nudity?  It was because previous primitive ancestors had already studied the horizon long enough to notice its curvature indicating earth is clearly rounded, not flat, and it later became furthermore obvious when the tops of sailing ships’ masts are the last things to disappear out of view as ships physically sail over the curvature of the horizon as clear indication earth is rounded.  And so to rephrase the question, if early humans already deduced earth is rounded then what the blazen heck was our civilized educated societies doing teaching such flat-earth nonsense in our curriculum in the first place but still allowing other less civilized, less modernized and less educated cultures continue to know better?  And the answer is because some of our cultures already had long maintained sufficient containment on their own breeding rate without the need of any further external assistance.  Pretty much all early humans already figured out and knew earth is rounded, then later almost universally were school-taught earth is flat, and then almost universally again known as rounded again since 4th century BC when upstart-tattlers like Aristotle and his friends started blabbing the truth but even today some people still hang on to the notion earth is flat and somehow claim it’s only an illusion that the horizon supposedly only seemingly appears to be curved, and in fact in the 20th century prior to the moon landing a flat-world society organization was started and had gotten even more popular with thousands of memberships after the moon landing of 1969 until it declined in the 1990’s and then mostly fizzled out since 2001.  Such is the power of propaganda and might seem akin to the infamous bigfoot footage where all the hoaxers had already well confessed exactly how they did it but lots of people still refuse to believe the hoaxers’ confessions and so the never-ending elusive hunt for bigfoot goes on but so does the culling of our family species towards ensuring descendent DNA is slowly and surely becoming less susceptible and more resistance to induced psychoses such as believing an imaginary bigfoot character could somehow be real and likewise for imaginary invisible ghosts as well.  It can be near impossible to believe our family species have been culling ourselves out of sheer paramount necessity unless one happens to be fortunate enough to know better or else be at greater risk in getting culled for the sake of the greater good of the almighty common denominator.  However, those who take the time to practice questioning our global propaganda before deciding what is real versus what is not real, actually stand a better chance of not getting culled because what they’re doing is questioning what they’ve been taught to blindly believe in which is exactly the kind of sixth sense rebel mentality it takes to help avoid from getting one’s self culled off for the sake of the greater good.  Likewise for those who deny our holocaust of world war 2 ever happened.  Most us who question such events are also apt to questioning everything else we’ve been taught to blindly believe in before eventually deciding for our own selves whether or not something is real.  Most skeptics to our moon landings will eventually concur for themselves given sufficient contemplation that it’s so much more easier and more practical for us to simply fly to the moon than to go through all the trouble of trying to fake it, but it was still sane of these skeptics to question it in the first place instead of blindly accepting whatever they’re told on blind faith.  What exactly is blind faith?  Many of us are brainwashed into believing that having faith is a very good thing and a very admirable quality to have or in other words many of us think leaping blindly throughout life without ever looking is a vary good attitude to have especially when the custom is prevalent among our own social circle whereas other different psychological profiles might happen to be innately inclined towards refusing to accept anything based on blind faith and that includes questioning whether or not if our holocaust of our last century could have actually happened or not?  Likely factors as to how come some of us might go through a questioning phase in refusing to blindly accept the holocaust even took place is because for one thing the holocaust is so dreadfully gruesome, so inexplicably horrendous and so disturbing wrenching we naturally want to reject something this horrible as being true.  Here’s the fine point of the issue, our skeptics aren’t saying the holocaust and mood landings are physical impossibilities but rather what they’re saying is that it’s a physical possibility certain historical events are false propaganda including the stories of holocaust and moon landings.  It’s not like these skeptics are trying to insist something like invisible ghosts are real but rather they’re insisting not everything we believe to be true is true.  Furthermore chances are, these particular skeptics to our holocaust have not yet fully recognized how evil we humans can actually be amongst ourselves but given sufficient contemplation and/or perhaps after having had personal horrible violent experiences for themselves, eventually most such skeptics do figure out for themselves in due time that our holocaust unfortunately did occur after all.  These skeptics still have a better chance of surviving our ancestral common denominator because of having practiced their innate sixth sense in questioning what our given propaganda are feeding us.  Some skeptics of our moon landings and holocaust may adhere to their skepticism all the way to their graves and that’s perfectly okay too because they weren’t supposed to know what is real versus what is not real along with all the rest of us who weren’t supposed to know lest we defeat the purpose of our common denominator which keeps us all safer than otherwise if we didn’t have it.

SECTION 22.  GALILEO GALILEI:
It’s a naturally occurring illusion the earth does indeed appear to seem flat and not rounded unless we happen to know better.  The similarity of Aristotle’s struggle in proving earth is not-flat compared to Galilei’s struggle in proving earth is not-motionless is interesting as to how both circumstances relied on human physical senses in order for our ancestral psych-System to trick the frailty of innocent minds into accepting seemingly absurd nonsense such as the world being supposedly flat and earth being supposedly motionless but society easily bought it because it was schoolbook taught and our children aren’t traditionally allowed to question our schoolbooks.  Our human senses initially tells us earth certainly does appear to be motionless while all else in the skies revolves around earth including sun, clouds and stars and to suggest different like Galilei did, sounded quite absurd unless a person happens to know better.  Our church astronomers had already figured out the truth for centuries but naturally the psych-System continued to teach the propaganda for as long as we could until Galilei couldn’t behave himself and spilled the beans on that one.  Even our earlier ancestors prior to our church astronomers already knew better from observing the stars at night long enough to have figured out earth revolves around sun and not vice-versa but for a lengthy time our global populace weren’t supposed to know the truth simply because it could’ve led to further prying into pandora’s box, so-to-speak, hence, it was so necessary Galilei received official public punishment of excommunication except for mainly the two people he trusted the most in his life which was probably more or less the same exact lifestyle he was already living prior to his heresy trial anyways.  The widespread news of his sequential legal punishment of public excommunication was as equally necessary to have taken place just as much as he had felt it necessary to publish his book Dialogue concerning the World's Two Chief Systems explaining how earth revolves around sun and not vice-versa, but much of Galilei’s problem was his arrogance in the insensitive way he wrote his book deliberately styled to mock our believers and ridicule our church authorities to make them sound and look stupid instead of taking his time to clean it out.  I speculate it’s indicative he was likely so fed up from all the accumulative years of public and personal persecution and ridicule he contended with throughout his life from family, friends, and society-at-large and decided to emotionally push back by publishing a book deliberately designed to make all of his opponents look stupid although he didn’t have to do it that way but he wanted to do it in his own sarcastic humorous politically-incorrect sort of way even after he had been thoroughly warned in prior court not-to publish his book and therefore justice was rightfully served upon this semi-reclusive guy who was court-ordered and court-sentenced to remain a semi-recluse at home plus excommunicated out of the church altogether and publicly branded as a heretic for the rest of his remaining life and one could even say the poor lucky arrogant bas**** got exactly what he deserved for spilling the beans and he knew it tooSmile  The reason Galilei needed to be branded a public heretic in order to make him appear delusional in the eyes of our global populace was because this is how our psych-System is designed to protect our psych-System which functions as protection for our family species’ destiny.  It’s the same exact reason we prevalently implement our “medical model” instead of our “socio-psychological model” upon our socio-psychologic psychiatric patients in order to quell the credibility of those who know, so the rest do not.

SECTION 23.  GALILEI EQUIVALENCES:
For many years I pondered how come our first mass produced and mass distributed printed book was on superstition instead of an anatomy and physiology nursing manual so that every individual on earth would know thyself, however, the induction of our invented bible makes 100% scientific perfect sense when applied into the common denominator and explains how come our ancestors chose to handing out superstition in lieu science.  I can readily think of dozens of modern day peoples who are the equivalences of our 20th and 21st century versions of Galileo Galilei and in hundreds of years from now they’re all going to be as equally famous and synonymous with Galileo’s name for daring to publish truths in face of great ridicule and rejection from family and society in an era when truths are believed to be delusions while make-believe superstitions are typically considered as supposedly real.  But for now these modern public figures of today are scoffed at by the vast majority amongst their own professions as well as by society at large very similar to how it was with Galilei for pointing out secret truths, public figures such as Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, Dr. Ronald David Laing, Dr. Loren Richards Mosher, Dr. Joseph H. Berke, and Dr. Herbert L. Ley Jr. (1923 – 2001), former Food and Drug Administration commissioner who remarked, quote: “The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It Isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day”, unquote.  There’s also many other similar professionals being vastly ignored, criticized and ostracized by our professional mainstream for the sane truths all of these blabber-mouths have publicly expressed which our global public mainstream is not supposed to know about for the sake of the greater good.  Another perceptible allowance could also easily consider Dr. Nelson Mandela as another qualified modern day Galileo version in these modern times because he managed to achieve brief CableNewsHeadlines and CableNewsNetwork global media coverage in the 1990’s and not just once but in fact he did it twice regarding his public claims that our so-called AIDS virus does not exist.  He was virtually ignored the first time and then I think it was maybe a year or two later when he regained the same news media time allotment except this time our medical establishment promptly released a public rebuttal saying (not verbatim) Dr. Nelson Mandela was behaving very irresponsibly and haphazardly.  As far as I know that’s all they said but they were very courteous, respectful and honest enough not to suggest he’s wrong nor did we say he was crazy nor implied delusional but all we said was something like he’s acting irresponsible and being reckless because he truly was being quite rash although understandably but he was still far from ever being any big danger to our overall ancestral common denominator simply because most of us out of unwitting respect for the greater good instantly rejected what he said.  [There is not a single death certificate I know of throughout Hawaii’s entire modern medical history listing cause of death due to malignant cancer, nor to HIV, nor to AIDS, nor to smoking cigarettes, etcetera but rather we honestly and honorably list causes of death in such case files as being caused by something else which we most often write down as “secondary infection” which always happens to be consequent of having an already lowered immune system to where a simple cold virus will suffice.  I presume all deaths certificates are properly written the same with all of our American States and Territories and it should be globally for that matter too and if by remote chance it isn’t then someone needs to correct a certificate but I seriously doubt there’s any medical mistake like that to be found anywhere on earth.]  Surely more than 90% of our current global population believes Nelson Mandela was absolutely insane for claiming such seemingly silly nonsense as he was futilely trying to pry open pandora’s box but to no avail because apparently the world wasn’t yet ready nor prepared enough to even come close to accepting and knowing the truth, no more than our family species were ready during Galileo’s time, or Mo Ti’s time or Siddhartha’s time.  If we hypothetically somehow had access to world live media tomorrow and you made the big truthful announcement to our entire family species to let everyone know the secret truth there is no such thing as an invisible ghost, not even a holy one, what percentage of 7 billion do think would readily accept the sane truth compared to what percentage would instantly brand you as an ignorant atheist compared to how many would want you instantly killed for openly spreading such a bold sane truth instead of preaching the superstitious opposite?  It’s intuitively evident our family species as a single unit is still not evolved enough to accept reality no more than when most of our family species scoffed at Galileo for having pointed out a simple sane truth, so then how can we today realistically expect our family species to comprehend, digest and accept the whole rest of the real secret story behind human evolution when we still lack cognition to grasp a simple one such as no such thing as an invisible ghost?  Proving the earth is not motionless is a zillion times easier than trying to prove something doesn’t exist when it doesn’t exist in the first place, whereas at least Galileo had something physically real to point to.  Hundreds and thousands of years ago we had a higher percentage-wise of civilized society believing an invisible deity could somehow be real whereas nowadays that percentage-wise has progressively dropped and should likely continue to progressively decrease out of human DNA as natural selection goes on, …except then again you know, sometimes I wonder if maybe in the long run if our descendents may likely perhaps end up inventing even much more and newer wilder crazier superstitious practices after global number stabilizes because our family species will then have so much more free idle time than ever before although by then as long as global count remains essentially frozen it won’t really matter what psychoses people want to indulge in as long as they are not hurting nor bothering others and not making too many babies then no one has any cause to complain.

SECTION 24.  TIME:
People may sometimes judge other people on whether someone talks ‘real’ or talks like a ‘player’ and we use the word ‘real’ although what we’re actually referring to is in reference to whether someone is communicating sincerely or not.  Most of us do not think or speak in terms of reality but in terms of our sincerity in our beliefs as to how we perceive reality but does not necessarily mean we’re talking or thinking specifically about 3-dimensional evolutionary physical reality because our ancestral psych-System influentially inhibits our thinking about physical reality.  The obvious examples are the belief in invisible ghosts whether it be imagined as an invisible godly entity or invisible devils from hell or the superstitious nonsense of communicating with invisible dead relatives.  You and I both know that those amongst us who spend time thinking and talking to invisible people or to invisible holy ghost(s) might as well be wasting their time talking to the wall or to an invisible wall, or talking to a rock or to an invisible rock and it still wouldn’t make any difference at all and yet we humans spend much time thinking about such things which don’t exist while simultaneously rejecting real truths.  We have a tremendous percentage of our family species indulging in spiritual worshiping even though in reality there’s absolutely no invisible spiritual ghostly entities.  The vast majority of words induced upon us by our ancestors are associations of abstractions and much of our communications is in forms of abstract concepts, or superstitions as you will, embedded within the language structure itself which in effect influences us into producing the kinds of thoughts we perceive in our minds.  In short, thoughts are attached to words which in turn are attached to what our ancestors wanted their descendents to be thinking, as well as to how they want their descendents to think-it, and we humans today are mostly thinking superstitious notions in one form of context or another without thinking twice about it and without questioning it or realizing it and a good example of this is the essence of ‘Time’.  Most of us are extremely confident we know what the concept of ‘Time’ is about but most of us fail in realizing it’s actually make-believe for alluding to physical distance of evolutionary motion.  The abstract concept of ‘Time’ has astounding useful good applications although it doesn’t physically exist other than in the abstract-reasoning illusionary imagination of human minds.  And as you somewhat alluded to, we tend to accept notions without question because that’s what most everybody else around us were doing by the time we were born unto our family environment.  In physical reality the essence of 'now' always exists as a never-ending continuum of a 3-dimensional evolutionary spatial universe whereas the past and future does not exist because whenever they exist, they existed or will exist as their own 'now' moment because in reality only the ‘now’ physically exists at every given moment of evolution.  And so the word 'time' is a convenient abstract notion for technically describing distance of motion (as opposed to just ‘distance’ minus any motion) such as in the process of motion during the distance earth is in the process of traveling one elliptical orbit around the sun (I’m specifically describing “distance of evolutionary motion” or “distance of evolution in motion” as opposed to saying “the ‘time’ it took to orbit the sun”, or else that would only mislead away from perceiving actual 3-dimensional notion of ‘Time’), and we use one out of many ‘time-words’ to describe this specific traveling distance in motion which is commonly referred to as a ‘year’.  The word 'year' does not physically represent the concept of 'time’ because ‘time’ itself does not physically exist in the first place no more than invisible ghosts do, but whenever we speak any words that has to do with ‘time’ we’re trained to automatically associate these ‘time-words’ to mean no further than the abstract concept of ‘time-itself’ without giving much conscious thought to the recognition we are all in fact actually speaking about 3-dimensional distances in evolutionary motion because that’s what ‘time-words’ were invented to do, which is to describe distances of evolution while in motion because evolution is always evolving in motion as physical reality is never static, but it’s a well kept secret that ‘time’ is like superstition and make-believe as most people innocently and mistakenly believe but it’s all by good influential design not even pseudoscientists are supposed to know.

SECTION 25.  JOGGING:
The truth about the jogging fad is an example of a smaller best kept secret because some of us still continue to reject a simple truth as true.  Jogging is what our ancestors relied on to chase and wear down large game prey because it conserves our body energy as it economizes body fuel consumption and saves body weight while covering distances between points A to B by utilizing the same exact conservation of energy principles in physics as when certain types of other herd animals hop or bounce while in the process of out-running their predators so their predators will reach the point of fatigue first, and plus our ancestors evolved with jogging on soft surfaces like sand, grass and dirt as opposed to concrete or asphalt and this is the reason chronic joggers on hard surfaces have greater frequency of joint injuries than walkers do or joggers on softer surfaces do.  Contemporary humans who believe they’re jogging to help lose weight have no idea they’re actually saving body weight as they cover the distance between points A and B.  If they’re jogging for the intent of losing excess weight or as a routine regimen for exercise then they would be better off sanely walking fast at a good pace almost a marching stride and/or even running, but not that funny-looking ‘power-walk’ which does more harm to the hips and shoulder joints from excessive unnatural prolonged routines than it does the body any good.  The human body evolve to walk natural, it did not evolve to power-walk even though it can, likewise we may be able to hop on one foot while waving both hands in the air but hopping along on one foot while waving both hands in the air is not the natural sane thing to do as a natural mode of getting ourselves from points A to B no more than power-walking is.  When our descendents are finally sane, hardly any humans will likely be jogging on earth anymore unless of course they happen to be hunting and chasing down large prey otherwise there’s no longer been any practical purpose for most humans to be jogging ever since most of us has no longer needed to hunt long distances for our next meal unless for perhaps a fun easy way of moderate exercise to expend the least amount of energy to get from points A to B.  Joggers today have likely heard from someone letting them know jogging on hard surfaces is not as healthy as walking due to susceptibility for ankle and knee injuries.  Whenever I see a ‘jogger’ I usually see a person who knows-not-what-they’re-doing, and everytime I see a ‘walker’ walking naturally along side a passing jogger, I sometimes smile inside because I just saw a person who sanely knows what they’re doing walking for exercise instead of jogging.  Satisfactorily psychoanalyzing to find someone’s sane body actions in conjunction with their sane intent of mind is not as common as one would like to think, and so whenever I happen to come across a snapshot-like moment of another jogger and walker passing abreast of each other, that’s when the evidence of the walker’s sanity appears more pronounced as they’re both right next to each other and that’s when I sometimes tend to smile at getting to witness another kodak-moment in real-time and it’s the yingee-yang of it that makes me smile.  [The paradoxical ying-yang syndrome of two opposite extremes existing simultaneously and perhaps even slightly reminiscent to Sir Isaac Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion of every action having an opposite reaction for instance we are by far without a doubt the most sanest, the most intelligent, the most compassionate, the most kindest and the most cunning out of all evolving animal species to have ever graciously enlightened this planet earth with our human god-like presence but simultaneously on the other end we are also thee extremely worst opposite as in thee most insanest, thee most stupidest, thee most ruthless, thee most cruel, thee most, savage, and thee most evilest gullible bunch of dumbest friggin’ organisms to have ever infected this whole freakin’ universe and not-so-to-speak but fo’ real kine.]  It’s not necessarily wrong nor bad to jog on concrete surfaces as a moderate amount won’t hurt at all since the body’s built and evolved to withstand moderation but it wasn’t designed for prolonged routine jogging on hard surfaces and the reason is because the evolving development of human physiology during the formation of the structure of the human body was made while walking, evolved for walking, and not as much for jogging otherwise walking on hard surfaces would cause more joint complications than jogging does.  Habitual joggers on hard surfaces will likely continue jogging as long as their peer group also continues to be chronic joggers because habitual joggers on hard surfaces aren’t supposed to know by influential design especially after they’ve already been told the sane truth enough times and yet still can’t figure it out for themselves.  In situations where a religious-minded walker may know-not-what-they’re-thinking it’s still not damaging to the body compared to an atheistic chronic jogger on hard surfaces who knows-not-what-they’re-doing.  Both psychoses are clear variables for our common denominator but one has greater odds in being much more deadlier by an unsuspected margin in getting ourselves culled compared to the other variable, almost sort of analogous to how actions speaks louder than words or thoughts.  And this is a good example of what I meant earlier about our atheists being more or less just as susceptible to a lot of other forms of induced superstitions without realizing it just as our non-atheists don’t either.  There’s no set group immune to the common denominator, no nation is immune, no local community is immune, no family immune, no individual immune, it’s the dues we each and all pay for the original horny sin we all share in common to an entire lineage of promiscuous plant, pre-human and human ancestors whether we like it or not.

SECTION 26.  SMOKING CIGARETTES DOES NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER:
Another common psychosis and widespread form of mental illness is the belief cigarette smoke could supposedly somehow cause lung cancer but since there are no such actual diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, nor malignant cancer including lung cancer then it means everything we believe about smoking cigarettes supposedly somehow causing cancer only comes from hearsay, rumors and propaganda despite all physical evidence proving the absolute contrary as there is no scientific evidence of lung cancer itself I know of which can prove smoking cigarettes supposedly causes cancer, plus there is not one death certificate which reads cause of death due to cigarette smoke because in the real world no one has ever died, per se, from smoking cigarettes.  I found an interesting article on the internet which I consider may well be undeniable proof-positive smoking cigarettes is relatively harmless and therefore does not cause cancer.  The article is about a gentleman named Emiliano Mercado del Toro (1891 – 2007) an ex-smoker who passed away from old age several months after he was interviewed.  Headlines: Oldest Man Turns 115 in Puerto Rico: (news.yahoo.com/.../puerto_rico_oldest_person) Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:44 AM ET.  Isabela, Puerto Rico - The world's oldest man celebrated his 115th birthday Monday, offering advice on healthy living at a party where he was serenaded by a well-known Puerto Rican singer.  Emiliano Mercado del Toro, who was a 6-year-old boy when the U.S. seized Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898, attributed his longevity to a healthy diet and avoiding alcohol.  "I never damaged my body with liquor," said Mercado, who quit a 76-year smoking habit when he was 90.  Mercado is listed as the world's oldest man by the Guinness Book of World Records. The world's oldest woman is Maria Esther de Capovilla of Ecuador, who turns 117 on Sept. 14.  "I never thought I would last so long," Mercado said.  An ambulance drove him to an outdoor plaza for a party with family, friends and the local mayor.  His favorite performer, Iris Chacon, crooned a birthday tune set to mariachi music.  "I feel happy," said the wheelchair-bound Mercado, who has difficulty hearing and has been blind for four years.  He lives in the northwestern coastal town of Isabela with his niece Tomasita Ruiz — who is a sprightly 84 years old.  Mercado said that as a young man he worked for 50 cents a day driving animals loaded with sugarcane to processing centers.  He was recruited into the U.S. army in 1918, and was still in training when World War I ended that November.  Isabela Mayor Charlie Delgado said a home for the elderly would be named in honor of Mercado, whom he described as a man who "ate healthy, had no major vices and has put this island on the world stage."  Headlines: World's Oldest Person Dies At 115. (www.cbsnews.com/.../main2395243.shtml)  San Juan, Puerto Rico, Jan. 24, 2007.  The world's oldest person, Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, died Wednesday at his home on the northern coast of Puerto Rico, a relative said. He was 115.  Mercado del Toro died at his home in the town of Isabela, about 70 miles west of San Juan, of natural causes, his grandniece, Dolores Martinez, told The Associated Press.  "He died like a little angel," Martinez said.  Mercado del Toro had been having difficulty breathing recently but was conscious and alert shortly before his death, Martinez said outside the family home.  At his death, he was with a great-grandnephew and a caretaker, she said.  Mercado Del Toro, who was born in Puerto Rico when it was still a Spanish colony, was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1918 but did not serve in combat because World War I ended while he was still in training. Later, he worked in the island's sugar cane fields.  He was married three times but never had children.  In Isabela, Mercado del Toro was a local celebrity after he was recognized by Guinness World Records for his longevity.  "We're all crying, but we knew this day would come," said town spokeswoman Rosa Luciano.  Mercado Del Toro became the oldest known person in the world last month when 116-year-old Elizabeth "Lizzie" Bolden died in December in a nursing home in Tennessee.  A 114-year-old Connecticut woman, Emma Faust Tillman, is now believed to be the oldest living person. Tillman, listed by Guinness World Records' Web site as a former servant for famed actress Katharine Hepburn, She was born Nov. 22, 1892. (End of news article).  I looked at over a dozen articles regarding Emiliano and only two mentions about his smoking whereas most substantial articles usually at least gives mention to his military background.  Perhaps you may recall other news articles over the years about the cigarette controversy where our tobacco companies for years initially kept declaring they were not convinced smoking cigarettes causes cancer and they were correct but at the time they did not comprehend the nature of our psych-System unless they were made privy to the secret workings of our ancestral common denominator and that’s how our psych-System was most likely able to win our tobacco companies’ cooperation into helping to take their 180-degree turn-around from their original public stance regarding cigarettes versus cancer.  Most of us are led to believe the primary motivating factor behind every big business always has to ultimately pertain to money but money is such a recent invention and there’s been a lot more going on at stake long before the abstract concept of medium-of-exchange was ever recently invented.  Some tobacco smokers live well into their 80's or 90's or over a hundred, we're talking about spending most of their life times smoking tobacco practically every day while still being in general good health and out-living many non-smokers but we can't say the same about our pharmaceutical medications.  Too much of anything is not good, as moderation is the key, and although a very heavy cigarette smoker may likely become more easily winded when running, compared to if whenever that same person quits smoking for at least a few to several days, but practically all casual cigarette smokers are still capable of running and even sprinting if need be, such as in cases of running out of a house burning out of control due to a lit cigarette setting a mattress on fire, and that’s what I meant earlier when I previously said “smoking cigarettes is ‘relatively’ harmless”, that is, except for relative instances whenever it causes accidental fires and by the way congratulations for having patience to read this far into this middle section regarding cigarettes because I had deliberately started off the beginning of this section trying to make it sound questionable so that our typical propaganda believers would be more inclined to consider this section as more nonsense and perhaps be more inclined to skipping over this middle part because not everyone is supposed to know smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer and I’m about to attempt to prove it through deductive reasoning by mentioning a few truths one-at-a-time and afterwards the overall combined truths should be able to speak for itself in proving once and for all that smoking cigarettes is harmless and does not cause cancer or in other words I’m slightly prying open pandora’s box but just a teeny bit if one is willing to risk taking a peek using their own mind’s eye, so-to-speak, because if one’s inner logic should happen to completely override our current given global propaganda regarding cigarettes then who knows what else might one be capable of figuring out what we aren’t supposed to really know?  And some skeptical readers who may have read and rejected the beginning of this cigarette section may possibly skipped over reading this middle section but they still might at least happen to glance at the end of this section and therefore at the end of this section I’m also going to make it sound more questionable-like again as though I’m only reciting internet hearsay.  But as for that article on Mr. Emiliano Mercado del Toro, of course I agree we can’t trust everything we read including what’s on the internet, however, I’m going to psychoanalyze the article just a little and if afterwards anyone who is willing to agree with me the article is most likely all 100% true, then we’ll move onto the next subject of truths one-at-a-time.  I specifically said the article is “most likely” true because we cannot confirm everything ourselves but there’s good indications the article is likely all true, for one thing I don’t readily recall ever hearing negative comments about that popular world records book people ever being accused nor convicted of promoting hoaxes but rather I generally hear they take sincere steps towards the accuracy of any claims to fame and therefore aside from Emiliano’s witnesses I’m presuming Emiliano’s medical records would have likely charted his smoking habits when he had quit smoking cigarettes at the age of 90, after smoking for 76 years which meant he was approximately 14 years old when he discovered for himself the enjoyment of smoking cigarettes.  [I was 12 when I started to routinely smoke cigarettes and my mom was 12 when she had started, too.  And her passing away had nothing to do with cigarettes.]  Emiliano had supplied documents including a birth certificate, baptismal certificate, 1910 census record, and veteran ID card and was the oldest non-combat veteran in the world called up by the United States military during World War I in 1918 but Emiliano admits he never saw any action.  If it wasn’t for the mention of Emiliano’s military background then I’d likely keep at least a little safe amount of skepticism as to whether or not Emiliano could have exaggerated, or embellishing, or perhaps even lied in telling his story except I fully believe Emiliano 100% because he did not lie about his military background and my lifetime of experiences has taught me that everyone whom I had personally interviewed regarding war stories all 100% lied in order to make themselves appear adventuresome.  I can only surmise those who have experience real military warfare do not wish to relive those memories merely for the sake of trying to impress innocent minds.  All such lying braggarts can often sound almost real at first but once they run out of their fabricated war stories in usually 20 or less minutes, that’s when I encouraged them some more to tell me more and that’s when it becomes quite obvious they’ve been making up the whole story.  I’ve also interviewed a number of disabled veterans who were injured in non-combat related injures most often typical automobile accidents and I found some of them prefer to tell war stories of how they became disabled through combat rather than embarrassingly admit they got drunk and reckless while driving a jeep.  The fact Emiliano made it openly known he was still in boot camp when world war 2 had ended clearly tells me loud and clear Emiliano was a true man of his word and if he says he smoked cigarettes since the age of 14 and had quit smoking when he was 90 yeas old, then I believe him and I would feel foolish if I didn’t believe Emiliano was always a man of honor.  I consider his case file as a documented example of cigarettes being harmless when someone can smoke for 76 years and still outlive and live longer than nearly all non-smokers who’s ever existed on earth.  If smoking was at all harmful then it would be impossible for any chronic smoker to live longer than practically all the non-smokers who ever lived and if smoking cigarettes were supposedly harmful then Emiliano’s case file could not be true.  Even if we were to hold any skepticism to Emiliano’s word of honor, the next subject of truth is a well establish scientific medical fact which no amount of stupid ignorance should be allowed to deny and it has to do with the fact we’re living organisms and the cells in our bodies are in what's called a steady-cell-turnover-state of always having some cells naturally getting old and dying off while at the same time new cells are always forming to replace the dying old.  Except for keratin structural proteins in our hair and nails and the enamel in our teeth, the rest of our bodies gets replaced with a whole new set of cells after every 3 to 4 months or in other words our bodies comprising of the living cells today will be replaced by the nutrients in the food we eat during the course over the next 3 to 4 months and it is a known medical fact biopsies and autopsies of lung tissue from an ex-smoker who has stopped smoking cigarettes for at least 3 to 4 months is always absolutely indistinguishable from the lung tissue of someone who has never smoked at all.  It doesn't matter if an ex-smoker had smoked cigarettes for 76 years, as long as that person stops smoking cigarettes for 3 to 4 months there's absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever in their lung tissue biopsies or autopsies to suggest that person had ever smoked cigarettes at all.  This, in itself, proves how harmless it is to smoke cigarettes but there’s other proofs too providing one is willing to agree the next subject of truth is also true which dispels the myth about passive smoking being harmful to non-smokers.  I don’t recall which group it was from some years ago but I have no reason to doubt their experimental results when they measured out just how many molecules of passive cigarette smoke does a non-smoker inhale during the course of a year while living in the same household as a cigarette smoker.  Their one-year experiment results concluded the amount of captured molecules from passive cigarette smoke is the equivalent of 11/2 cigarettes per year, which if you think about it, sounds about right to me.  In other words a non-smoker exposed to passive cigarette smoke every day for a year is the harmless equivalent of smoking only 11/2 cigarette per year and yet sadly amusing to note there are a lot of psychotic people among us today who are absolutely convinced and near petrified in our belief we can somehow die from passively inhaling any cigarette smoke even though the healthy person standing next to them is typically having fun puffing away 7,300 cigarettes per year without showing any signs of dying.  Our propaganda of passive cigarette smoke as supposedly somehow being deadly harmful is not the only induced psychosis of superstitious prophetic death we tend to believe in without questioning.  Some psychoses are just blown way out of proportion such as the metals lead and mercury.  One needs to have a very excessive amount of lead in the body before it’s close to anywhere being harmful.  In Hawaii fishing is a given and so is the use and handling of lead fishing weights and I don’t know nor heard of anyone who has ever died or gotten sick from handing lead fishing weights.  And as for mercury, one needs to be inhaling an excessive amount of fumes such as in the early methods of extracting mercury from ore but simply touching it won’t hurt nor kill anyone.  There are still some of us of my generation who well remembers the old days prior to all this new propaganda when it was fairly common to see mercury in science intermediate and high school classrooms and I think it’s fair to say practically all or near all of us back then knew of a student or two who stole a little mercury to take home to play with and to share with their friends.  One of the common things we used to do whenever we could get our hands on some mercury was to rub it onto a silver dime to make the dime look super shiny as if it had been mercury-plated and it made the dime feel silky smooth to the touch although the shininess turned ugly after a couple days.  By the way, no one can realistically tell if you’re ill or dying without you being the first person on earth to know about it first ahead of time before all others in the world would know about it secondarily from you because all others are limited in nature to only finding out secondarily, that is except for those case files involving secret poisoning unknownst to the recipients for instance more than once I’ve heard the perfect murder is sometimes committed by a spouse who slowly poisons their mates over months and/or years until their mate’s immune system finally shuts down but until then every few or several months the intended recipient takes oddly ill and is often misdiagnosed with simply having an extra bad case of the flu and by the time they come back to the emergency room for the umpteenth time with the same undiagnosed etiology, the patient gets written off as dying from a cold or flu or pneumonia, etcetera, but rarely gets charted as death by poisoning and that’s a classic example of the perfect murder especially in spouses who patiently takes their time over a matter of years instead of rushing suspicious months so that the 5th visit or 10th visit, etcetera, to the emergency room for the seemingly same routine draws no suspicion at all since the patient is already known for multiple comings and goings in and out of the emergency room over the course of 1, 2, or 3 or more years.  Interesting to note whenever someone eats, ingests, consumes or drinks something in nature while in the wilds of the jungles and/or woodlands and starts to experience any adverse toxic poisonous effects including upset stomach, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, difficulty in urinating [and if sustained leads to buildup of bodily toxins which soon saturates spinal cord hence compromising nervous system as well as continuously over-taxing immune system to always be working overtime], blurry eyesight, excessive dry mouth, loss of taste, slurred speech, impaired motor control, difficulty breathing, anxiety, restlessness, rash, headache, etcetera, practically all of us have the decent common sanity to stop eating the darn poison whenever we happen to be among the wilds whereas many of us behave quite differently within the illusionary safe confines of civilization.  But as I was saying, cigarette smokers are generally as healthy as the next person and we can't tell any difference between a healthy smoker versus a healthy non-smoker unless we happen to ask them or see them smoking, much like how airline ticket agents used to need to ask of passengers in order to find out because it’s impossible to tell who’s a smoker and who’s not since we all appear equally as healthy as the next?  Hypothetically speaking, if a typical smoker in the streets hands their lit cigarette to a non-smoker to hold temporarily for just a brief moment, any folks who then turns a corner and who are not acquainted with the smoker and non-smoker, the on-lookers would not be able to tell that the person who’s not holding the cigarette is supposedly dying from smoking cigarettes but our propaganda would lead many on-lookers to believe the person holding the cigarette is somehow dying even though everyone can see with their own eyes the smoker and non-smoker looks equally as healthy as the next healthy person.  This is not the only example of where most of us refuse to believe our own eyes in lieu of adopting our giving propaganda even when it defies all observable physical evidence.  If we took a hypothetical survey and asked people if they know or ever heard of someone going to an emergency room and/or being admitted into a hospital for injuries sustained in an automobile accident practically everyone is likely to answer in the affirmative but if we were to ask if anyone knows of someone who had to be admitted into the emergency room and/or hospital just because someone happened to be a cigarette smoker, no one can honestly say they know of any such case file.  There is not a single emergency room medical chart which says a patient entered the emergency room because the patient is cigarette smoker and was somehow dying from smoking cigarettes.  In stark contrast to Emiliano’s case file there is no way anyone, not even the healthiest person in the world could ever survive 76 years worth of daily routine consumption of our pharmaceutical medications’ toxic side effects and still manage to live anywhere near that long, much less out-survive every non-smoker on earth who knew the person since their birth.  The psychosis about cigarettes being dangerous is the irrational equivalent of comparing it to someone who drinks a can of beer a day for a year or 365 cans of beer per year and still survives with no evidence of dying, but yet meanwhile another person is all in a panic uproar because that person is convinced from our propaganda that they themselves can die if they somehow sipped less than 11/2 cans of beer over the course of a year.  Thanks to our great invention of propaganda so much of our society at large is so often sadly psychotic with so many psychoses in so many ways towards wonderfully constraining global breeding rate to avoid cannibalism.  If you can agree Emiliano’s story is true and further agree we’re living organisms with a steady-cell-turnover-state plus agree passive smoking is the typical harmless equivalent of smoking around 11/2 cigarettes per year and also agree there’s no emergency room chart declaring any patient has ever been admitted and died only from being a cigarette smoker not to mention no etiologies and no known cures despite 2,000 years of accumulated modern medical know-how [we’ve known practically every REAL disease to exist on earth for probably at the very least hundreds of years already as well as their etiologies, cures and/or containment.] then you should be able to agree our current propaganda regarding the supposedly so-called imaginary deadly dangers of smoking cigarettes cannot be true.  Case in point, our global propaganda dictionaries also prevalently teaches us an invisible holy ghost is somehow supposedly real but is it at all 100% honest or 100% misleading information albeit again all for a good secretive sane purpose?   More Headlines: Oldest Man Turns 115 in Puerto Rico. (www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2006082200409.html)  Tuesday, August 22, 2006; 8:44 AM.  Isabela, Puerto Rico -- The world's oldest person celebrated his 115th birthday Monday, offering advice on healthy living at a party where he was serenaded by a well-known Puerto Rican singer.  Emiliano Mercado del Toro, who was a boy when the United States seized Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898, attributed his long life to a healthy diet and avoiding alcohol.  Emiliano Mercado Del Toro combs his hair at his home in Isabela, Puerto Rico, Monday, Aug. 21, 2006. Mercado, born on Aug. 21, 1891, and certified the oldest man in the world by the Guinness Book of World Records is also the oldest living veteran. He didn't see action because, called up in 1918, he was two months into U.S. Army training when World War I ended Nov. 11, 1918. He was married three times but never had children.  Emiliano Mercado Del Toro combs his hair at his home in Isabela, Puerto Rico, Monday, Aug. 21, 2006. Mercado, born on Aug. 21, 1891, and certified the oldest man in the world by the Guinness Book of World Records is also the oldest living veteran. He didn't see action because, called up in 1918, he was two months into U.S. Army training when World War I ended Nov. 11, 1918. He was married three times but never had children.  "I never damaged my body with liquor," said Mercado, who quit a 76-year smoking habit when he was 90.  Mercado was declared the world's oldest person by the Guinness Book of Records last year.  "I never thought I would last so long," he said.  An ambulance carried him to an outdoor plaza where family, friends and the mayor gathered for the party. His favorite performer, Iris Chacon, crooned a birthday tune set to mariachi music.  "I feel happy," said the wheelchair-bound Mercado, who has difficulty hearing and has been blind for four years. He lives with a niece in the northwestern coastal town of Isabela.  Mercado was recruited into the U.S. army in 1918, during the last months of World War I. He was still in training when the war ended in November of that year.  As a young man, Mercado said he worked for 50 cents a day driving animals loaded with sugar cane to processing centers.  The mayor of Isabela, Charlie Delgado, said a residence for the elderly would be named for Mercado in honor of a man who "ate healthy, had no major vices and who has put this island on the world stage."  Guinness had recognized another Puerto Rican as being the world's oldest person. Ramona Trinidad Iglesias Jordan died May 29, 2004, after a bout with pneumonia. She was 114.  [The really bad part with cigarette tobacco is the smoke still stinks too much.]

But it’s good examples like Emiliano who makes it worthwhile repeating there is no such thing as malignant cancer and no honest scientific evidence of any lung cancer I know of to exist and are ‘believed’ to have no etiologies and no cures but is only ‘known’ from the hearsay of our big giant global propaganda pill or two.

SECTION 27.  JUNGLE LAW:
We tend to believe things not-so-much because we want to believe in something but primarily because we want to fit in socially as a harmonious component of a social group.  As with the majority of our animal cousins we are a family species born unto a family unity consisting of more than just one person and our DNA is dominant-specific for us to be social creatures to ensure preservation of our family species whereas a newborn infant who’s abandoned to fend on her or his own is just as good as dead.  Some family species are born as loners but we humans are the herd type species where the vast major percentage of us need to live in a social culture as opposed to the comparatively smaller percentage of us who may prefer a reclusive or semi-reclusive lifestyle.  Our ancestors evolved from a hunter-gather lifestyle and gradually towards a farming lifestyle and it was this agricultural transformation which permitted civilizations to evolve and exist in contrast to when our family species were still living all as nomads, however, the concept ‘civilization’ is blown so way out of proportion that most of us live through our entire lives and die without ever realizing that in the real world we evolved on a wild jungle planet with wide assortments of potential deadly dangers lurking practically anywhere and that has never changed or in other words the word civilization is an abstract concept whereas in the real world there’s only jungle law to actually exist while human-made laws are make-believe.  Our family species is adept when it comes to home protection to the magnitude of creating large cities scattered all over the planet which presents the illusion of safety within the walls of a civilized society as compared to living out in the wilds, so-to-speak, where risk of danger may either be less or greater depending upon where a person wanders off to but at least within a civilized society we abide by human laws and live much safer compared to being outside wandering among nature where laws of the jungle prevails like it always has been.  It’s been said, when in the ‘wilds’, cheating is the best strategy, and that’s exactly what our ancestors did when they took full advantage in the engineering of our psych-System for optimum effectiveness to achieve path of less resistance in order to attain mindless subliminal cooperation from their descendents in the prevention of global overpopulation and part of it has to do with believing in the illusion most of us live safely within the aura of civilized society protected from the unfair and deadly jungle laws of nature, or so most of us only think so.  All other animals except for humans animals pays attention to danger nearly 24-7 and they do not drop their guard down because nearly all animals are sane enough to be cognitively aware this planet is a very dangerous place to be and their survival senses are always on the alert for danger whereas humans tend to drop our guard down and we rarely utilize our real animal instincts and whenever we do it’s usually momentarily, for instance, whenever someone discovers a poisonous snake had somehow managed to sneak into a home and that’s when everybody’s alertness skyrockets but otherwise nearly all of the time we humans relax as if life hardly has any dangers to it, or so some of us mistakenly think so.  In the real world jungle law still rules supreme over any and all human-made laws and so-called ‘civilization’ is just another illusion we believe in without questioning whether it truly exists or not.  The bulk of civilized citizens live rather shielded from the harsh realities which are associated with the “street scene” or the “street life” which is also connotated with ‘skid-row’ and known for its poverty, drugs, violence, street prostitution and other illegal activities which attracts our criminal element.  Hypothetically speaking, if a person should decide to temporarily leave their home for a month or two to experiment and go live out in the streets to see what it’s like from first-hand experience to survive as a homeless street-person 24-7 in any skid-row district of any major city and they’ll soon enough realize it’s jungle law that’s real and precedes imaginary human laws and it has ruled supreme everywhere this whole time and this has never changed and yet most of think in terms of the abstract world where we as a civilized society are greatly protected from jungle laws, or so we think.

SECTION 28.  PSYCH-SYSTEM:
Around 50,000 years ago our modern human ancestors were writing hash marks on cave walls which most likely represented something to them but for the most part our invention of written words only dates back several thousand years ago whereas our psych-System which has been influencing the core destiny of our family species of course pre-dates written history embracing a previous time period which very few people on earth thinks about because our global educational and media propaganda programming primarily feeds us content pertaining to occurrences or events covering only the last several thousand years, …sound familiar?  Similar to how our ancestors’ invention of inducing our bible compilation was designed and intended to stunt the minds of any given populace into accepting the fictitious notion human evolution has only been in existence for no more than around the last 6 thousands years.  [If NOT the anatomy and physiology nursing manual, then I would’ve at least opted to change the final compilation draft to say 10 thousand or maybe even as high as a dozen, but not 6?]  Even our global propaganda media today is primarily concerned with events taking place within our written history era but gives very little attention to what might have been taking place during pre-history era when our psych-System would have been invented, and certainly was invented, to help protect and enhance our family species.  Hybrids make healthier offspring less resistance to diseases and therefore one of our ancestors’ major task was to hybridize the health of our family species while simultaneously maintaining constraints upon our global breeding rate, hence, our global African slavery trade.  Interesting to note our earliest modern family species from around 200,000 years ago consisted only of our African or dark genes bloodlines which means it was most probably our own African blood who first invented human slavery even before our other gene strains may have yet branched off, that is, our Asian or tan genes and our Caucasian or light genes whereas our Polynesians are hybrids of our dark and tan genes.  But likely prior to this was the other question, how do we, out of ugly necessity, manage to cull ourselves in the process to ensure our descendents will end up turning out to be a more humane, intelligent, rational family species?  Suffice to simplify for now, those of us who are more prone into believing without question whatever we’re taught to blindly believe in, is at greater comparative risk to culling ourselves but meanwhile those of us who are more prone to questioning whatever we are told as well as strictly reserving all and any medical interventions solely for emergency room circumstances only as needed with no exceptions and same for dental emergencies only as needed with no exceptions are extremely much more inclined to surviving in producing more sane offspring but hush please don’t tell ‘cause it really is another best kept secret and it’s the typical kind of best kept secret where most or all of the people dearest to you will likely automatically label you crazy and ridicule you in front of your face as well as behind your back including your family, friends, colleagues and society-at-large very much exactly like what happened to Galilei for having shared a sane truth keeping in mind the vast majority of his own given population including his family and social circles he grew up with ended up persecuting, ridiculing, ostracizing and refusing to believe loud-mouth when he tattled a well best kept secret which most people were already psychologically pre-subliminally programmed by our ancestors to reject as true.  Hundreds of years ago it was possible to be socially ridiculed, legally persecuted and publicly branded a criminal heretic or even be given much worse sanctioned punishments including death for speaking a public sane truth and those same essential necessary policy guidelines during our Dark and Middle Ages are all still in good valid effect today only because what’s at stake is the overall protection in the welfare of the future destiny of our entire family species.  This is also the specific cause of how come mental illness has already been deliberately induced upon our family species since way-back-when and how come society is more insane than sane.  No matter how much of a lousy raw deal life has dealt a person, it would’ve been much worse multifold for all of us if not for the loving intervention of our ancestors in creating a psych-System to ensure protection for their descendents long enough until their descendents can take care of themselves without ever outbreeding global food supply.

Our ancestral psych-System is most often simply referred to as The System or sometimes called The Establishment and is comprised of psych-System’s volunteer personnel who upholds the purpose of our ancestral psych-System sometimes knowingly but most often unknowingly since most people don’t even know our ancestral psych-System actually exists in the first place, although not exactly in a 3-dimensional form but rather united consciously in the accumulative cooperative understandings between our ancestors and some their selective descendents who comprehends the good intentions of our ancestors in protecting the true welfare of our entire family species although like I said most of System’s personnel don’t even know they work for their ancestral psych-System.  The psych-System is pure science composed of the accumulated detailed study of nature made-simple fused with all the experiences, ingenuity, wisdom and amassed know-how from our loving ancestors handed down to their descendents generation to generation for tens-of-thousands of years probably since at least around 35 thousand years ago when humans first afforded the luxurious time for inventing art but keep in mind modern humans who thought as cunningly as we do today evolved closer to 200,000 years ago which means our ancestors had around a good 165,000-year-head-start on their descendents by the time our psych-System was even initiated say 35,000 years ago and yet most of us think no further back than around 5 thousand or less years ago as if the universe itself has only existed for several thousand years.  Our previous secretive 195 thousand or so years of influential constraints before written history goes largely unnoticed without much question unless-until upstarts like Hippocrates (circa 460 BC – circa 370 BC), Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC), Galileo (1564 – 1642), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), and etcetera had let the birds fly out of their cages, so-to-speak.  It took a lot of hard work into convincing the majority of humans on earth into believing this world is flat especially after our primitive family species had already long knew for themselves earth’s horizon curvature is of course rounded.  Our ancestral psych-System was doing just fine until Hippocrates, Aristotle and all those other upstarts had to go blab the truth which the majority of humans on earth did not really need to know and wasn’t supposed to know for the overall betterment of our entire family species including for our descendents.  Hippocrates is “known for” having separated superstition from modern medicine.  His student Aristotle and his friends couldn’t keep their darn mouths shut about the world not-being flat.  And we all know about arrogant loud-mouth Galilei who also had another loud-mouth contemporary by the name of William Harvey (1578 – 1657) known as the father of cardiovascular medicine.  Galilei and Harvey were products of the Renaissance period and they lived roughly close to around 2,000 years after the time of Hippocrates and Aristotle.  At the beginnings of our Renaissance our modern medical universities in Europe were still teaching our human circulatory system was same as canines because it had long been taboo to dissect a human cadaver even though it had been 2,000 years since Hippocrates per se took superstition out of our modern medical practice (but not really) and so pre-Renaissance medical students dissected solely on other animals.  And then comes along Galilei and his blasted contemporary William Harvey who had to go and let the cat out of the bag, so-to-speak, and then our whole world finally knew our big secret of how our human circulatory system really works after all, after having been kept such a good long 200,000 year old modern human secret, …and so someone should’ve had a long talk with all their moms:-(

SECTION 29.  BEST KEPT SECRETS:
Next, I want to mention about other best kept secrets.  It’s been said the best kept secrets are those that people reject as true.  It’s a best kept secret there are no such things as invisible ghosts whether it be abstractly deemed evil or holy, as any sane logical mind will always know ghosts, gods and goblins do not, cannot and will never actually exist but yet interesting to note a significant portion of our near-7 billion family species members have been programmed to believe in one or more invisible deities and programmed to automatically reject truths about physical reality although ‘thank-goodness’ (only so-to-speak), today’s world percentage-wise of deity believers is nowhere nearly as bleak as it were during our Dark and Middle Ages when Superstition and State were mostly one and the same and atheism was considered more like heretical treason against the given Establishment.  Although that’s mainly about a deity but if it has to do with invisible ghosts in general, then I concur we are a lot more superstitious family species than we were 50 or a 100 years ago specifically because of television which is perhaps our greatest propaganda tool of all time ever invented and also known as the idiot box.  I forgot exactly who, when and where but it was maybe something like around 50 years ago a college professor had polled his students on their beliefs in ghosts and demons and only a very smaller percentage raised their hands.  30 years later he polled the same question and I think it was vast majority who raised their hands and when he asked them for the source of their information on which they based their beliefs, they all said television.  More than 90% of our global media is in the form of traditional global propaganda largely via subliminal programming which we accept without notice while less than 10% of our global media output is in the form of entertainment although most people believe only 10% is propaganda which only goes to prove our global propaganda is still working just fine. Tens-of-thousands of years ago our entire family species already knew earth is rounded until a time came when most of us believed in the superstition earth is flat, but I further propose once upon a time in evolution all cunning humans were as sane as all other animals and we did not believe in any nonsensical superstitions about any invisible deities nor invisible ghosts until such notions were needed to be implemented and induced upon us for the greater good of our common denominator.  So the question became, how come all the deliberately induced global superstition?  Turns out we are naturally predisposed to outbreeding global food supply if left unchecked therefore out of necessity as a matter of the lesser of either of two inevitable evils, our ancestors chose common sense and induced a psych-System to help constrain our family species’s breeding rate to avoid overpopulation and cannibalism.  It’s so much easier to influence the behavior of any given population by first influencing their minds, and it’s easier to influence their minds by first training them to accept on blind faith any illogical unrealistic notions including teaching our kids santa clause and flying reindeers are supposedly real which helps to set premise for controlling these children’s behavior later on as they go through adulthood.  Realistically speaking, not all 100% but close enough to 100% of all humans who’s ever heard of santa clause started off with believing santa clause and flying reindeers were supposedly real and practically all of us believed in this with the same amount of deepest sincerest conviction as some of us still believe invisible ghost(s) could somehow be supposedly real.  Clinically speaking, a psychosis is the belief in something that is not real such as in having a highly distorted perception of reality or a loss of contact with reality.  Turns out santa clause and invisible ghosts are not the only forms of wide spread induced modern psychoses instilled upon our unsuspecting family species for so is the likes of money, land ownership, paper-marriage, politics and government, pride, faith, music for that matter, and etcetera, for all of these notions and many others which we tend to blindly accept without question on a daily routine basis are based on abstractions which do not exist in physical nature and yet we commonly regard such imaginary notions as supposedly ‘real’ and hardly any of us recognizes these are technically pure make-believe but that’s not to imply abstract concepts are inherently bad or anything, for many abstractions have been quite useful and even the abstract concept of medium-of-exchange called money has had its practical applications although the concept can also be misused and/or abused.  Whenever a dollar bill exchanges hands we perceive physical reality as exchanging money as though money itself could somehow be something real but in the true world of nature what we’re truthful exchanging is usually a combination of natural and synthetic cloth fibers to produce paper with ink on it but we rare think in those realistic terms during monetary negotiations.  And so, what we’re now stuck with today is a world of nearly 7 billion people walking around with our minds most often preoccupied with induced superstitious abstractions without realizing it through no fault of our own as the original intent comes from our ancestors who started this psych-System in the first place albeit out of loving and necessary protection for all of their descendents and if it wasn’t for the loving precautions taken by our ancestors then we would have most certainly suffered repeated cycles of the worse case scenario on earth with cycles of global overpopulation and cycles of world famine many times over by now or in other words thanks to our ancestors we’ve never needed to globally practice cooking our elders in order to nourish the children and this by the way, has also been our primary reason how come throughout human history thus far we’ve cautiously allowed more or less only one-half at a time of the world to prosper while the other half traditionally does not get to prosper although eventually they had gotten their rotation while the other half then fell back into decline again until they had their alternating turn to prosper, and so on.

SECTION 30.  ROBERT S. MENDELSOHN:
When I had first read Dr. Mendelsohn’s book up to hundred pages and understood what he was saying I could only agree with around 75% at the time and was bewildered as to why would he exaggerate 90% whereby making himself sound like he’s talking absurd instead of being more realistic in order to help get his point across but eventually after two full years later I had researched enough to have it finally dawn on me that I was the one who was being so stupidly arrogant to dare think that I, as a mere nurses’ aide, could somehow supposedly know more about our medical establishment more so than Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn even despite my knowing his impressive background who’s a top medical expert who advises to other medical experts.  Interesting to note how Dr. Mendelsohn’s last name just so happens to sound similar to the word medicine to end up being the one who publishes a book with the bold daring title Confessions of a Medical Heretic meant to attract all heretical profiles such as Galilei, Mo Ti, Siddhartha, etcetera.  Dr. Mendelsohn is no doubt our biggest blabber mouth of all time who puts the rest of our rash upstarts all to shame when it comes to who can be the biggest tattle-tale while typically more than 90% of our family species still don’t give a hoot no more than Galilei’s or Mo Ti’s time, etcetera.  Another best kept secret is how relatively easy it is to cull ourselves openly in plain sight while most people automatically reject it as true because of what we’ve been taught to blindly believe in without questioning it and the bulk of our modern medical practices relies heavily on this very blind faith of our patients.  Prominent and beloved Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn (1926 – 1988), former chairperson of Illinois Medical Licensure Committee, mentions this in his book Confessions of a Medical Heretic as he equated religion to the “Church of Modern Medicine”, and as you already seem to know, Kate, the theme of the Renaissance was/is to question everything we’ve been taught to blindly believe in and not accept anything on blind faith including any given national propaganda, however, the psych-System as devised by our ancestors is not meant for most people to grasp nor comprehend lest it defeats its own purpose for constraining the breeding rate in protection for all, and likewise for the culling process as most people aren’t supposed to know for good sane reason, albeit an ugly necessary good reason.  To more accurately less-coyly paraphase a popular quotation, if superstition and iatrogenocide had not already been fully implemented then it would have been fully vitally necessary to have invented both of them as priceless temporary tools towards ensuring the future overall well-being of our family species.  In comparison to choosing the lesser over the worst case of two inevitable evils, it’s a no-brainer our ancestors did exactly what they knew needed to be done at-all-cost and therefore I CANNOT AND I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR ANYONE TO TAKE ANY VIOLENT RETALIATORY ACTIONS TOWARDS OUR MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT even if you've been physically injured by our medical profession or if someone dear to you has been a victim of our iatrogenocide, if someone’s been hurt in any way from our medical malpractice and you feel you must at least do something to retaliate in some form or another then I propose you take your chances through the legal court system and even though your chances of winning a court case may sometimes be very slim, every now and then some people do manage to win their court cases but may I please repeat, also bear in mind professional persons including our physicians and especially our female physicians already have a higher than average suicide rate compared to general population, and our psychiatrists understandably hold the highest rate of suicide out of all our medical specialties which is only to be expected or in other words if you are not in our medical profession then you may already consider yourself comparatively luckier to begin with and keep in mind it was either ‘this’ or a worse case scenario on earth for all of us which is how come our ancestors did exactly what they knew needed to be done to prevent a worst case scenario from ever happening in the first place because our overall world’s future is at stake here and therefore if it will help anyone, YOU NEED TO PLEASE RE-DIRECT ALL YOUR ANGER AND CORRECTLY PUT ENTIRE BLAME OF ALL PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE IATROGENOCIDAL CONDUCT SOLELY ON ME FIRST BECAUSE I’M TRULY JUST AS 100% RESPONSIBLY GUILTY AS THE NEXT AND TECHNICALLY MORE, …and i’m so humbly sorry everyone but this is how is it.

SECTION 31.  STREET DRUGS PROHIBITION:
Another variable to our ancestral common denominator is how our global propaganda frowns heavily upon street drug usage even though usage is not the problem but abuse is, just like how the use of liquor is not the problem but alcohol abuse is, and likewise consensual sex is not the problem but making too many babies is.  Both policies work for the common denominator.  Sexual taboos helps to constrain global breeding rate and street drugs makes it more difficult in culling ourselves.  In short order, street drugs makes it more difficult to instill our global propaganda onto any unsuspecting populace and this is the reason how come most places around the world has needed to enforce our Prohibition laws against non-toxic medicinal herbs such as cannabis, cocaine and opium.  In Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn's book he mentions, "Every drug stresses and hurts your body in some way", he, of course, was referring strictly to our pharmaceutical synthesized medications, however, I can think of at least three different natural non-pharmaceutical drugs that are considered to have no toxic effects when they are said to be used in therapeutic dosages.  For instance, although when ingested, natural opium is known to have some degree of unpleasant but still nevertheless NON-fatal gastric side-effects, and also has withdrawal side-effects after habitual use, however, if we don't count addiction or death-by-overdose as a toxic side-effect, then we're talking about natural opium (NOT-pharmaceutical forms of opium) that is considered non-fatal and to have no toxic side-effects.  Opium addicts in otherwise good physical and mental health whose drug needs are met are thought to experience no debilitating physiological effects from their addiction in contrast to our synthesized (i.e., human-made) pharmaceutical medications, ...but speaking of so-called addictive drugs:
DEATHS ATTRIBUTED TO ADDICTIVE DRUGS IN UNITED KINGDOM 1990 to 1995:
1,810 deaths -- BENZODIAZEPINES (Valium, Xanax, Halcion, Ativan, etcetera.)
  676 deaths -- METHADONE (Methadone is a synthesized [i.e., human-made] prescription heroin-substitute.)
291 deaths -- HEROIN (Heroin is synthesized from morphine which is the principal alkaloid derivative of opium.)

It's my educated guess all three figures are likely underestimated.  AND THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY that heroin is safer than methadone, or that methadone is safer than benzodiazepines.  What these figures do suggest is that a lot more people are using benzodiazepines than methadone or heroin even though all three of our human-made synthesized drugs are associated with toxic side-effects including ‘death’ which is viewed, considered, and held within our pharmaceutical perspective as nothing more than another ‘side-effect’.

Another drug usage considered to have no toxic side-effects when smoked in therapeutic dosages is cannabis, that's marijuana.  But as with anything else, too much of anything is not good and an overdose of cannabis is known to cause temporary mild cases of dizziness, vertigo, and even nausea and/or vomiting, and sometimes potentially inhaling improperly can cause a sudden drop in blood pressure commonly referred to as having a euphoric 'rush' which may or may not lead to temporary loss of consciousness, and furthermore, overdosage may also slow down reaction times, therefore as with alcohol, smoking too much to the point of cannabis over-intoxication while driving a vehicle is not a safe thing to do.  Depression after chronic usage of cannabis and even serious depression may or may not result as a withdrawal symptom following discontinuation, however, heavy chronic usage may potentially weaken the immune system just like how heavy chronic usage of any other potent substance eventually taxes the immune system over a persistent period of time but otherwise no deaths I know of has yet to be attributed to any cannabis usage, nor to any cannabis abusage, nor to any cannabis overdosage, but of course I do suspect some fatal car crashes were most likely the result of cannabis over-intoxication.  Most cannabis users agree moderate usage can work well at alleviating symptoms of depression with no toxic side-effects whatsoever.  I further believe chewing unprocessed coca leaves directly off the cocaine plant is also said to have no toxic side-effects either.  Interesting to note how nature makes it so simple for us to germinate 3 seeds into the ground and grow three different kinds of harmless medicinal herbs which have no toxic side-effects and yet all 3 naturally occurring medicinal plants are considered illegal nearly all around the world and such seemingly illogical ‘Prohibition’ only makes logical sense as a variable to our common denominator.

SECTION 32.  CONSPIRACY THEORISTS:
Conspiracy theorists are similar to pseudoscientists and conspiracy theories are abound to the secretive nature of our psych-System and practically all of our conspiracy theorists tend to perceive evil intentions and dire consequences which is understandable since it’s animally intuitive for us to often fear the unknown although that’s only on the surface because their primary objective is actually to make monies off of public fears and public ignorance and no real difference at all than selling over-diluted snake oil as a cure-all remedy to make a quick dollar.  But secondarily our conspiracy theorists may have slightly sensed their family species’ psych-System does function but they don’t know what it is and so they’re naturally inclined for presuming the worse in preparation for the worse, incase the worse of their conspiracy theories happens to come true, whereas it won’t matter in the end if things turn out nicely after all since they don’t need to worry about things turning out nicely but they feel they have justifiable cause for worrying just incase if things could turn out direly for everybody, you know, as in, …just incase, …but like I said money is their ultimate goal here.  Usually their imaginary fears claim to have something against some sort of secret government, or secret organization, or secret family or secret group with supposedly secret political-like ambitions who supposedly wants to rule and control our entire family species for the sake of nothing else but for their own sadistic personal lust for raw power over others, and it’s perfectly okay for our conspiracy theorists to think these fears as long as they continue to keep themselves preoccupied with their own imaginative fears of what they don’t know and/or don’t comprehend, so all the while they’ll continue to detour their minds off of their ancestral psych-System which has been secretly protecting our conspiracy theorists more than they may ever likely know, and little do our frightened conspiracy theorists even realize whenever any such fanatical government, or organization, or group, or family, or individuals seriously tried or tries to secretly pull such a silly covert stunt in any insane secret ambitious lustful quest for sheer personal power and control upon our entire family species, then our fanatics only end up in one way or another being removed from their throne-of-power by our psych-System if and whenever they happen to go too far beyond their usefulness to our ancestral common denominator and over-stay their welcome and at least three and a half such likely psychological profile examples of our 20th century were Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945), 11/2 American Presidents, and an American superstitious pseudoscientist.  Even though Joseph Stalin (1879 – 1953) and Mao-Tse-tung (1893 – 1976) were each responsible for killing millions more people than Adolf ever did, our psych-System had no cause nor need for touching Joseph nor Mao because they never tried to ill-greedily take over the world whereas Adolf is estimated to have killed around 11 million people purely for insane selfish gains, but Joseph around 20 million in secretly helping towards overall protection of family species, and Mao around 50 to 70 million in secretly helping towards overall protection of family species.  And before I describe our 11/2 American Presidents and pseudoscientist I want to make a brief side-mention about one particular serious organization which IS NOT at all a conspiracy group and DOES NOT have any kind of ambitions to conquer the world whatsoever but however since 2004 they’re the only closest thing I know of which is a seemingly radical group of minds called Affordable Housing and Homeless Alliance suspected of secretly attempting to change the world via A Plan to End Chronic Homeless in Hawaii (www.hcdch.state.hi.us/.../homeless_plan05.pdf) which would therefore of course naturally lead further into curing poverty for the rest of our family species as well, but what caught my attention is suspicious Number 8 of their 12 Guiding Principles and for a brief moment I wasn’t sure if we had a whole new ‘nother bunch of Galilei upstart wannabes on our hands to worry about all over again or what to think?  I did read up to their description of Goals #3 in their Plan and everything looks good except for suspicious Guiding Principle #8 which only an emotional arrogant wise**s maverick rebel minded instigator upstart would dare invent and write something so bold like that which has a couple of things not-so-good about it.  Guiding Principle #8 states:  “We refuse to adopt recommendations that merely "manage" rather than solve homelessness and its related problems.”  First of all, Number 8 says it all by outright ‘refusing’ our traditional methods which can only secretly imply one thing, and that’s to change the world by refusing to implement traditional methods generally employed for keeping our world from changing per se, and so everything else mentioned in the Plan is almost like practically no-need to say since #8 essentially states their Plan is secretly to change the world starting with curing homelessness and pretty much says it all.  Secondly, by tradition our psych-System only ‘manages’ problems as opposed to ‘solving’ them lest we defeat the purpose of our ancestral common denominator in constraining global breeding rate.  Thirdly, not only do we have a group intent on secretly attempting to change the world by ‘refusing’ to comply with traditional methods which is a clear sign of rebellious attitudes, but furthermore the plan was going along nicely, politely and courteously but then all of a sudden out of nowhere it turns all angry and huffy-like with #8 which not only outright defies and refuses traditional methods but then it uses quotations marks on the word “manage” and it reminds me of the hostile sassy attitudes some of our local sovereignty movement angry advocates sometimes likes to display/express on public cable access television.  Seems emotions got intense when our author came up with writing #8 and it at least started off being worded nicely like the rest of the Plan until the world “manage” comes along which makes me picture whenever the author is speaking #8 out-loud she or he has to stop and pause just to make sure to use both hands to emphasize the gesture of making quotation marks with their fingers while from-the-hips-up swing side-to-side while sarcastically saying the word “maaaanaaaage” as one would normally do when trying to act flippant, insulting, belligerent and the like.  I’m guessing the honest intent was probably just to emphasize the difference between managing versus solving, however, by using simple apostrophes it would’ve emphasized the point politely whereas the quotation marks sort of subliminally hints at wanting to instigate confrontation or combat.  But fourthly, the worst thing I see in Guiding Principle #8 is the quotation marks should have been on the word “solve” because the pure goal of the Plan is on “SOLVING” or in other words if there’s going to be only one word singled out throughout the whole entire Plan to be emphasized more than any other important word then it should be the world “SOLVE” that gets subliminally blasted into our readers’ minds while the least and last concept to impress with quotation marks into our readers’ minds is the word ‘manage’ since the Plan is primarily addressed to allies which means any hint of ambiguous confrontation in choosing to emphasize ‘manages’ in the syntax of #8 is technically unnecessary except/unless if the primary target readers of the Plan were to have been specific to addressing opponents rather than to alliances but in my opinion opponents aren’t part of the Plan so why even address to them while talking within the Plan if they’re useless to the Plan anyhows, but then that’s just my opinion.  This Alliance group IS DEFINITELY NOT a conspiracy group since their only secret ambition is to help save the world but it still brings us back again to full circle confronting our ancestral common denominator at a time when our reluctant family species as a whole family unit are not willing to change ourselves because more than 90% of us “Have’s” in this world are still ill-greedily wanting more for mainly ourselves first, and then secondly want next for our other “Haves” such as our families, our friends and our colleagues and meanwhile we sure take pride in being good people because we care so much about helping other “Haves” we happen to personally know amongst ourselves but it’s also truly a secret more than 90% of us still don’t give hardly a darn hoot about our global homeless “Have-Nots” as most of our own résumés demonstrate lack of action in helping strangers which always speaks louder volumes than all of our conceited inflated false ego chattering combined, and so then, how else may our family species “maaaanaaaage” to change and save the world? …dere’s only one way how, …wit great difficulty.  

[I need to mention to all our American chronic homeless who have been denied Social Supplemental Income monthly benefits that it’s probably because you failed to specify during your initial application interview with your SSI caseworker you needed a psychological or psychiatric evaluation or else your application gets routinely automatically mis-routed for a medical evaluation performed by our physicians who makes a physiological assessment but it is not within our physicians’ purview for making any psychological nor any psychiatric evaluation recommendations for SSI eligibility and I don’t know of any chronic person-of-the-street who’s ever managed to obtain benefits via an SSI medical evaluation whereas on the other hand our psychologists and psychiatrists have it within their purview for recommending yet-another one of our chronic homeless for SSI eligibility because these mental health specialist will quickly see for themselves yet-another non-conformist chronic homeless street-person who does not possess the mindset to conform to society’s mainstream work-force.  Unfortunately the current  SSI situation is similar to how college counselors won’t utter a word about free Grants whenever a student inquires about financial aid unless the student is the first person to be the first one who mentions the word “Grants” first or of course unless whenever it is easily determined the student is indeed in need of a free Grant such as with our Special Student Services and Division of Vocational Rehabilitation case files.  Specifying a psychological or psychiatric SSI eval is also similar to how some commercial retail businesses usually do not give price discounts unless you should happen to mention it first otherwise do not expect any medical eligibility because serious medical case files are automatically routed to receiving Social Security Disability pension monthly benefits via our hospital social workers during hospitalizations, therefore, please reapply at your convenience by calling your Social Security Administration Toll-Free Phone Number at 1-800-772-1213 (TTY for Hearing-Impaired at 1-800-325-0778) or contact your local Social Security office and please remember after you have been assigned an SSI case worker please make sure to have it specified within your SSI case file folder that you need a psych eval and not a med eval, thank you, …and also just-to-mention, Social Security Administration networks with your Department of Agriculture and your SSI case manager can also help you concurrently apply for both SSI and foodstamps benefits if you so desired but eventually your local State Welfare office will assign you a State Welfare social worker to handle your foodstamps case file separate from your Federal SSI case file; typical average amount of SSI monthly benefits for a single independent living chronic homeless person in 2009 is $674 per month.  I should also mention I knew of two separate case files where both applicants with scam mentalities were denied benefits and they later admitted to me they gave their psych eval doctor a lot of bulls**t nonsense figuring they were going to scam the doctor and scam the System for benefits instead of just telling the truth and so naturally they only ended up getting themselves denied SSI benefits due to the human nature of our doctors blended with plain old karma even though it would be sanely more overall beneficial for everyone if our chronic homeless who have scam mentality were easily allowed to secure themselves a permanent low-income monthly SSI benefits which in turn eases their survival struggle compared to when they have absolutely no reliable steady income at all which only gives them all the more desperate pressures for constantly prey on others in order for them to survival the only way they see fit for themselves and therefore society overall would benefit a lot better with a reduction in crime rate when many of our petty thieving chronic homeless can feel relaxed knowing they won’t need to worry about going hungry on a day to day basis anymore.  We have the modern technology, abundant resources, and available man-power and women-power on earth to solve chronic homelessness but still lack the global mindset of sane compassion, that is, still too much petty emotional karmic managing rather than solving when criminal mentality is of the concern.]

SECTION 33.  RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON:
One of our former American President‘s demise in the 1960’s is self-explanatory but it’s interesting to note the other 1/2 semi-dethroning, so-to-speak, in the 1970’s of Richard Milhous Nixon (1913 – 1994) although Richard was never at all any kind of a crucial circumstance for Richard had no such secret delusions for world domination but his dethroning was still scientifically related.  Both our former American Presidents were both lacking in their sciences and mistakenly believed politics is somehow supposedly more real than science and while our other former President ignored his science Richard on the other hand feared what he failed to comprehend and his imaginative fears drove him into his futile attempt to dismantling our Presidential Scientific Advisory Committee altogether which is equivalent of trying to ban evolution while keeping only religious politics within governmental classrooms which naturally soon led straight to our Watergate scandal which precipitated his impeachment but then Richard did a great unexpected comeback when he more than immensely made up for his shortcoming by visiting China in a very crucial measure towards formal normalization between our People's Republic of China and our United States of America and it also saved his own public image reputation as well.  But I can only ponder as to how come he went to our China in the first place since he was already known for his anti-communistic-phobia-prejudice standpoints against his own Chinese ancestral secret bloodlines and therefore I would expect our China was one of thee last places on this earth he’d ever want to be caught dead touching with a ten-foot-pole while wearing anti-bacterial gloves on but little did he realize he was always secretly already technically on Chinese soil the whole time because it was his Chinese side of Richard’s ancestral bloodlines who invented our make-believe notion of land ownership in the first place and they had already claimed home-earth eons ago as another variable for our ancestral common denominator and have been secretly owning earth by way of original verbal contracts for tens-of-thousands of years already, that is, aside from this latest new popular superstitious fad I hear they call “a written contract” which was recently invented but in the real world verbal contracts still secretly precedes and stands more true than any written contract purely because the original verbal contracts are the original first honest standing contracts to begin with but then again this is another well best kept family secret.  Our typical modern day purchasing of land ownership in America involves purchasing title insurance which involves a time-consuming methodical and systematic searching through paperwork records involving land title deeds and other pertinent written documentations.  A person called an “Abstractor” or “Title Searcher” primarily searches through written records for determining who may or may not represent to be the true legal owner of land property.  Complications may arise when two or more parties show equal validity to their claims whether by previous honest misunderstandings or by previous treachery through no fault of their own which eventually leads to having to make the best honest weighed-out sound decision as to who should get to legally own a land property versus who may not?  People purchase land title insurance for the purpose of protecting themselves from possible future claims against a legal owner by having a whole big industry we call our title insurance business to back up the entitlement of property of someone who has purchased our title insurance even though we know it’s physically impossible to own land but that’s besides the point for now.  The abstract concept of ‘insurance’ whether it be for land titles, or home insurance, or automobiles, they’re all based on having peace-of-mind incase of a bad event which is not supposed to happen and is not likely going to happen but just incase it does happen, and when it mostly turns out nothing happens and particularly in the case of automobile insurance, most people pay every year for something that’s not likely to happen, and then pay all over again for a fresh new year of insurance coverage, for something that’s still not likely to happen for most of us anyways.  That makes as much stupid insane sense if we tried to enforce mandatory annual domestic insurance coverage on everyone incase of the unlikely event a family member happens to injure another family member, but if no family member gets hurts, then our domestic insurance company would get to keep all the profits free and clear while forcing everyone to pay for another whole new year of domestic insurance coverage all over again incase a family member abuses another family member, and if people didn’t pay for the mandatory domestic insurance coverage then they’d be branded as criminals just like how we already insanely do whenever some is caught driving without mandatory automobile insurance.  [The overall concept of ‘insurance’ is similarly based on the scam type of principle as to how come only 2 and not all 50 American States still have the decency to ban State lotteries because they know lotteries are nothing more than a State sanctioned scam initiated purely out of ill-greed where a few intended victims may or may not come out perhaps lucky winners to a comparatively small degree while vast majority of victims loses out completely, that is, except for the ‘house’ who runs the lottery scams and always profits most of the scam loot to whomever’s running our lottery and casino scams.  One easy way to tell who’s surely inflicted with ill-greed within our political arenas are those of us who have always been strong advocates for State lotteries and for legalizing other forms of State gambling despite knowing it always sky-rockets the number of their given homelessness population as well as destroy lives and relationships for the sake of a small percentage of those of us to rake in the scam loot as long as we run the house to begin with.  The word ‘gambling’ is a sly, tricky, misleading misnomer where in physical reality it’s purely identically synonymous with the word ‘scam’ and much worse and much trickier than the word ‘atheist’.  Whenever people think to themselves, “I’m going to have fun gambling and hopefully win lots of money”, but what they’re physically describing in reality is the truthful equivalence of thinking, “I’m going to get scammed out of my money without realizing I’m being scammed because I’m so oblivious the word gambling is identically synonymous to being scammed.”  Many of us may realize the sidewalk 3-card monte scams outside of casinos is a scam but we still go inside our casinos to get scammed even worse, for instance aside from choosing the red or black colors on roulette wheels which gives a little less than 50% odds of winning, most casino scam games give very little odds of less than 15% to 5% chances of so-called winning casino scams compared to the consistent 33% odds of winning at sidewalk 3-card monte scams.  In other words gambling is a scam and the best way to guarantee winning at gambling is by always being the ‘house casino’ instead of being one of the victims to the ‘house’ or else it makes absolutely no sane sense to get involved with anything which has to do with the word ‘gambling’ if you’re not the one who’s initiating the scam in the first place same as with any other scam.  The illusion of gambling is really no different than people believing snake charmers are supposedly immune to venomous snake bites and perform magic, that is, in either scenario people are so naively thrilled in repeatedly getting scammed while plain too ignorant to know the difference which is pretty much the same thing as with any snake charmers’ hypnotically captured audiences who aren’t aware it’s a scam because they’re minds are heavily engaged in something perceived as fun and wonderful and willing to pay again just to see it again to get scammed some more.  Only Hawaii and Utah prohibits State gambling, so why is that?  And what does that make our United States look like in front of the rest of our family species besides having lack of control over our own ill-greed when it comes to publicly and legally scamming our own American citizens in broad daylight for all the world to see?]  

…But as I was saying about insurance, having insurance only incase of after-the-fact’ is equivalent to insanely relying on band-aid solutions ‘after’ fatalities occur rather than fix the problem with prevention every-which-way but in all due fairness at least these kinds of abstractions do help to keep our minds detoured away from physical reality which is a good thing in its own ancestral right towards serving containment of global breeding rate.  Most Americans I know of gladly put up with the concept of mandatory no-fault automobile insurance without questioning any of our propaganda no more than our family species questioned our propaganda during the first half of 20th century when our family species suffered the worse global war propagandas encompassing two world wars and our former President Nixon grew up in a particular time span when blind anti-communistic fears were heavily instilled into the psyche of our American populace and so Richard was merely being a product of his own generation but who also happened to personally neglect and feared his sciences otherwise he’d’ve already likely known that his own Chinese ancestors never had any need to conquered the world because his Chinese ancestors already owned earth by way of verbal contractual agreements a long time ago and therefore has never had any need nor crazy desire to so-called conquer what they already secretly own in the first place and it’s no coincidence major cities around the world usually have a downtown business district area commonly called Chinatown.  The problem was never about so-called conquering the world but rather our Chinese ancestors went through great lengths in suppressing 3 major Chinese secrets from escaping out of our China and leaking out into the rest of our family species encompassing more than a thousand year span of successfully keeping important knowledge from escaping and spreading too soon when our global breeding is still nowhere near voluntary 2-offspring-per-individual stability.

SECTION 34.  FRANCIS BACON:
The first famous English scientist of the name Francis Bacon (1220-1292) was a Franciscan monk who stressed the importance of experimentation, also first showed air is required for combustion and first used lenses to correct vision.  Our second famous (unrelated to the first) English scientist named Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) is regarded as our father of modern scientific method and precursor of our British empiricism who advocated inductive reasoning and wrote in 1620, quote: “It is well to observe the force and virtue and consequences of discoveries.  These are to be seen nowhere more conspicuously than in those three which were unknown to the [Chinese] ancients, and of which the origin, though recent, is obscure and inglorious; namely, gunpowder [circa 156-87 BC], printing [circa 220 – 868 AD], and the magnet [4th century BC hence compass circa 1040 – 1044 AD].  For these three have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world, the first in literature, the second in warfare, the third in navigation; whence have followed innumerable changes; insomuch that no empire, no sect, no star, seems to have exerted greater power and influence in human affairs than these mechanical discoveries“, unquote.  Chinese proverbial contract stipulates we may disagree on everything else except we must always agree on one thing, that the first to touch the other in anger is the first to lose our wisdom and so I’m wondering if maybe our former President Nixon’s visit to his China was random to concur same time anyhows when somebody needed to finally go make the visit to China anyways and so maybe it was Richard’s salt-rubbed-into-his-wound so-to-speak but I don’t really know or else why would he go and why else would we end up choosing the one who probably hated his Chinese cousins guts the most, be the one who’s sent to make best friends with his Chinese cousins, …why?

SECTION 35.  PSEUDOSCIENTISTS:
And meanwhile in our 1980’s an American superstitious pseudoscientist expecting to take charge of everything from putting out his clandestine ’call-to-arms’ to all of our world’s top superstitious pseudoscientists in their delusional hopeful intent to secretly overthrow our global military-industrial complex either at least for money that’s for darn sure, or maybe also for a false sense of power or maybe also to abandon home-earth or maybe for all three reasons and it’s folks like this idiotic bunch of clowns who gives the rest of our family species an embarrassingly bad, bad name just shy of borderline criminally insane because first of all nobody can ever take control over our family species because our ancestral psych-System won’t ever allow it.  No person nor group can ever control the world because the most our ancestral psych-System will permit anyone or any group to do is to only let people help change the world but never to take it over because that’s just plain stupid crazy and physically impossible and so our nincompoop society of ‘phoney-know-it-alls’ were quickly reduced to nothing more than selling comic books on street corners and believe it or not as of October 2009 our clowns still act like they have no clue whatsoever our psych-System caught on to them from Day-1 as if they’re still waiting today and hoping for another new fake charismatic leader to arise and replace their old leader and still get to lead them all-over-astray once again as if they actually still believe they can selfishly exploit our entire family species for their own personal selfish gain and still get to go reap the profits and party on mars all by themselves, as if?  Whether it be three thousand years ago, or two thousand, or a thousand or 500 years ago, or even last week and yesterday, our family species has already possessed on hand all the readily sufficient technology, resources and manpower available all of this whole time to end world hunger and cure and fix whatever else ails this forsaken planet at any given time within our last few to several thousand years but our family species still haven’t evolved the sane mature compassionate mindset for it because our vast majority of our educated labor and skilled forces still thinks, talks and complains so much more of wanting more monies for doing less work or do less playing as career choices such as entertainers, sports and whatever simple things people do to amuse the simple minds of spectators, and hardly any of us want to spend our time discussing 2-offspring-per-individual and/or much less care about solving any poverty because it’s too much real work and not enough money in it, …well am I right or am I right?  As much as I love our family species I can’t deny the fact I already know from a lifetime of experiences the vast majority of us among the wealthier half our family species are more concerned with gaining more wealth for ourselves and practically no concern about our less fortunate impoverished ‘Have-Nots’ of the world but in all fairness I should add this typical kind of lower brain self-centered selfishness mentality behavior exists in all DNA species including our plant cousins especially them thorny ones, or in other words we are distinct in regards to self-centered selfishness because we are by-far the very best at it and it’s one of our human frailties our ancestors seized on utilizing for their descendents to use against ourselves just like we are do today towards constraining our family species’ breeding rate.  What I’m going to say next doesn’t apply to our pseudoscientists because they are more analogous to parasites than givers but I want to mention many of us are blinded by our inflated false egos into convincing our delusional selves we can merely give money to charities without being involved in doing any real work ourselves because we consider ourselves too high and mighty of a superior caliber human being in comparison to general population and can’t be bothered with getting our own hands soiled from actually helping others less fortunate than ourselves or in other words too many of us are convinced that physically helping other people is always something for other less important people to do and it’s easiest to pretend amongst ourselves that somehow we’re helping by just giving away abstract-medium-of-exchange called monies while continuing to let the real people do all the real work and then hope no one sees right through all of our delusional inflated false egos.  Our American Great Depression of our 1930’s global catastrophe intentionally placed the preceding rapid growing momentum of our prospering American Roaring 20’s uncaring selfish ill-greedy attitudes into a full roaring halt from any further prospering or else our American culture would have continued evolving into a more horribly deeper uglier caste-system the way it was already forming with the increasingly blatant lack of empathy our American ‘Haves’, had for our American ‘Have-Nots’, no more differently than what had already tragically happened in our India whenever we failed to maintain a clean decent perspective while evolving any of our cultures of our family species.  And to the best of my knowledge since our 1980’s our little society of our world’s top poopscientists have still never contributed a single worthwhile iota whatsoever to the practical welfare of our family species, not a single true valuable iota, nada, nil, nothing, zero, zilch, but rather all they’ve ever done is waste their lives away with their silly pompous attitudes stuck high above the clouds while continuously feeding each others inflated false egos by reciting a lot of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo nonsense to impress themselves and each other as well as to falsely impress our nonscientific global populace to rake in moolaMoney.  I haven’t heard nor do I know of any blessed single act of charity our pseudoscientific society ever did, not a one, haven’t even heard from any pseudoscientist expressing words of any practical down-to-earth value.  Everything they do is primarily geared towards feeding their inflated false egos to get monies and yet I can’t think of a single poverty stricken human being who’s life ever became better due to our pseudoscientists, I cannot think of anyone who was ever going hungry and was given life’s sustaining food from our planetpoop society and in fact I trust our nuns to babysit our children but I do not trust our poopscientists around our children.  Interesting to note though, while many of our ghost believers may deny being superstitious there’s also still a considerable many of our ghost believers who will honestly and sanely quickly admit they’re being superstitious whereas on the other hand I don’t know of any pseudoscientist who’s ever been sanely aware they’re superstitious pseudoscientists, as all of them appear to be under their delusions that they think they’re supposedly real scientists as if they actually believe no one is ever sane enough to see right through their facades.  A true scientist is someone who honestly wants to help make the world a better place for everyone and who actually does things in helping our family species whereas in direct contrast a pseudoscientist primarily wants to help themselves in making monies from talking a lot of pseudoscientific useless rhetoric in efforts to make themselves sound important to our nonscientific populace but please don’t get me wrong, for it’s not like it’s all a complete waste because in terms of enhancing our common denominator by helping to stunt the minds and breeding rate of our family species, then that’s a good thing and in fact they sort of function as our pseudoscientific equivalence of how our ancestral common denominator utilizes our tv religious evangelists, same difference.  Even those of us who may entertain for a living as our career choices and who doesn’t do any real work in life because what we do is play, play, play and sometime we even play real hard and then we try to call it working hard but in truth it’s only playing hard and it’s never the same as real work, however, people who play and entertain for a living are at the very least entertaining whereas our parasitic pseudoscientists don’t even have that to offer.  I haven’t known of any single pseudoscientist throughout my entire life who’s ever shown the slightest inkling in any of their psychological profiles they know what they’re doing in life which does explain how come our poopsociety still haven’t disbanded and scrambled and yet the jig was up 30 years ago?  The only evidence we humans have of what’s called black holes in outer-space is nothing more than just obscure photographs taken of very far away distant images of outer-space where no light nor electromagnetic energy photons happened to have reached and hit the photographic films or maybe the films already had faulty smudges coming out of the manufacturers or maybe there were flaws in the developmental processing and procedures of the negatives but either way no one has ever been far away into outer-space to confirm any of their wild speculative pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo nonsense based on looking at obscure photographs of outer-space.  Any wild speculations beyond photographic film evidence becomes merely applicable for our pseudoscientific superstitious propaganda in its modern new form but still not really any different than the days-of-old when we taught earth is flat so our general populace and pseudoscientists would not stray upon reality.  If you were to ask any of our pseudoscientists for a simple 100% straightforward clarifiable proof in any their speculations on black holes or time-warp space continuums or Albert’s silly contradictory equation E=mc(squared), etcetera, they’ll all 100% inevitably end up relying on insisting we must all have blind faith in abstract mathematical postulates as their ultimate proof where upon their impervious belief in someone’s ‘mathematical constant’ or ‘arithmetic rule’ is formidable, unbearing and must be accepted on blind faith without questioning it and all life cannot exist without such a number except that is, until someone else inevitably happens to come up with a better equation for explaining the same darn thing and then our pseudoscientists all quickly convert to worshiping someone else’s new ‘constant’ as the new number to hail which all life supposedly could never exist if it wasn’t for this new number.  No pseudoscientist seems to have any clue Albert technical lied when he suddenly, quickly, abruptly, smoothly, suspiciously and ever-so-nonchalantly changed the rules of algebra and said fractions with zero for a denominator will no longer equal zero and he states he’s changing the value to 1 instead of zero in order to make his formula work and then Albert without missing a beat plows straight into his relativity formulas and it only works out mathematically because he changed a basic algebraic principle where zero denominator becomes equal to 1, unlike all the rest of algebra where the last I heard it’s still equal to zero, and it’s the very exact same identical thing as if Albert could have just as easily had said 1 plus 1 is no longer equal to 2 because it will now equal 3 in order to mathematically prove the existence of special relativity through his unique formulae and I’m sure our pseudoscientists would still completely buy 1 plus 1 equals 3 all hook, line and sinker because that’s exactly what pseudoscientists are good at.  Energy equals mass, period.  If you were to ask a pseudoscientist what does the ‘c’ in Albert’s E=mc(squared) equation stand for, they’ll quickly acknowledge it represents the speed of light, but then when you point out to them that if Albert says nothing can travel faster than speed of light then how can mass be traveling many, many times more the speed of light as in the c(squared) part of Albert’s equation?  The typical idiotic pseudoscientific evasive ploy is always to then immediately change the subject and reply, “Oh, Albert didn’t really mean the speed of light after all, what he really meant was…”, and then our poopscientists automatically start reciting mumbo-jumbo pseudoscientific abstract mathematical theories and formulae equations which half the time they themselves don’t even know of what the heck they’re talking about because their primarily belief system is based on their blind faith of hoping nobody sees right through all of their inflated false ego double-talk pseudoscientific gibberish, …I’ve heard that same stupid idiotic scratched record skip so many times they need to get DVD.

SECTION 36.  TRUTH BE TOLD:
Any propaganda on the silly notion that supposedly nothing in nature can travel faster than the speed of light originates from Albert Einstein’s make-believe theories on relativity because Albert comprehended the traditional propaganda intent of our psych-System towards containment of populations for the sake of constraining breeding rate and so Albert devised his theories to counteract Sir Isaac Newton’s 3 Laws of Inertia to help discouraged our family species from notions of wandering off beyond earth’s atmosphere and it’s the same difference as convincing family species world is flat-center of universe so as to discourage people from thinking of going anywheres by convincing populaces it’s impossible and/or futile to go anywheres and so why even bother to think about it?  Albert’s theories violates Newton’s 3 laws of inertia plus violates an algebraic principle therefore violating the laws of physics in order to blindly believe nothing can go faster than the speed of light and yet our pseudoscientists are famous for preaching the reversal of what’s true by saying it would violate Albert’s theories as well as violate the laws of physics if anything went faster than the speed of light, however, I whole-heartedly agree with Newton’s 3 Laws of Motion which clearly implies there’s no speed limit in nature and Albert already secretly knew this the whole time, too:
     1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
     2. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors and the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.
     3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Furthermore, since a beam of light tends to travel at a constant speed when in a virtual vacuum, it means although it’s currently unrealistically possible to build a spacecraft which can travel beyond the speed of light but it’s still hypothetically feasible to think our descendents may or may not possibly someday by the year 100-million AD have built a fast enough spacecraft which collects and keeps utilizing available fuel resources to eventually attain a speed faster than the speed of light by one mile an hour faster and hypothetically be possible to synchronize the activation of a directional beam of light simultaneously from a stationary object upon reaching and passing the source of the stationary light switch and we should have no problem seeing what the front tip of the light beam looks like while the directional light beam is traveling at its terminal velocity as the spacecraft passes the light switch at speed of light plus the 1 mile-per-hour speed faster.  Some pseudoscientists also like to try and impress people by saying human ‘teleportation’ as portrayed in movies and television could someday be a reality but that’s ridiculous because ‘teleportation’ of living things can never be possible because we’ll never be able to out-do and out-perform 3.5 billion years of evolution’s headstart on creation of life itself and any stupid futile hopes of somehow figuring out how to burn and vaporize a live person while capturing all the different forms of energies including the smoke, the fire, the radiant heat energy, the light energy, the ashes, and the etcetera, and then somehow manage to realistically squeeze these different forms of converted non-living forms of energies all back together to make the person come back to life again, it’s never going to happen because not absolutely everything in science-fiction is destined to become science which is how come we call it science-fiction and that’s exactly what teleportation is all about which is vaporizing living cells into non-living different forms of energy and then zap it all back alive again.  But anyhows, Albert secretly knew his relativity theories was just his own nonsensical modern version of teaching earth is flat-motionless while his secret intent was always to detour general populace and pseudoscientists away from real science and away from reality to help keep our ancestral psych-System safe for all concern, …hmmm?  Well I’m just taking a wild guess here but it is not going to surprise me any if we later find out by the time our future descendents can finally afford to go play in outer-space we’ll already know which specific bunch of unfortunate direct pseudoscientific descendents deserves to play last as punishment from no fault of their own but only so as to discourage anymore of this assort pseudoscientific foolery from ever happening again.  Some people are so lucky our psych-System has gentled out with age because if we were still in our Dark or Middle Ages then I seriously doubt any of our lucky pseudoscientists would even be allowed to have descendents who could possibly risk giving our family species moreover a bad name.  A sure sign of a pseudoscientist is someone who eagerly lies and tries to pretend as if black holes, space-time warp, worm holes and Albert’s equation are all supposedly real and they want everyone to accept divine numerology on blind irrational faith the same way they themselves blindly believe in pseudoscience without questioning it and yet somehow these very same pseudoscientists still manage to have this unbelievable uncanny audacity to dare think amongst themselves they are somehow supposedly anywhere near the top of the food chain but then how’s that for a smack dab of sweet irony?  Our fake charismatic psuedoscientist had publicly advertised his childish and not-so-surreptitious clandestine anagram “COM-SOS” call for pseudoscientific unification under his fake charismatic leadership thinking he’s going to secretly take personal charge over our entire family species so supposedly he and his faithful poopscience cohorts could ditch the rest of our family species behind to rot on earth while they get to go play on mars all for themselves while earth be damned, well not actually really be damned of course because that’s not really a very nice polite thing to say but only so-to-speak dammit, and how do we know all of this?  First of all I knew within the first minute of the very first time I had happened to have seen our pseudoscientist lunatic on television while I was channel surfing and I could easily tell he was secretly attempting to take over the world because he had it clearly written all over his psychological profile every-which-way including speech and body language.  2ndly, he was a pseudoscientist pushing superstition to feed his inflated false ego while stuffing his pockets with monies whereas real scientists are humble and don’t do that.  And 3rdly, it’s been 3 decades since they’ve gathered under his pseudoscientific umbrella and yet our society of poopscientists have still done absolutely nothing except like I mentioned earlier the equivalence of selling comic books and always asking for donations so they can continue to be useless and continue to give our family species a bad name.  These are most definitely not the kinds of psychological career profiles suggestive of any earthly compassionate empathy for our family species but rather strongly indicative they had full secret deliberate delusional intentions on abandoning earth and treating just themselves to high-tech luxury on mars figuring their overblown false egos would easily suffice to take them to the moon and beyond.  But Mars is not going anywhere and it is still going to be there no matter how long it takes for our family species to first get sanely organized here on earth first.  As for outer-space in general, well that’s going to be there for a very long time too and there’s absolutely nothing in outer space of any practical value for here on earth for the one big sane reason all of our problems and all of our solutions are located all right here on earth and not in outer-space and if any solutions were miraculously out there it wouldn’t be of any practical use nor of any practical value for here on earth since it would be way out there somewhere else in outer-space.  As for other life forms to be discovered in outer-space, here’s the sane facts, our universe is so expansive there’s likely more than a 99% certainty other life forms in outer-space evolved at one time or another however the odds of ever meeting other life forms is practically zero in ever encountering each other because of the very enormity in the distances involved as well as the intrinsic gaps within evolutionary motion.  I don’t recall who said this but the best place in our entire known universe with the best chances for discovering other intelligent life forms anywhere close to resembling our own image is right here on earth and the odds of finding them concurrently here on earth is zero despite the millions of life forms we already have right here on earth and the odds of us meeting similar intelligent life forms in outer-space is even so much more greater odds than finding any here on earth.  And as far as human space travel is concerned, well guess what, earth is already our very best planetary spaceship we could ever luckily hope to find and we are already traveling through outer-space.  Soon after our foolish pseudoscientist went public with his pseudoscience book and tv series he predicably got paranoid and hid from public view and eventually was soon enough permanently removed in due course by our common denominator because our ancestral psych-System was created for the welfare benefit for our entire family species as a whole single family unit and certainly not-ever and never for the personal secret gains of any individual’s super-inflated self-infatuated insane delusional false ego like Adolf Hitler nor for any particular single-minded superstitious group mindless enough to think they could ever compete and/or hide from their own scientific ancestral psych-System that’s tens-of-thousands of years in our making but oh well, live and learn, …but that does not mean anyone cannot tinker with toys to keep ourselves preoccupied to staying out of trouble but it clearly means no one should leave home-earth until we are all done here and therefore I sanely recommend OUR FAMILY SPECIES AUTHORIZES NO PERSON BEYOND EARTH’S TROPOSPHERE (which is where our planes and jets already fly within limited heights), UNTIL AFTER OUR FAMILY SPECIES HAVE FIRST STABILIZED OUR GLOBAL BREEDING RATE TO AUTOMATICALLY ERADICATE WORLD POVERTY and no one over the age of 5 years old should ever be allowed to dare of even thinking secretly of going out to play in outer-space without all the rest of us, not when we adults have real work to do right here on earth as top protocol for ‘everything’.

SECTION 37.  CONCLUSION:
Here’s the crux of it, Kate, our global population count is currently increasing at the approximate rate of a few new babies per second and our psych-System cannot afford to shut down our ancestral common denominator until our family species evolves to the level of consciousness when it is common earth sanity to voluntarily strive in stabilizing world population breeding rate to a virtual zero-per-second due to having 2-offspring-per-individual thus rendering denominator obsolete but till then and until any further information becomes appropriately available everyone please, there’s no reason to quit our day-jobs so please stay respectfully as-we-were right now because patience is truly a virtue while sadly for others ignorance most often remains a bliss.

Mahalo Family Species and Aloha from Hawaii,

michael


Dr.h.c. Michael Tsark, NA
Mental Health Advocate
Volunteer Street Outreach Counselor-Consultant
Certified Nurses’ Aide Volunteer
Certified Hospice Volunteer
Volunteer Owner / Volunteer Chief Information Officer
dba your WORLD EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM SM
(Esoteric honoris causa doctorate from American Association for the Advancement of Science, April 9, 1991)


Postal photocopies previously mailed to:

●  Senior Detective Alan Oku
    Senior Investigator
    State of Hawaii
    Department of Public Safety
    Honolulu Police Department
    Criminal Intelligence Unit
    801 South Beretania Street
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-2501

●  Chief Mike Gonzalez
    Chief Security Officer
    Hawaiian Electric Company, Incorporated
    900 Richards Street
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-2919

●  Dr.h.c. Michael Tsark, NA
    Care of: General Delivery  
    Tacoma, Washington 98402-9998
    San Francisco, California 94105-9602


SECTION 38.  MISSING PERSON REPORT:
Secretive atheistic woman named Maia last seen autumn of 1979 vacationing Hawaii; Now approximately 67 years of age and does not believe in paper-marriages; Proximate date of birth 1942 December 25 (unless other common holiday?); Half (more phenotype) American Indian and half Caucasian; At the time Maia came from California perhaps Boulder Creek (?) or Boulder Rock (?); Maia’s family and friends mostly knows Maia by the first and last name Maia commonly uses and when pronouncing both of Maia’s names it sounds a lot like repeating Maia’s first name twice in a row as in “Maia-Maia” but last name was spelled different like Maier, or perhaps Maiya, or maybe Mayia, or Meiyer, Mayia, Maiyer, Mayier, Meiyer, etcetera, however, Maia did also mention it was not Maia’s real last birth name but rather a derivative of Maia’s real last name most people knows Maia by.  30 years ago I had suddenly cut short the last 24 hours of our intimate vacation together and returned to the island of Oahu to attend personal family matters but I never intended to lose contact with Maia and the first time I could afford the luxury-time to attempt contacting Maia again wasn’t until 13 years ago but to no avail via the postal address as none of the different postal offices I contacted had any forwarding addresses, however, I promised Maia I’d contact Maia again someday no matter how long it takes and so now I would very much like to try again and I’d immensely appreciate if anyone who should happen to know secretive Maia then please let Maia know I’m trying to contact Maia again to let Maia know I haven’t forgotten Maia, …thank you kindly.

…Tsark out.

michael_tsark United States | Reply

12/16/2009 4:06:18 PM #

Michael Tsark

Typo/spelling errors found:

Section 7, error is “years from except”, correction is “years from now except”.

Section 25, error is “kodak-moment”, correction is “Kodiac-moment“.

Section 25, error is “thee most, savage”, correction is “thee most savage”. (no comma after “most”).

Section 26, error is “Dies At 115.”, correction is “Dies At 115:” (semi-colon instead of period after “115”).

Section 26, error is “experience real military”, correction is “experienced real military” (with a ‘d’ after “experience”).

Section 35, error is “we are do today”, correction is “we do today”.

Section 35, error is “who doesn’t do”, correction is “who don’t do” (plural contraction instead of singular).

Section 36, error is “psuedoscientist had publicly”, correction is “pseudoscientist had publicly”.

Dr.h.c. Michael Tsark, NA
WorldEmergencyBroadcastSystem.org
(W.E.B.S. webpage has been slightly updated as of December 16, 2009 with new authorization scheduled for December 24, 2009.)

Michael Tsark United States | Reply

7/15/2009 3:12:29 AM #

joel mitchel

OKdokey. This won't make much sense to you necessarily unless you believe the bible. Here's a christians point of view and what God's view would be. All death, disease, killing, eating of other non-plant life, greed, fighting, suffering, and homosexuality was never part of his original plan.. nor necessarily good. Humans aren't even supposed to have sex out of marriage. Just because animals do something only proves all of nature is "fallen" and effect by sin. In fact, the bible says many times over to NOT be like the animals that are driven about mindlessly by desires. Sorry.. animals kill each other.. that isn't proof it's ok. Also having a desire to do something, even if it is genetic, doesn't make it ok. I desire to steal.. not ok. I desire to sleep around... not ok. Some people may desire to kill.. they may be genetically predisposed to murder.. still not ok. Sometimes even if it is in our nature.. we can't do it.. if we listen to God. (I know some of you may not believe, but I just wanted to show you how we believe.. with our whole hearts.) What God says goes. Having sufficiently answered that point... the response by most disagreeing readers will be point to some other flaw with God/Faith. That response is usually an unknown frustration with what is usually a misunderstanding about God. But he loves you. And even though you may dislike him.. it is probably just because you misunderstand him. If you would like I could try to answer some other questions.. There is far more misunderstanding about God out there than understanding. If I can share some with you, please just let me know. I love you too, even if I don't know you directly. Smile my email is just my first and last name smushed together at yahoo. Thanks for taking the time. Smile

joel mitchel United States | Reply

8/29/2009 9:00:37 PM #

Richard

"Nor necessarily good" (On "disease, death, etc")

It may not be "good", per se, nor was it part of the original plan, but God uses these things to test us and make us stronger.  Will we blame God for our problems or will we be like Job and praise God.

"The Lord giveth and he taketh away.  Blessed be the name of the Lord." - Job 1:21 (I think)

"Just because animals do something only proves all of nature is "fallen" and effect by sin."


Are you suggesting that animals sin?  Animals cannot use reason or logic, therefore, they can't sin.  Humans need to stop putting themselves on the same level as animals because it's just an excuse to sin!

"I know some of you may not believe, but I just wanted to show you how we believe"

Bravo!  Unfortunately, people will still twist Christian doctrine to make us into a hateful, uncaring cult.

Excellent comment!

Richard United States | Reply

3/28/2010 9:34:38 PM #

John Lennon

God is a concept, by which we measure our pain...

John Lennon United Kingdom | Reply

9/16/2010 12:47:43 PM #

joel mitchel

In case you don't read your bible.... Animals may not sin.. but their behavior is corrupt.  There are many verses that say that.. creation/animals are corrupted here is one:

rom8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are R369 not worthy to be compared with the glory R370 that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious R371 longing of the creation waits eagerly for the R372 revealing of the sons R373 of God. 20 For the creation was R374 subjected to futility, R375 not willingly, but because R376 of Him who subjected it, in F145 hope 21 that the R377 creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God

joel mitchel United States | Reply

11/13/2009 2:19:15 AM #

AAron

Irrational, that's what you are. A religious tool to the humans that wrote those words down in that book. "God" didn't write the bible. That's a fact. joel mitchel you poor fool. I'm embarrassed by people like you in my country of "freedom". It's a right at birth, deal with it. You have freedom, everyone has it. Leave homos alone, they didn't do anything to you. and if one did, than it's their fault and should not be stereotyped to all the other homosexuals. and same with us straight people. It's time to grow up or shut up. People like you are the ones that enslaved African Americans here all those years ago.

AAron United States | Reply

2/5/2011 8:50:40 PM #

Lion

Heh, that's funny...

First you say: "It's a right at birth, deal with it. You have freedom, everyone has it", and then you order him: " to grow up or shut up"

And also, first you say that anything wrong with an homosexual: "should not be stereotyped to all the other homosexuals", and just a few words after that you come up with: "People like you are the ones that enslaved African Americans here all those years ago"

It seems clear to me who is irrational and who is embarrasing who in your country XD

Lion Spain | Reply

7/15/2009 5:07:19 AM #

Kate

Thank you for that Joel, I actually thought that was a pretty genuine kind of a response and you did it without the usual vitriol which I find so distasteful when engaging in conversation with Christians. But, as much as I would like to believe the view you have put forward because it is actually quite a comforting one in its own way, even with all the "do nots" - I'm afraid my conscience pricks me and i just cant jump on that bandwagon. If you are serious about your faith and it is as bullet proof as you seem to think, then it should stand on its own and not fade in the light of truth or reason. When something is so, it just is - it doesn't require great feats of persuasion or self delusion to make it seem more real, because it just is real. So, in a very honest and open minded fashion, i would like to put forward my reasons for deciding not to trust in the christian view of the world anymore, and I am offering you (or any other Christians who see this) the chance to respond as clear thinking, thoughtful and reasonable adults. Please note that if every second response becomes "sometimes you just have to have faith", you will lose me very quickly (as Christianity has lost many would be followers before) I want truth, reason and honesty. If your argument wouldn't hold up in a court of law, for a petty crime, don't feed it to me here when what we are talking about is so much bigger - when the consequences of believing or not believing are so much greater and further reaching.

Kate | Reply

7/18/2009 9:44:56 AM #

joel mitchel

Kate, Thanks for noticing, I had a very kind tone.  I certainly have no reason to be anything but kind. Smile I will try to avoid saying "sometimes you just need to have faith."  I will try to follow Jesus's example when he walked on earth - he was happy to provide proof to anyone who genuinly was interested.

I think God does want us to base our faith on facts, especially the big beliefs.. I think he asks us to trust him in the daily life and with some smaller details.  But I feel He actually has gone out of the way to express He doesn't want us to just use faith blindly in any way we would fall for any random suggestion. You know?  I see that as why Jesus spent so much time healing and performing miracles (on top of just his compassion for people).
    So, sure, yes.  I will see if I can provide a sufficient explanation to your reason for no longer believing.  I think it is important.  For me and you both.  To give our beliefs a chance to be tried and for us to maybe see something we didn't see before.  Please just let me know if I am getting off trackSmile  
    Please feel free to email me or post here whichever works better for you.
    Hope you have a good day!  Hope to talk to you soon?
-Joel.

joel mitchel United States | Reply

7/22/2009 11:47:12 AM #

Lithp

Glenda, I don't suppose you've ever heard of a CONDOM?

These anti-gay arguments are always pathetic. Diseases! Good hygiene prevents them. Natural selecton! Doesn't work that way. God says it's wrong! I don't care.

Now, I'm not gay, but I do know that you can't dismiss vast amounts of scientific research out of hand just because you don't agree with it. And even if it WAS a choice, so what? You're still allowed to practice the religion of Christianity that you CHOOSE, aren't you?

Lithp United States | Reply

8/17/2009 5:08:14 AM #

ashley

Condom real good way to BOND with someone you love by getting off without even touching them. Just admit that it IS about sex and we can all move on.

ashley | Reply

8/29/2009 9:11:25 PM #

Richard

Right on, Ashley!  People talk about prevention of STDs crap when all it is is sexual promiscuity.  It's disgusting and an excuse for sinfulness.

Richard | Reply

1/15/2010 12:35:52 AM #

JuJu

You've got to be kidding me. I read this article and many of the comments and was not going to say anything until now. Regardless of how I feel about homosexuality, I must comment on the RIDICULOUS statements above:

From Ashley: Condom real good way to BOND with someone you love by getting off without even touching them. Just admit that it IS about sex and we can all move on.


And if that wasn't bad enough: Right on, Ashley!  People talk about prevention of STDs crap when all it is is sexual promiscuity.  It's disgusting and an excuse for sinfulness

NOW, I need someone, preferablly one of you two lovely Christians to explain this to me. Do you really and honestly believe in your heart that condoms are strictly for people to have "an excuse for sinfulness"? That has got to be the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. I have been raised Christian my entire life. And while I will always have the beloved Trinity and core beliefs of Christianity in my heart, it is because of ignorant, controllilng and unempathetic people like you who drive me from the church. You wonder why people don't turn to God??? For one, we look like a bunch of unedcuated FOOLS when one of us makes a comment such as yours. Condoms and other forms of birth control have saved the lives and protected many people. Then we point fingers at each other and say who is wrong and who is right. Who God will save and who God will send to hell. It's as though you believe that if a person is not Christian and don't follow and believe what you beleive, then they are wrong and the only thing that can be right is what you believe. So you put terror in their hearts about being sent to hell and punished by God if they don't change their ways and live as you see fit. Does that sound familiar to you? The fanatic followers of Islam feel the same way. You know, the suicide bombers who believe if they follow the will of Allah they will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. Which in fact is not true and all followers of Islam do not believe in those myths. But there are some who do and we call them terrorists. They use fear and terror to turn people to their way of thinking. I wonder what makes you so different.

JuJu United States | Reply

12/25/2010 6:42:18 AM #

jackson

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

From the word of god, nothing need to be said any further, take it up with him when you SEE him, and believe me you will!!Only an animal would do this uncleanness!!! Yes, what I believe is right! They should fear for what is too be fall them....explain to me how a man has a right to put his penis (which is used for procreation) into another mans anus (which is used to discharge death from the body)....this is natural how? It is an un-natural use and is perverse.

Sounds to me you have already be given other to your own lusts, just like the neighborhood dog!!

jackson United States | Reply

12/29/2010 4:26:22 PM #

Ron

It would appear that you've only had sex to procreate and only missionary style!  I'm a Christain and I've been married to my wife for over 43 yrs; I have a master's degree in psychology and I know men engage in non-procreational sex, as do women.  Both men and women masturbate, some along and some together. Also, there are heterosexuals (man to women) who also have anal sex as part of their sexual engagement (love making).  And for your information in respect of God stating homosexuality is wrong ... the word homosexuality only showed up in the late 1800s when the very rich people and doctors decided "homosexuality" was a sickness as a way to support puritanical beliefs.  In the late 1900s, the APA declared that homosexuality was not a sickness but rather it was a clear, honest, expression of one's own sexuality,it has proven to be irreversible.  God also said "judge ye not, less ye be judged!"

Ron United States | Reply

2/6/2011 12:57:06 AM #

Lion

Ron wrote:
"In the late 1900s, the APA declared that homosexuality was not a sickness"
-Yes... after being pressed by the gay collective to do so. A very scientific reason, I must add :rolleyes:

Ron wrote:
"but rather it was a clear, honest, expression of one's own sexuality"
-A clear expression of one's own DEVIANT/DYSFUNCTIONAL sexuality. A conclusion reachable by simply going by one's biological sex and a tiny bit of good ol' common sense.

Ron wrote:
"it has proven to be irreversible"
  -Hundreds of ex-gay cases prove you wrong. But even if the case were as you say, the fact that something is irreversible doesn't make it automatically "good".

Ron wrote:
"God also said "judge ye not, less ye be judged!"
-Hah... a very ironic quote, taking into account the openning sentence of your post. XD

Lion Spain | Reply

7/26/2009 3:24:34 PM #

Seth

I'm someone that really does not care about whether your homosexual or heterosexual but to say that we are apart of the animal kingdom, is wrong! we may share the earth and have some things in common its a known fact that we are very different and our reasoning factor is what sets us apart,God given in fact! Homosexuality is a choice, we all have them. Is it right? That it is something God will judge when the time comes. Think of it this way, we would not be here if homosexuality was the norm or how things were meant to be. They (humans)can not reproduce which tells me if we practice this as a whole humanity none of us would be here to even discuss the issues and i think that speaks volumes. We were put here to reproduce and live on not to extinct ourselves because what we say we prefer. That notion, just does not make sense to me. If you prefer homosexuality just say so but let's not say that it's what we were made to do as our bodies and compatibiliies with each other says something completely different. Listen, no matter how we slice it it comes down to choice, we can all speculate as to why we made it but in the end no matter what you prefer it's a choice we make in the end. When Jesus was tempted by the devil for 40 days and 40 nights he had a choice to give in or not and again it was CHOICE! I do not care what choice you make but just say what it is! None of us have to live any certain way we do not have to do anything we do not want for that matter, but to say we don't make a choice is just not true. Whether good or bad it's our decision and ability to make that decision is what sets us apart from the animal kingdom.  

Seth United States | Reply

12/10/2009 4:16:30 PM #

shanny

You can't call god or anything you believe comes from god a fact...

FACTS REQUIRE PROOF

shanny United States | Reply

1/11/2010 11:36:40 PM #

carmen

Seth, are you trying to say that you are a homosexual and that you CHOSE to be homosexual??? or why are you so sure that homosexuality is a choice and not something you are born with? I do not think homosexuals CHOSE to be that way I think they are born that way and there is nothing wrong with it.

carmen United States | Reply

8/15/2009 5:23:48 PM #

Izar Talon

I just LOVE hearing these homophobic screeds from "Christians."  Let's just ignore for now the fact that this homophobic stuff is from the Old Testament, which Jesus is supposed to have swept away with his sacrifice, and the fact that homosexuality is just as much a sin as banking is, according to the Bible.  Let's just ignore that for now.  

The verses of the Bible which condemn homosexuality are condemning specific acts of homosexuality, namely the ritual homosexual practices of other religions, including Roman cults and non Hebrew Semitic tribes religious practices.  THAT is what was being condemned in the Bible; the worship of other gods through ritual homosexual rites, NOT homosexuality in all forms.  Read the Bible in it's original language, and not in the interpreted translations passed down from one increasingly intolerant generation to the next.  Entirely different terms are used for general homosexuality and for forbidden ritual sexual practices, which were conflated in translation by none-to-exacting translators.  


Get some education about what your religion REALLY says about things, instead of relying on talking heads and pedagogues.  

Izar Talon United States | Reply

8/16/2009 11:55:58 PM #

roy

What an animal does is natural though what man do need not be. We are not able to see homosexuality in clear light, as we see it(like everything else!) through the eyes of the most developed of the animal kingdom(though creation began with man). Man was created first and therefore  each subsequent being could be corrected for any errors or other imperfections found in the previous creation. If thus viewed, it becomes fairly simple to consider homosexuality as just another variation of ones nature, many of which, in earlier times could lead one to burning at stakes, deportation and the like. It is only a matter of time for this variation to be accepted into the mainstream of human transactions.

roy India | Reply

8/22/2009 5:39:47 AM #

Brandon

As I trudge through these series of mostly knee-jerk reactionary posts, one thing jumps out at me that has annoyed me greatly in my study of the sciences and that is people's tendency to create a distinct line in the sand between themselves and the rest of the natural world. It's such an inbred arrogance guised in a religious humility. Wasn't earth (and by extension, man) supposed to be at the center of the universe. It's not even the center of our solar system or galaxy. Also, every point in the universe is the center of the universe (For those having problems visualizing this, think of the surface of a sphere. Every point on that sphere can be called the top or the bottom...it just depends on where you are looking at it from)

On this same point, man has made countless claims as to his supposed seperateness from the animal kingdom. One of them (the one I hate the most) is that only man is capable of reason and that animals are driven completely by impulse and instinct(The irony that impulse and instinct can be used to describe a lot of people's behavior isn't lost on this poster). Dolphins, with their self-awareness and abilities to communicate, reason, express emotions, adapt, and perform altruistic acts, they have spread across every ocean and many freshwater rivers in the same way humans have populated every continent. The cognitive abilities of dolphins are exceptional. They also possess the ability of self-awareness, as they recognize themselves in the mirror.

Elephants honor their dead. How did religion being? While some people may say "God revealed himself to a prophet", the earliest evidence of religious thought is based on ritual treatment of the dead. If religion is truly the hallmark of man, how can such a seemingly lowly beast exhibit the same characteristics?

Apes are another creature which exhibits the ability to reason. Chimps have been shown to outperform humans in memory tasks (www.newscientist.com/.../...s-at-memory-task.html) Apes have been observed using a stick to gauge the depth of rivers they cross. Apes are also known to use fallen branches and bones as weapons (2001: A Space Odyssey anyone) (So, for the creationists out there, why is it that ape family has over 95% of the same DNA, opposable thumbs [perfect for using tools], make facial expresssions and generally exhibit nearly all the emotions that we do if not for evolution?)

Birds...look on youtube for vids on Alex the Parrot and tell me with a straight face he's not smarter than some people you know.

As someone greater than me once said “there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties." About the only one I could find is that mankind is unique is the lateralisation of brain function which arises from the division of the cerebrum into 2 halves. We're just the smartest animals, nothing more. Animals make choices, have their own will, their own personalities.

The reasoning behind this arbitrary line seperating man from beast is that god created man in his own image. Those not well versed in metaphors take this to mean god has two arms, two legs, a long beard, bald, and a white robe. (Funny how this resembles the archetypal depiction of Zeus. Also somewhat ironic is that this is one of many examples of the evolution of religion and that everything either evolves or die.) What's lost on me is why an eternal all-powerful deity would have a mortal form? I think what the writers meant is that God has human characteristics like compassion and empathy, just as animals have been PROVEN to possess.

As for my own beliefs, I don't personally believe in god. However, that doesn't translate to god doesn't exist. That's impossible to prove.
What I do know is that using the Bible as a source of scientific truth is ludicrous, especially since the Bible pre-dates the dawn of science by 1500 years. It leaves you with all sorts of questions that can only be answered by "It's the will of god" which really isn't an answer.

If the earth was created around 4000 years ago, that would mean dinosaurs and humans lived together...like the flintstones. If this were true, how come the dinosaurs aren't mentioned in Noah's Ark? They would have been the largest and by far most dominant creature on earth. Why would they be left out of the seminal scene involving ALL the animals of the world. A fundamentalist may respond "Well, that's where dragon myths come from." I might respond, "Why does carbon dating place them back millions of years." He/she may respond again "Carbon dating is the devil's technology." Then I would say, "Ok, but to be consistent, don't take any drugs from Amgen, Genentech, or any other company that markets biologics, as their development relies heavily on evolution, which according to you is a perversion of the truth of creationism and, thus, the devil's technology." BTW - Evolution is a fact. No one is going to deny that mutations do not exist. Mutation that causes a new trait to appear + trait passed on to another generation = evolution. Drug-resistant bacteria mutating from non-drug resistant bacteria=evolution. Just believing you aren't descended from an animal is not enough to make it true. Just believing something in general doesn't make it true. Until I get a medical treatment developed using creationist principles, it will remain bullshit)

Which gets me back to the gay thing....since homosexual behavior has been identified in thousands of species that are able to have homosexual relationships, one cannot say that same-sex attraction is a choice. It is something deeper shared by probably all of our brethern in the animal species who can identiy themselves as male or female. Also, if homosexuality is a sin, how should hermaphrodites identify themselves? As abominations who can only seek salvation if they refrain from sex completely (since (1) they can't reproduce and (2) any relationship they have can be called gay by people who only think in terms of black and white) If god is real, he seems like a real dick to do this. Sexual reproduction isn't even the dominant method of reproduction on this earth. hell, same sex reproduction has been witnessed in certain species of fungus and some worms are true hermaphrodites and are able to self-fertilize, giving new meaning to the phrase "Go fuck yourself."

So, to deny that homosexual behavior is a natural part of animal behavior is to deny reality presented before you. what's left is to judge the morality of the act. I believe one's basic morality should be based on whether or not the actions you follow lead to a more just, stable, peaceful, loving, and understanding world. Adherence to morality shouldn't be promoted through a carrot and stick approach (ie you either go to heaven or hell.) Doing so means the individual never truly understands the difference between why things are right and wrong. In effect, it's little more than operatic conditioning. If this is the case, than one is doing things for selfish reasons (to avoid hell) and cowardice. The true test of one's morality is how you would act if what you did had no reprecussions or rewards, like the true test of a man's character is what he does when no one else is watching. Otherwise, if one needs to have the ultimate carrot (heaven) just to act in the right way, I don't think that person is moral, just rational...nothing more or less. The world is inarguably more just, more peaceful, loving and understanding than it has ever been. This poster thinks that the extension of human rights to non-whites, non-protestants, and non-males and the world's progress isn't a coincidence. The world isn't perfect, but as a black man, life for me is exponentially better now than it was 30, 60, 100, and 400 years ago. So to people who say that we are slipping into moral decline, I say fuck you. Nothing is more morally reprehensible than denying a person's basic humanity because they happened to be of a certain color. If it was heaven for you and hell for me, that isn't evidence of a more virtuous time.

BTW - My father is gay. He's a better parent than most couples. I was never abused emotionally nor phsyically. I was cared and provided for. In my home city which has a graduation rate of 40%, I was not only an academic standout, I attended Stanford University. My brother also went to an elite school. It wasn't genetic either, my brother was adopted. Why people think gay couples should not be allowed to adopt is beyond me. I guess being raised in a group foster home is preferrable to being as a gayby? Somehow, being given a warm and loving environment by a couple who is more committed to being good parents (all other things being equal, being a gay parent requires more effort than being a straight parent due to the bs they receive from society.) for those against adoption by gay parents, please go adopt them yourself instead of political grandstanding to make yourself look worthy of heaven in the eyes of god. It is unquestionably devilish to deny an orphan a chance of living in a caring and nurturing home (not to mention paranoid and destructive to society because kids growing up without any special attention from elders turn out way more likely to be fucked up) because you think this is all part of some hidden gay agenda to...what, destroy families and indoctrinate all boys to become gay, or at least bisexual. If you believe that, well, you've found it. Yes, all of us are in on it. The reptiles from outer space, the council for foreign relations, freemasons, skull&bones, rockefellers, bildeberg groups, the illumati, the elders of zion, the bilderberg group, all of us want to turn the USA to the GaySA.

Sorry, I was bored and went to long on this.

Also, I personally believe that life is a challenge. If it came with an instruction guide telling you exactly how you should act, it kind of defeats the purpose of figuring out how to live. And aren't cheat sheets offering you salvation if you only do exactly what they tell you to do more hallmarks of the devil?

Brandon United States | Reply

10/3/2010 7:07:14 PM #

karen

That was by far more intelligent than any of the stupid "Because God Said So" arguments i have read on here and in countless other places.  I have always had an issue with doing the right thing "so you can go to heaven" and damn everyone else.  There are people on here who would disown their own children if they should ever turn out to be gay, because they are too much of a coward to look beyond what they have been told to believe. If that doesn't warrant you going to hell i don't know what does.  God help whoever is brought into this world by some of these hate spewing people.  I feel sorry that they will only know the rhetoric that their parents tell them, and hope that they will have the common sense to one day act courageously and think for themselves rather than be told what to think just so they can get their one way ticket to the pearly gates.  

karen United States | Reply

9/1/2009 2:53:50 AM #

Kevin Elks

Belief and truth is not the same thing, belief can be anything from the truth to downright lies.  If we chose we can 'believe in the absurd and truly 'believe' it is true, the word of God written by man or little mythical creatures at the bottom of the garden. God mad everything perfect, yet, that perfection is mutilated by those that cut off part of the sexual organ of male and females alike 'circumcision' (MGM/FGM); we indeen have too many hangups when it comes to sex to the point of trying to surgically supress or dull the sexual sensations of the genrations when unable to protest.

Religion is responsible for all sorts of crimes, or at least it manifests itself from those who purport to be religious and phobias such as homophobia is one such example.

I have thought for many years that the deep natural sense of same sex bonding is natural in humans and the worst of the homophobics have a concious fear of their natural subconcious fealings, homophobia seems to be one way of comfort to them.

Footballers are encouraged to 'bond' by communual nude bathing yet homophobia is rampant amongst the football fans.  Homosexual touching in front of vast crowds at matches is accepted so why the homophobia?

Violence in humans does seem to be most prevelant amongst those that are sexually supressed, you could conclude that roughly they are the 'circumcising' nations (USA, Israel, the ruling classes of the British Empire [not the common people], Muslim countries) and in this it is not just war but domestic violence.  On the medical side we have the countries that supress sexuality indicated by the rate of 'circumcision' having a higher rate of HIV/AIDS (the exception being Africa).

I think this article was very interesting and a good overview of the situation, I see much truth in the points within it.  We are animals and we could learn a lot if we accepted it and looked to nature to resolve our problems.

Kevin Elks United Kingdom | Reply

9/7/2009 6:45:11 PM #

The Cavalry

In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:

Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
Homosexuality is irreversible;
Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.

Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises,the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.

Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.

This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly "homosexual" acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals

Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.

-- Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts

To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.

At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."

-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"

Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving "mixed signals" from their instincts:

Most female cats can switch between "play mode" and "hunt mode" in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of "hunt mode" may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the "hunting" instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue.... Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements.

All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.

Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes: Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.

-- Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States

To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.

Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man's disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.

-- Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior

Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:

There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.

First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.

Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.

Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.

Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

It Is Unscientific To "Read" Human Motivation
And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior

Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often "read" human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:

The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.

Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:

Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure....The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.

Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:

Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations."

Dr. Bagemihl's interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, "an imprint of St. Martin's Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books."

Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man
Some researchers studying animal "homosexual" behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man's nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.

Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:

Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. ... Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.

Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal "homosexuality" will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states: It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex.

Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is "against nature": the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.

Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:
For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural. They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.

The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:
It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. .... The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.

The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man's rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.

Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man's rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.

To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.


From Science To Mythology
Dr. Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance research displays his fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal mythology:

Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality...

To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of "explanation" or "cause" or "rationale." In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds...

Most Native American tribes formally recognize--and honor--human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the 'two-spirit' person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The 'two-spirit' is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes .... And often engaging in same -sex relations. ... In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or "supernatural" two-spirit(s)....A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirits--creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time--were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer.

Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so widespread in today's homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace "a new paradigm:"

Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle--back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions....Biological Exuberance is...a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable.

Conclusion:
In summary, the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.

The Cavalry United States | Reply

3/28/2010 10:50:04 PM #

Jeff

I just want to say, while I am an advocate for equality and freedom for all humans to do what makes them happy (so long as it isn't at the involuntary expense of another...) what you have written here makes perfect sense. I think it's shameful that anyone would find just cause in limiting the rights of a homosexual adult, and that the entire community of gays must resort to these measures (explaining themselves) to justify their desires to the public...

So I ask: will you please apply such effort as you have shown here already, to explain what is wrong with consenting homosexual adults getting married even if only for the sake of receiving the equal benefits of a heterosexual couple.
-Are men and women equal?
-Should heterosexual married couples even receive any special benefit in this day and age?

I say if homosexuals can't have it, then no one should.

Where do you stand on this subject?

Jeff United States | Reply

3/29/2010 8:56:25 AM #

Armenion

1Men & Women are equal, yes!

2Why? Men and women are equal, so man+man = woman+woman = man+woman: Every type of marriage is equal. To give priority to one type is to discriminate. Especially if every member of the family can have children (in every type of a family), makes no sense to give priority to one type.

Armenion Armenia | Reply

10/19/2009 10:34:55 PM #

Athena

I can see the religious view point because I am Christian myself and also straight. I believe in god, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. However, I have a gay brother, and bi and lesbian best friends. And I can't help having them as friends, I just attract flaming people and I love them for who they are! My brother and best friend were never attracted to the opposite sex as far as I could tell, and would I be a good Christian if I condemned them for not being anything but themselves? How can I as a Christian ask them to live a lie and "choose" to be straight? Why does religion have to be about condemning people? I always believed being Christian was about helping your neighbor, having morals, respecting others, being tolerant, being generous, and learning from individuals different than myself. If this makes me a sinful person than I'd rather go to hell. Let god judge mankind because we have no right to judge what we don't fully understand.

Athena United States | Reply

12/10/2009 4:22:06 PM #

shanny

I agree with the majority of your post... and I want to point out that it shows why the religious arguments don't work.  Religion is very personal...each person believes something different from the person next to them in the pew each Sunday.  Religion is nothing more than man's attempt to regulate others morality.

shanny | Reply

11/12/2009 2:30:59 PM #

Beckworth

We all have to live together regardless if we agree with each other or not. So if everyone just minded there own we would all be a lot happier. Put what you want in your own hole it's no one elses hole to decide what goes in there xx

Beckworth United Kingdom | Reply

11/30/2009 2:00:07 PM #

Cassidy

Hmm 'Mind your own'... that's an interesting point of view...
I do not believe being gay is natural. As far as I'm concerned, individuals choose those thinngs. I think it's pretty unprofessional to say "it's your hole, who cares what you wanna put in there??"

Cassidy United States | Reply

12/10/2009 4:19:39 PM #

shanny

So tell me then, why would you care what someone else does that doesn't effect you in any way shape or form??

shanny | Reply

12/10/2009 4:33:22 PM #

shanny

So, just your opinion...no facts to back it, just you, as a god in your own right KNOW that it's what people choose???

Must be awesome to be all knowing you Smile

shanny | Reply

11/30/2009 2:02:33 PM #

Cassidy

It's not a very good phrase to use in an argument, it's not going to persuade anyone. It only makes you sound uneducated.

Cassidy United States | Reply

12/12/2009 12:42:23 PM #

RdP

The fact of the matter is: Are we animals? Animals lack the ability to reason between right and wrong. They don't have a moral compass. Unlike humans (well some of us, that is) we have a strict sense of moral direction (whether it leans towards doing what's right or what's wrong). Just because animals practice homosexuality (which is clearly quite prevalent) does it mean that we too should follow their example and defile what is natural? Animals also eat their own feces should we in part eat our own shit? Animals also partake in inter-species devouring, as well as devouring their own young. Is that morally correct? Obviously, we do not practice any of the latter, so where is the reasoning behind this? Nature intends that a male and female have intercourse to thus multiply, while homosexuality has no purpose but to satisfy ones lust and desire. I'm not a homophobic nor do I believe that people who are homosexual shouldn't practice how they feel, that is their human right: to choose for themselves what is correct. It's just not intended for human nature.

RdP United States | Reply

3/28/2010 10:02:25 PM #

Nature Observer

Anyone who does not KNOW that humans belong to the animal kingdom is just ignorant beyond comprehension!

I recently heard an interview with an animal behavior expert (sorry, don't remember his name). He stated that if cats had opposable thumbs and a brain cortex just 1/4-inch longer, the human race would be history.

I am much prouder of belonging to the animal kingdom, than being a member of the human race!

Nature Observer United States | Reply

3/28/2010 10:16:44 PM #

Nature Observer

Anyone who does not KNOW that humans belong to the animal kingdom is just ignorant beyond comprehension!

I recently heard an interview with an animal behavior expert (sorry, don't remember his name). He stated that if cats had opposable thumbs and a brain cortex just 1/4-inch longer, the human race would be history.

I am much prouder of belonging to the animal kingdom, than being a member of the human race!

Nature Observer United States | Reply

12/18/2009 1:15:11 PM #

Zeigeist2012

Liberal scientists, who are probably gay lovers themselves, out to promote the liberal, propagandist, agenda, like the global warming scientists who are shredding email to cover up the lies they have been spreading to the public to get more money from the tax payer….
Gay unions and homosexuality is a perversion of natural law and of the institutions that bond men, woman, family, and society together in a positive functioning unit that nations are built upon. These delicate God given bonds enable a nation of people to unite and stand up for the good of the nation against those who wish to impose their will, choices, and life-styles on the nation in order to corrupt it, control it, or destroy it. People who wish to undermine, control, or  destroy the social bonds that hold a nation together in peace, love, truth, and harmony (as best as is humanly possible) suffer from an "I wanna play `God syndrome''. This `God syndrome' is demonstrated by those who mutalate themselves in a feeble attempt to change their God given sexual orientation, and by those trying to change the perverse into the natural, and normal, by imposing it on the rest of us and our children.... I found that such people cope with, and view, the world around them through different aspects of a fragmented super-ego, their inner most lens/lenses that affects deviant behavior in other areas of their choices, life-styles, and actions on a deeply personal, spiritual, and psychological level. I further believe these `God syndrome' personality types are responsible for much of the chaos and moral decline we all must face and deal with in our world today on a daily basis.... God Bless the American people who stood up and voted against the agenda of perversion and destruction-you all helped to postpone our country from completely becoming Sodom and Gohmorah....

Zeigeist2012 United States | Reply

12/18/2009 1:29:17 PM #

Zeigeist2012

Furthermore, my little scientific, blessed sycophants, and loquacious, sapphic gaffe(s)...I have every right in the world to defend, and protect my priciples, values, wife and children from those who wish to subvert and pervert them....

It greatly disturbes me when another man looks at me or my sons with some sort of twisted love or lust in their eyes, and the same goes for my wife and daughters, because of people like you in the scientific community promoting such non-sense and perverting the animal kingdom to do so.... After all, I was not born with a nipple on the back of my neck, or titties on my back, and my wife does not enjoy plastic, strap-on, toys....

If other people want to subject their God given orifices to other perveted uses other then naturally intended they should keep it to themselves and not impose it on the rest of us and our children....

Zeigeist2012 United States | Reply

12/18/2009 1:47:07 PM #

Zeigeist2012

Gays, even those in the scientific community who are now attempting to use the animal kingdom to justify their own perversed existance, set themselves a part from society with their perversion and make themselves into oddities searching for acceptance and special recognition for their self inflicted malady that many classify as form of demon possession....I would guess this is why so many gays tend to liberalism and seek to abolish God and his principles from everyones lives.... Dream on...........................

Zeigeist2012 United States | Reply

12/18/2009 2:16:01 PM #

Zeigeist2012

Some now espouse that monkeys, and basically the over-all animal kingdom, are naturally, sexually perverted as a part of male dominance while leaving the female monkey simply perverted…. Well, if this is true for the animal kingdom, by and large, though the validity of this claim is inherently ridiculous, at best, and disputable as far as evil tendencies of the freak minority goes, then the people who believe this non-sense should use such critters as a their personal role models and do as they do…. But, please, keep the beastiality to yourselves…and have very blessed lives….

Zeigeist2012 United States | Reply

12/18/2009 3:15:42 PM #

Zeigeist2012

It is apparent that our supreme court and our other vital institutions have all been infiltrated by perverts, baby killers, and other nefarious fringe elements…. Even modern day television shows are all about how to be the perfectly normal, everyday, liberal thinking citizen; American role models as to how to think, act and live out your every day libral life…. Might as well take a gun and blow your brains out all over the sidewalk…. There is no God so, what difference would it make-anyway….A bunch of earthworms and monkeys from hell….

Hey…I got an idea! Lets just let everyone into our country and into our Gov’t…. And, lets let the minorities dictate foundational principles and impose them on the majority…. Doesn’t it sound familiar?

Zeigeist2012 United States | Reply

3/8/2010 7:22:56 AM #

Armenion

I'm gay. I don't remember a day I woke up and decided: "Hey, no girls. From now on, boys only!" Since my early childhood I felt and experienced my that peculity, and I realized and naturally accepted it later, so naturally.

I'm gay. I pray to my Creator/s thanking Him/Them for all the things I'm granted as a human being and as a personality. I ask Him for the guidance and Light, asking not to allow me to be blinded by my own or by other people's ignorance. I thank Him I can witness the Rebirth of the Spring, the "coming-out" of the Sun (Smile)) evety day.

I'm gay. And I want to find another gay like me and live happily with him, in Harmony with the Worlds that surround us. And I want to have my own children later, biological or not, better if both. To share my Love, Knowledge, Joy and whatever I have and will have. I want to have my own child, to carry on the Circle of Life, not being the Alfa, not being the Omega, just a circle. I'm gay. And I'm so OK.
May my corrupted mind be fixed, if I'm wrong. Though I do not hurt anyone, do not hate anyone.

I'm not a "straight" christian who is proud of himself, happy he'll go "up", hating those who will go "down".

LLP to us all, which is Love, Light and Peace

Armenion Armenia | Reply

7/7/2010 6:30:20 PM #

Sag

Boy, you can't resist nailing the Christians, now can you?  That is the problem I have with Gaytards.  Every religion in the world forbids homosexuality, yet you never fail to thrash a Christian.

And that my dear proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that gays have a rebrobate mind.  Case closed!

Sag United States | Reply

7/8/2010 4:16:10 AM #

Eye

You're partially right, but the point is my nailing is a response, an effect, cause lots of christians, I have that experience, speak the way they're higher than anyone else on this world, and especially all the gays. That's what I'd call a reprobate mind, dear christian.

And nevertheless, I have no problem with the christians that have no problem with the gays.

Eye Armenia | Reply

7/8/2010 4:23:59 AM #

Eye

Well, are you a sage that have gone through all the religions of the world? ALL the religions? R u sure?

Eye Armenia | Reply

3/12/2010 12:14:50 AM #

Texas breast reduction

I agree with all user's comment and their experiences regarding this topic which is highlighted here.The fact of the matter is: Are we animals? Animals lack the ability to reason between right and wrong. They don't have a moral compass. Unlike humans (well some of us, that is) we have a strict sense of moral direction (whether it leans towards doing what's right or what's wrong). Just because animals practice homosexuality (which is clearly quite prevalent) does it mean that we too should follow their example and defile what is natural?

Texas breast reduction United States | Reply

3/12/2010 12:48:06 AM #

Jeff

If animals only live by instinct, for instance, then they are ruled by nature and have no free will, therefore all that they do must be natural. Now if you are coming from a Christian stand point, then I ask, what kind of God would make nature possess homosexuality, and then despise it in humans?

Jeff United States | Reply

3/12/2010 6:33:34 AM #

Armenion

They can choose with which male or female have to sex, maybe first with one and then with the other one. It's not a free will?
And we aren't animals? Take into account word animal comes from Latin animal, from animālis living, breathing, and ANIMA is soul... so, according to this, animal are not even soulless creatures... you're an animal, dearSmile so am ISmile we all are the higher mammalsSmile

Armenion Armenia | Reply

3/12/2010 2:02:19 AM #

Deanna Zimmerman

Are we animals? Animals lack the ability to reason between right and wrong. They don't have a moral compass. Unlike humans (well some of us, that is) we have a strict sense of moral direction (whether it leans towards doing what's right or what's wrong). Just because animals practice homosexuality (which is clearly quite prevalent) does it mean that we too should follow their example and defile what is natural?
---------------------------------------------------------
Humans are animals. Cows and alligators and spiders are animals, too.

Our so-called moral compass regarding homosexuality is STRICTLY a religious indoctrination.

@Just because animals practice homosexuality (which is clearly quite prevalent) does it mean that we too should follow their example and defile what is natural?

Since it's obviously natural for the non-human animal, why do you believe it ISN'T natural for the HUMAN animal?

And nobody is "following" the example of other animals. All of us are just following our own instincts. You see, we have those, too. (grin)

Deanna Zimmerman United States | Reply

3/12/2010 6:44:28 PM #

zeitgeist2012

Sexual perversion is still perversion, sick, and twisted within the secular religion and in all religion...in all aspects of life. Gayness is viewed as a form of demon possession by scripture and by billions of people. Some view those afflicted by gayness as suffering from an aberrant or fragmented superego wherein certain fragments are used for coping with and viewing the world around them as the result of traumatic experience, and is also viewed by many as a deviant mental disorder. Who is to say the small number of animals committing unnatural acts are not afflicted with these same maladies? Or why would animals with their limited mental capacities be exempt from the influences of evil?

zeitgeist2012 United States | Reply

3/13/2010 12:40:48 AM #

quixoticstranger

"Gayness is viewed as a form of demon possession by scripture and by billions of people."
Not too long ago, scripture "taught" us that seizures were a form of possession by demons and that sickness and ill-health are curses put on us by god.
Now we know that seizures are nothing more than your brain's electrical signals going haywire and we have the germ theory of disease.
You may ask yourself why science is superior in explaining these phenomenon. The simple answer is that science can (1) makes predictions based upon its theories and (2) offer treatment and care a whole lot more effective than simple praying.

Also, the belief that male-female relations are the only context for reproduction hints at a limited view of life in general. Did you know that hormones can completely change a frog from male to female and vice versa? (Link: www.livescience.com/.../...e-atrazine-100301.html) And what's more, the sex changed frog can reproduce. How does that fit into your context of perversion, sir?

quixoticstranger United States | Reply

3/13/2010 11:07:51 AM #

Jeff

Is how one person can stand and judge others as wrong while they themselves do not uphold a standard of rightness. Perversion implies that something is unnatural, and sick implies that the unnatural activity is a result of illness, and not choice. So by this perspective you seem to have, a person can be born unworthy of peace and civility. I didn't choose the parents I grew up learning from, I didn't choose the area in which I was forced to go to school and learn by a particular standard... really EVERYTHING up to this point in my life has all been cause and effect reaching backwards for thousands of years. Where is the free will of that? This is why I can't judge your bigotry, and see you as evil for it, because you never had a choice, did you?

Jeff United States | Reply

3/13/2010 5:58:01 PM #

zeitgeist2012

They judge themselves by their own choices and actions. We jugde or discern according to the fruit they bare or the morality defined by OUR GOD in his scriptures. We strive for spitiual progress domestically, socially and politically by overcoming evil and temptation to the best of our human ability with OUR GOD'S HELP.

Gays assume a whole lot when they equate freedom with immorality/sexual perversion or decadence. The inalienable rights we are endowed with by OUR CREATOR in our blessings of liberty did not include such twisted unnatural rights that never existed and were never ment to exist in our morally based free society known as the Republic for which it stands one nation under OUR GOD. Moral laws were established by our Founders based on biblically defined immorlity. The common point of attack and the failings of the gays and other subversive elements in our courts, our gov't, and our schools is found here.

God used a pack of wild dogs to attack a group of kids who were harrassing a couple of men of God in their travels...are the dogs culpable? Cannot evil work through animals as well?

zeitgeist2012 United States | Reply

4/14/2010 11:27:31 PM #

roy

Sexual unions, especially for the male, is a tough, highly demanding exercise. In all forms of animal life, immediately after mating, the female can be observed as one with a highly dissatisfied look, and, in some cases, like certain breeds of spiders, with very violent disposition. Honey bee for example, maintains a whole army of worker bees, the only function they are required perform being to sexually entertain the queen. All male animals, aware of the impending disgrace after each mating might have been reluctant to enter into sexual union, forcing nature to come up with the idea of mating season when no other thought disturbs him.  I think our forefathers preempted such a fate if things are to follow a natural path and devised various ways to reduce the necessity to perform sexually, as far as man is concerned. Thus we have sex prohibited on various grounds, of certain relation, certain time, giving abstract meaning to gratification and it's results etc. Homosexuality is one such method to escape from the rigours of performance.

roy India | Reply

5/9/2010 8:28:43 AM #

Ellie

It's comments like the ones that zeitgeist make that make me sad that we can't move on. We're now in the 21st Century and still arguing about this? Still? Remember there was a time when Blacks were discriminated against for not being fully "human". Sometimes the human race is blinded by its own self importance.

Ellie United Kingdom | Reply

7/7/2010 9:22:09 AM #

Emanuel

Just because homosexual acts are found in nature doesn't mean it is good for humans to practice. It is also found in nature that some animals in certain situations, like lions, eat their young (or offspring). Would you eat your babies because of that? No, that ridiculous. In the same way, just because homosexuality is found in some cases in nature doesn't mean it is good for humans to practice.

Emanuel Spain | Reply

7/7/2010 4:50:46 PM #

Eye

Surely, you're right. But there is something that is very important: because homosexuality is found in some (actually, in many) cases in nature, it DOES meanit is totally NATURAL, therefore, it can't be called a crime against nature!!!

This is a highly important point, do not dismiss that, because the church and many authorities used to (and still practice it) say it is an anti-natural act. Well, it's apparently not.

Eye Armenia | Reply

7/8/2010 10:29:24 AM #

Emanuel

Homosexuality is a crime (sin) against God, not nature. All sin is against God. Sin is disobedience to God's word, and it condemns homosexual practices (Roman 1, Leviticus 18). Therefore homosexual acts are sin against god, and we humans are not to do it.

Now, for non-Christians: the same 'nature' designed sex to between male and female, and 'designed' the penis to go into the vagina. Since nature made it this way, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that it would be not natural to put the penis into the anus? Or is it that both acts would be categorized as 'natural'?

Emanuel Spain | Reply

7/9/2010 7:48:48 AM #

Josephine

Read the original bible if you're going to quote it

The verses of the Bible which condemn homosexuality are condemning specific acts of homosexuality, namely the ritual homosexual practices of other religions, including Roman cults and non Hebrew Semitic tribes religious practices.  THAT is what was being condemned in the Bible; the worship of other gods through ritual homosexual rites, NOT homosexuality in all forms.  Read the Bible in it's original language, and not in the interpreted translations passed down from one increasingly intolerant generation to the next.

Besides... this is a scientific article. Religious comments do not belong here. Science and religion don't normally mix well together. Just ask Galileo.

Josephine United States | Reply

7/10/2010 1:24:27 PM #

Emanuel

As far as I can read and understand, Romans 1:26-27 is very clear.

And about Leviticus ... you are reading things that aren't there. It doesn't say that these things are wrong only in a certain context, but that they are just simply an abomination (to God).

Homosexual sex or erotic acts between two or more people of the same sex is prohibited in Christianity, period. What you do is of no interest to me, but if you plan on being a Christian, it is required to abandon those sins.

Emanuel Spain | Reply

11/7/2010 7:24:23 PM #

Kiara

Thank you for your fresh look at those verses!  I am a devout Christian and don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality. (frankly, I just loved your Galileo comment.) Tong

Kiara United Kingdom | Reply

7/9/2010 6:14:23 AM #

Noneed

It seems your logic is flawed: if something is not against nature, it can't be against Gd, can it?

AND: Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Do you think this is what God designed? Is this his law? Would you kill someone who works on Sabbaths???
AND 1 Timothy 2:11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

So, shall we forbid all the women to be public speakers, professors in the universities, politicians, managers, etc,etc,etc???
Shall we get into the medieval and prehistoric chaos and darkness, living in prejudices?

Noneed Armenia | Reply

7/9/2010 6:19:18 AM #

Noneed

And the slavery: Exodus 21:7"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do." Well, god is against gays, but he's fully for slavery, eh? Do you think this really it the God's law? Shall the fathers be allowed to sell their daughters against their will to the slavery???

And so much this kind of sh*t is full the Bible... do you follow all this Godly Laws?

Noneed Armenia | Reply

7/9/2010 6:21:49 AM #

Noneed

Lots of comments are made on penis, vagina, etc. I won't repeat them, read them.

If you think your penis is ONLY for making an offspring, than act like that: have sex 1-5 times in your whole lifetime, and no sexual pleasure. It's your choice. And precisely no oral and anal sex, only vagina.

Noneed | Reply

7/9/2010 10:58:30 PM #

Sag

Your Biblical quotes above are fully out of context.  I would like to help you.  Have you given any thought to the idea that you are demon possessed?  Where a demon resides, the holy spirit cannot abide and departs the body.  The blessings you used to have are no longer available to you.  I would like to help you but you have to trust me.  What do you say?  

Sag United States | Reply

7/9/2010 11:13:22 PM #

Lithp

The quotes are not "out of context" at all. Do you even know what the term MEANS? No, you are the one who is taking the Bible out-of-context. No one here is demonically possessed, as demons do not exist. Moreover, no one is interested in your psychotic brand of "help" which sounds suspiciously like "get in my van, little boy, I have candy!" Stop being a creeper.

Lithp United States | Reply

7/10/2010 12:46:31 PM #

Eye

And the Saint Spirit of God is that weak that it just leaves? What a great hope for those who are protected by that Spirit.
Anyway, if you have another place to discuss your religious views, do it. But please do not bring your christian agenda ;) here. It's about science and on homosexuality in nature.

Eye Armenia | Reply

7/10/2010 6:39:00 PM #

Noneed

My quotes are just as yours: they (all the quotes) are equal, therefore either ALL of them are out of context, or ALL of them fit greatly and Godly. Accept the first or the second.
I might be possessed by demons just like you. Yeah, go on. If you'd like to pray, you're fully welcome. I'd like a lot to know your methods, what will you use? How will you try to "cure" me, I wonder?

Trust you? I remembered the "Mougley" cartoon; how the snake wanted to swallow the boy singing and hypnotizing him using the exact words you suggest to me: "Trust [in] me".

How can you suggest to trust you if your saint book says: Romans 3:10 "No one is Righteous, not even one"??!

Noneed Armenia | Reply

7/10/2010 12:38:55 PM #

Eye

Oh, well, the quote on homos is as out of context as mines; either accept the first or the second. What you do is choose and pick those you like and leave aside those you don't. Oh, please! Yeah! I am, I worship him, give him human sacrifices, bla-bla-bla. Well, could be.
And what kind of graces I used to have I don't now???
I'd like to hear on your methods. Prayer, exorcism, female prostitutes, heterosexual marriage?

Eye Armenia | Reply

12/6/2010 2:42:05 PM #

RIVERBOATPHIL

Humans are the only animal that uses bullshit to justify their behavior!

RIVERBOATPHIL United States | Reply

2/7/2011 1:53:44 PM #

2consciusness

Reading all of these has been a riot!  "God's" (or the Goddess') way is, indeed, just BS to justify our behavior.  We are a part of creation, that's all.  Homo, hetero, bi, whatever, we are just another part of creation, which will be around long after our species is gone.  Methinks we all protest too much.

2consciusness United States | Reply

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News-Medical.Net.

Add comment



(Will show your Gravatar icon)
  Country flag


biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading



News-Medical.Net provides this medical information service in accordance with these terms and conditions. Please note that medical information found on this website is designed to support, not to replace the relationship between patient and physician/doctor and the medical advice they may provide.

Advertisement

This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.

This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify.

...