To anyone who would seek to eagerly impose the slant of bigotry on this essay, I would have you know

that this is not meant to be a treatise explicitly on homosexuality. Neither then is this meant to be a call or grounds for any legislation that limit and restrict the rights guaranteed homosexuals in the constitution. If there is any critique contained in this work, let it be known that it is directed toward an area of concern that encompasses much more than homosexuality. I do not oppose gay civil unions, I oppose civil unions. If there is any confusion as to how I could make such a distinction allow me to speak first of homosexuality in specific, but only as a launchpad and frame for a much more encompassing discussion regarding our modern notion of humanity as it pertains to sexuality. Do you think cultural sexual license, i.e. the widespread celebration of sexual expression in subjectively agreed upon terms is a healthy condition for human society? Does the fact that this expression is predicated on bilateral volition mitigate its harmfulness--if it is said to be potentially harmful at all, and not necessarily even intrinsically so? Can two consenting adults participate in behavior that is harmful, at least, to themselves? Can someone do something to themselves that harms the rest of society? Do you think people should behave as they wish, even if their biology suggests they are to act otherwise? Surely, one does not think that because animals display homosexual behavior that gives humans the basis to sanction and advocate said behavior? To my knowledge, the animals that display this behavior do not do so in the spirit of benign and affectionate companionship, but in fact, often do so as way of establishing social dominance and enforcing group hierarchy. It's also practiced in animals as a way of tempering the sexual appetites of the group males when there is an offset ratio of fertile males and females--in essence, a way for horny apes to achieve libidinal release in the absence of viable mates, or rather, to control to the breeding rate of the group according to their ability to support additional offspring. When animals do engage in it purely for recreation, such as dolphins, if I'm not mistaken, it is still never engaged in under the conditions a singular homosexual "orientation". Orientation, in this sense, is unheard of in the animal kingdom. Suffice to say then, this behavior, when it is evident, is not explicitly homosexual as is referred to with humans, but is found in combination with traditional heterosexual procreative behavior, and is certainly not homosexual in the sense that the term is applied to humans. What's more, even if it was, this is hardly a rhetorically sound means of supporting any kind of behavior, sexual or otherwise, because animals engage in many behaviors which humans do notperhaps chief of all, behaving like animals. Understand please, I am making a distinction between behavior and activity. Clearly, humans are bound by the laws of biology to engage in the same kinds of activities as all complex life formssleeping, feeding, having sex, fighting, communicating, and recreation. These activities are all intrinsic to all life forms exceeding a certain evolutionary capacity, however, if there is one behavior unique to humans among life forms on Earth, it is, because humans conceive of the very ideas of animal and human thathowever indistinguishable you suppose these idea-- they, in all of the intrinsic activities, attempt to behave unlike animals. This is the fundamental reality of human behavior that distinguishes it from animal behavior, and to assert there is no fundamental difference would be to reject the unique reality of human history relative to the history of past dominant life forms on Earth. Thus, equating the phenomena of human homosexuality with animal homosexuality actually weakens the case of those who would assert the fallacy of sexual orientation as being tolerable, or even fulfilling, in a human sense. Furthermore, there is no direct genetic or physiological causation behind homosexuality in animals or humans. It is perhaps a social practice manifested and passed down within animal and human social orders, but is not explicitly a reality of their distinctive species characteristics--this, ironically, is probably best demonstrated by the fact that so many animals, including humans, display the behavior. What's more, there is no genetic or physiological causation for any other kind of abnormal (not according to the norm) sexual behavior. According to your champions of scientism, sexual intercourse is simply an engine of evolution. According to them, the desire for sexual companionship is simply the manifestation

of the evolutionary urge to propagate the species, no matter how much we dress it up in the vestments of love, religious fervor, or even pseudo-artistic expressionism. Sexual attraction is then the manifestation of our desire to see certain traits passed down in our offspring (proportional muscular and skeletal structure, *intelligence* etc.,), or else, our desire for certain traits that facilitate the bearing of offspring--wide hips, large breasts, healthy buttocks etc.,. If homosexuality is a self-evident characteristic in some humans, it then does not find its origins in the engines of evolutionary causation. This is because, given that homosexual intercourse yields no offspring, if it was a genetic or physiological characteristic, that characteristic would have been literally bred out of the species over time. The only way for homosexual inclination to be passed down--and I accept that it exists physically as a cognitive inclination at least--is if it were linked to some trait related to intelligence--likely even some trait related to higher-order intelligence. If I'm not mistaken, homosexuals, especially homosexual males, generally display above-average IQs, do they not? So, if homosexual behavior is the result of some process/characteristic of human cognition, even a desirable one, this is where the issue takes on special significance for humans. Humans, among animals, are distinct biologically in their undeniable and vastly superior intellectual faculties. The vast potency of these faculties is signified best by our ability to understand, articulate, and even manipulate, the conditions and purposes of these very cognitive faculties (see, humans building spacecraft while their close relatives--who are not terribly behind them in intellectual capacity--funnel twigs down ant holes). Animals are slaves to their physiological urges to feed, to drink, to procreate, and to preserve themselves or the lives of their social groups. If they have any instinctual urge to engage in any of these activities it is nuanced only to the degree that it is pleasurable to them and satisfies a desire for procreation. Dolphins, apes, monkeys, wolves, even pigs: if they display a concern for members of the same species even, do not do so because they conceive of species-wide prosperity, but because those members belong to the same collective organization as they doKoko the gorilla cared for her pet cat, but one could hardly assume Koko the gorilla cared for housecats and the happiness of housecats proper. Humans, however, are capable of self-preservation and species-wide security/prosperity far exceeding any other known life-form that has ever walked the Earth. The conditions that led to this incredible disparity between the capacities of humankind and animal kind are not well understood, but we know that it was not simply the result of natural selection. Humans have potential, but animals have capacities. We can build a vehicle to leave the Earth were the sun to explode, and thus save ourselves, but animals have only the capacity to be burned alive, and have no potential for the capacity to save themselves barring some massive, unprovoked evolutionary leap that in essence alters their species characteristics. This distinctive relational quality is not well understood. In the case of humans in particular, we also know that modern humans are probably the offspring of two unique genetic sets of DNA-mitochondrial eve and y-chromosomal Adam--thanks Dr. Dawkins--and that these strands procreated by chance again to establish the single genetic lineage from which all contemporary humans descend. What's more, the very ubiquitous and long-established dominance of Mammalia itself would not have occurred if "chance" had not scourged the Earth of the dominance of reptile life with a cataclysmic asteroid event that effectively set back the evolution of large, cold-blooded organisms forever, and that altered the environment in favor of warm-blooded mammals for subsequent thousands of years. It stands to reason then, that humans owe their unique dominance not just to their unique evolutionary characteristics, but also to the unique, perhaps unparalleled (as far as we know), circumstances that paved the way for that evolution. And of course, all of this occurred on a planet that had to conform to an extremely specific set of criteria for yielding life, during an extremely narrow window for yielding life, because of an extremely unlikely cosmological event that caused that process of yielding life to be partially reset--at a very late stage in that very narrow window--roughly one billion years in the window of roughly 4 billion years in

which a planet can yield life. This taken into account, human dominance as is evidenced, is an apparently unique phenomena that, even if you don't believe in religion or philosophical notions regarding human nature, has yielded unique traits and behaviors which, at least, somewhat signify this unique origin. The unique nature of human existence in essence can be summed up briefly. Humans sacrifice. Let me be clear, all animals "sacrifice", in a sense. They take on physical hardship for the sake of their young, for physical safety, for their own nourishment, etc,.. However, only humans will sacrifice for what is not readily observable to them. An animal will walk many miles in the hopes of finding a viable watering hole, but only a man will set a portion of his harvest or his livestock on fire in the hopes of bringing on the rains. You may say such behavior is ultimately destructive to his well-being, and in that primitive manifestation, you might be right. However, I would posit that, at least in its root cause, whatever that may be, it is the only thing that has given him any kind of--limited-though it maybe-unique relationship to nature, and as such, must necessarily be the source of his ascendency to his environmentanimals included. This unique human belief in transcendence, this unique human trait of belief, and the uniquely human behavioral appeals to it in accordance with that belief, constitute the engine of human progress as a distinct process in relation to all other kinds of animal progress--which are in fact merely evolutionary in nature and driven by evolution as a cause. Man chooses what he evolves into, but, in a sense, his choice has always been guided by the idea that he has been compelled to choose it. Knowing he is an animal, man has always believed that the knowledge of his own animal nature was not intrinsic to him. Indeed, in this age, many humans believe themselves to be utterly indistinct among animals, and I would challenge you to find a one of them who has significantly benefited mankind insofar as his endeavors were undertaken in the spirit of this belief. This unique dynamic is even exhibited to this day among the proponents of radical humanism, progressive politics, atheism, and even some radical strains of Christianity (granted these all overlap largely today). These individuals still believe in our ability to transcend our nature, whether through newage esoteric meditation philosophies, the scientific/technological pursuit of genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, or the politically motivated agenda to bring about the 'kingdom of heaven' through the use of legal institutionswhether or not this kingdom is explicitly spiritual in nature. Suffice to say, the shared purpose of these developments remains the ultimate goal of transcending what is natural within the universe regarding humans, and conquering our own subservience to the pre existent order of the state of affairs in which humans have always existed in, to varying degrees. This is not the whole matter though, what is conveniently and universally ignored by both the advocates of scientism (not explicitly science or scientists) and the radical humanists is that the preexistent order of human existence is already explicitly and uniquely ascendant in relation to nature. Therefore, their actual and most distinct purpose is not simply to bring about human ascendency within nature--something that already exists--but a new kind of ascendency: a state of affairs wherein we need not subjugate ourselves to our very unique human tendency to sacrifice our temporal well-being for transcendent good or, at the least, the concept of belief-based delayed gratification. These advocates, in fact, ignore the very behavioral trait that allowed us to conceive of ascendency in the first place. Tell me if this is starting to make sense in the context of modern society, even beyond the issue of homosexuality. When we sacrifice our desire to eat as much as our bodies would compel us to, to have sex as much as our bodies would compel us to, or otherwise to choose not to serve our appetites as much as our bodies would compel us to, we thrive and we prosper, this is a historical fact. However, not disregarding the fact that these compulsions are bodily, we realize that it is not truly our bodies that compel us to excess, but our cognitive functions' influence in rationalizing such behavior. If you would dispute this, I would ask that you please familiarize yourself with the progression of humans from millions of years of shamanism and cultural hedonism to highly-organized religion predicated on asceticism and virtue as it relates to human technological advances.

This said, cultural aversions toward different forms of sexual license, whether they be in terms of homosexuality, extramarital sex, or any other kind of sexual promiscuity, are propagated upon the same dynamic that leads us to avoid gluttony, or to temper our rage, or to check our desire for power. Because, the urges that call us to these things are not found within that part of our intellect which we perceive as being uniquely human, or rather, sacrificial and based on lovea uniquely human notion, but rather, are physiologically based animal tendencies that only benefit ourselves or our chosen social companions (in modernity, a concept that is itself most often distinguished according to various appetitive urges). This is where the religious concept of sin being slavery, rather than freedom comes from. Read Aquinas and you will see that he asserts that humans possess free-will and intellect, but free will can only choose what is good, because intellect is by nature both its only guide and the aspect of intelligence that is uniquely human. Intellect, as opposed to cognition, desires by nature what is most good--especially insofar as good is known to be transcendent. What's more, there is a belief-based notion that what is most good for humanity is most good for the individual human. Untempered sexual expression, seen as good for its own sake, and thus good no matter how it is manifested, may be pleasurable, and it may even increase one's self-esteem. However, in reality, it is subservience to one's nature as an animal, and it negates the role of higher intellect. In turn, it can only increase one's self-esteem if their conception of self is deluded to the level of an animal with certain inexplicable sexual urges that must be fulfilled. Humans, for some uncertain reason, conceive of their animal nature, and the same faculties that enabled us to conceive of it, are the faculties with which we able to reject it insofar as it is harmful to ourselves, and thus harmful for our fellow man. This said, the true benefit of this rejection of the tyranny of appetite is not found in the fact that when we subdue sexuality we avoid STDS, or the fact that when we subdue gluttony we are able to conserve nourishment, or the fact that when we temper wrath we avoid killing off potential breeding individuals and serve to propagate the species. The avoidance of injury is not strictly the essence of what is meant by the word benefit, and what's more, these injuries are clearly conditional and can potentially be mitigated by technology (see condoms, the State, liposuction, hormone therapy, etc,). However, the ineffectiveness of such technological conventions in mitigating the most certifiably harmful risks of excess perhaps speaks to their inability to address what is truly most harmful about them. Thus, if there is any universally true benefit of temperance, it is an intellectual benefit. By tempering and controlling actions that have their origins in the appetite for sensual pleasure-- only pursuing them insofar as they are necessary and able to be controlled, we keep our higher, uniquely human intellectual faculties clear of the obfuscation of short-term satisfaction, and thus clearly distinguishable within our thought processes from appetitive urge. For the true fruits of temperance to be seen, one must, of course, make a practice of it committing it to habit, so that our free will--the uniquely human will that is not naturally given the largest voice within the cacophony of urges and sensations polluting human consciousness--can grow in clarity, and can be substantiated by the increased control we see it give over our actions. How many grave mistakes have been made in the quest for obligation-free sex? How many times have young men, especially in this generation, fallen victim to heartbreak because they sought out sexual partners with beautiful bodies and self-serving minds? How many women have experienced hardship similar and more severe because they sought exultation of their physical features, including intelligence, rather than exultation of their virtues? How many men and women spend long hours in gyms cultivating their physical beauty, rather than their sense of charity? I do not mean to label the sexually promiscuous as being universally self-serving, but sexual promiscuity is as a behavior inherently self-serving, no matter how much it benefits both partners short-term, and by tolerating it as a culture, and what's worse, by celebrating it, we promote a culture wherein we have enshrined self-interest. No wonder, I suppose. Within the materialistic value systems of both capitalism and socialism, one's sexuality is as much a commodity as anything else. If there's no demand for your personal brand of male sexuality among females, perhaps there will be demand for it among other males? And vice versa.

Let me be clear, I do not view all homosexuality as being on par with all other forms of sexual promiscuity, there is a great deal of variety in how sexual promiscuity is manifested, even if its root cause is shared. Clearly, I am as put out by flamboyant homosexuality as I am put out by flamboyant heterosexuality. In my understanding, I know that sexual license is often more refined than both of these phenomena. Often, purely sexual attraction substantiates an improbably high-level of commitment and fidelity between partners both heterosexual and homosexual, anecdotal evidence notwithstanding. This attraction yields to sincere affection and concern for the partners well-being, however, I would posit that this affection, oddly enough, while certainly erotic in origin, is not explicitly romantic. Instead, it is more akin to a highly refined kind of fellowshipand one that is actually undercut to varying degrees by the intrusive influence of erotic desire. Interestingly, the ancients left many records of close friends, and close students and teachers who engaged in homosexual behavior, not out of lust, but as an expression of deep friendship. Like Plato though, I take issue even with this, because like any other form of acquiescence to sexual urge, it confuses the bonds of friendship with erotic love, and does not allow the participants to grow in the unique ways in which heterosexual lovers are capable. Regardless, I would have all of you know that I would never push for punitive legislation regarding either heterosexual or homosexual licentiousness. I express my intolerance for both in the same way; I oppose marriage as an institution of the state. Marriage is not an arrangement between two people who agree to only have sex with each other for the rest of their life, it is not an arrangement between two people who would like to raise children together, and it is certainly not a legal contract to share the material benefits of two persons' lives with each other. Although, it is all of these things in some sense--at least in most people's understandings, these aspects are accidents of its essential nature. Marriage, though the definition has been polluted by state intrusion over time, has been consistently defined as a spiritual covenant throughout history. This is not my sole argument, but given what I have established regarding human history, it is an important component. The constitutive structure of marriage is fundamentally similar to all contracts. It is a pledge of shared commitments agreed to by two consenting parties, and agreed to before a third party who legitimizes and bears witness to their commitment. Following this agreement, any grievance or breach of the contract by either party, is then subject to the non-preferential judgment of the witness, and they can choose to resolve the dispute, possibly by dissolving the contract if the breach or violation of terms and conditions is grave enough. However, marriage is unique among all contracts for two fundamental reasonsand why not, man and woman are the first society. In marriage, you have two parties, the married couple--and you have the witness. The witness, at least in Catholicism, is not the guests of the wedding, however, nor is it the priest/shaman/rabbi/holy man presiding over the ritual. If there is a holy man, he is there only to serve as a surrogate for the true third witness, God. This is true of all religions fundamentally as well. Swear your devotion to each other before the State and it will last only as far as there is a State to legitimize it. Swear your devotion to each other, and it will last only as far as you remain familiar and desirable to one another. Essentially, swear your devotion before man, and it will last only as far man desires that you be devoted. Are you starting to sense why the divorce rate is so high? If you swear your devotion before God though, the rationale for that devotion is by definition an eternally persistent one. This rationale, the rationale of God's will, and the vague yet, fundamental presuppositions we understand it through, cannot change even if human notions of devotion change. However, for God, as most know him, to serve as validation and bear witness to the making of a covenant of shared devotion, the marriage must live up to an extremely critical set of conditions regarding what is meant by devotion in regard to God. Part of why I hate the modernized features of romance, like 'compatibility', or the more esoteric but equally irritating, 'soul-mate', is because they represent something very essential that we have largely forgotten as a society; it is the very thing that distinguishes love from extreme like. Don't believe me? Think about how often the word love is thrown around today...you know I'm right, or at least, you probably can't come up with any explanation of your own that isn't what I've been positing. To observe our shared, often sub-conscious, sense of what we've lost in the everyday events of modern

society, one look no farther than the frequency with which secular newly-weds, even atheists, choose to recite 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7 in their ceremonies. Found within this biblical passage concerning love is the perfect demonstration of what is lacking in our understanding of it today, whether between man and wife, father and son, mother and daughter, brothers and sisters, employers and employees, or in any sector of our interactions. We love people for our own reasons; perhaps this is the reality of love no matter how pure we make it. However, what makes truly human love so beautiful in relation to other baser forms of it is that it seeks to take on the form of pure giving, even if it lacks the ability. Even if humans are animals, they try not to beand that is what separates them. There can be no true love that gives what is already possessed. A true father gives his son the wisdom of age and mature manhood, because he lacks it. Likewise, the son gives his father the very special love of a son because Fatherhood is not essential to his physical needs, but in elevating and sublimating his desire for a mate, he gains much from it, and grows in goodness. The same dynamic exists between a mother and daughter, or an older sibling and a younger sibling. Ideally, it should be the same fundamental dynamic for an employer and an employee, as when a man profits from his labors and makes property his, his sense of his own dignity and his capacity for good is increased. This then should be the ultimate goal of all who participate in the creation of profit: that they should increase their fellow workers' knowledge of their own dignity with their shared efforts. What's more, if these relationships are predicated on belief in the ideal form of loveinsofar as that ideal naturally extends from any account of a benevolent, supreme Being--the returns for both are in a constant state of increase, and they thus become secondary to the act of giving insofar as it attempts to become more pure and more true to its own spiritthe spirit of its ideal. It's important to note then, that one can only better know how to give without regard to cost by believing that there is a Creator who can love (give) without any sacrifice (cost) at all. Furthermore, one only understands *completely* how to give love completely without regard to cost by believing that this Creator, even though he did not need to in order to transmit his perfect love, *chose* to offer up that which is most Dear to him: a complete aspect of His perfect Being--an aspect whom actually consubstantiates all other perfect and complete aspects of his Being: His only Son, Jesus Christ. In summation, God asks that whatever we will to do (good), we do so to the fullest extent of our abilities. Therefore, if we choose to participate in romantic love, something that is not strictly necessary to man's individual happiness, and that is base insofar as his primal inclination toward it is concerned, he asks some things of us in order to ensure that our choice is just thata choice, and not subservience to temporal urges. First, he asks that we do so with fidelity, because it is harmful to express love on the most intimate human level of sexuality and then to abandon our loved one. Second, he asks that in accepting the task of fidelity, we commit to love in His name, so that that His will may act as an irreproachable insurance for that fidelity. Third, he asks that our love be as close to the act of total giving, as possible. Now hold up a moment, what's this got to do with homosexual marriage you say? Well, a lot. Apart from homosexual marriage being in origin a form of subservience to appetite, homosexual partners fail to meet certain criteria unique to marital partners. Sexual love is the supreme human love, because the act of giving without loss is signified in the very nature of heterosexual procreation. That this act is not signified in the myriad forms of homosexual intercourse or other kinds of sexual impropriety is worth noting, but not of supreme significance. Truly, it is signified in other ways. When a women sacrifices to become a mother, she signifies this love. When a man sacrifices to be a father, he signifies this love as well. It is signified also when a man offers his masculine desire to act as a protector for the well-being of his wife and children, or when a woman extends her desire to nurture to include her husband. Men and women offer to each other their unique, even physiological neurological characteristics for the total improvement of their spouse's well-being. This is the best kind of human relationship. It is totally intimate, and it is totally beneficial because it entails a giving of the qualities that are most essential to each spouse in the form of sensitivity given to the Man, and fortitude given to the Woman. Suffice to say, the completeness of true love--the truest expression of total devotion...it

requires some special circumstances to be fully exercised. Simply put, a man cannot fully give to another man what he lackswhat they both lack, nor can a woman do this for another woman. If one accepts that there exist certain differences between men and women, then this fact is irreproachable on a fundamental level. One might refute this by asserting that heterosexuals are equally slaves to the edicts of their appetiteMark, they say, are you not by the urges of your appetite physically attracted to women? Does not any pursuit of a sexual partner always have its origins in submission to appetite? This is in some sense true. However, one would also do well to recall that I am not an advocate for pre-marital sex any more than I am an advocate for homosexual sex. The fact is, in order for sexual urge to be sublimated, it must entail a marital bond, and the nature of marriage demands a total giving of one's self, not blindly, but for the precise exultation of and service to a person for their own sake. By nature, girls will view boys as unruly and rough, at worst violently self-serving, and boys will view girls as nave and ineffectual, at worst manipulative. However, the privation of what is true of boys and girls is the very essence of the conditions necessary for the transformation from childhood to adulthood. A man is strong and capable, virtuous at best, and a woman is sincere and nurturing, virtuous at best. Virtuous friendship must be a total devotion to one's friend for the sake of what is good about them. Romantic love is by definition much more than friendship and distinct from friendship in a sexual context. When a Father loves a son, they are not giving equally, the Father must sacrifice more to be loved, because to love his son unconditionally--to be a father, is not explicitly within his natural yearnings, and in fact, does not generally become manifest fully until he sees his son for the first time. Of course, one of the great developments yielded by the flourishing of uniquely human intellect is the axiom found within all world religions to varying degrees, but explicitly within Christianity: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Everything I have just written is the result of a long process of discernment. It wasn't too long ago that I thought that homosexuality and other wayward individual behaviors deserved to be completely beyond interference, and, even if not readily celebrated, they were necessarily to be tolerated. I abhor the fact that men and women have been imprisoned, tortured, killed and brutally marginalized throughout human history for homosexual behavior and other forms of promiscuity, and I know that this reactionary violence is an even greater evil than the deviancy it sought to correct. However, that said, it is my view that homosexuality and all sexual promiscuity is harmful to the well-being of those who succumb to it, because, as I've said, it confuses the essential aspects of their human intellect with their remnant animal appetite and urges. This confusion clouds their judgment of not only what is *most* acceptable and fulfilling sexually, but what is *most* acceptable and fulfilling in regard to the breadth of potential human behaviors. Therefore, this contemporary desire to push a culture of celebration of sexual license, whether one advocates for homosexuality or any other kind of errant sexual behavior with its origin in physical pleasure or attraction, is wrong. I do not tolerate gay-bashing, because it is the wrongful expression of wrath, the un-tempered state of intellectual disagreement, and I'm sure people on both sides of the debate can attest to the fact that it hampers one's ability to clearly consider and articulate their objections. Similarly, I disapprove of gay-rights opponents who throw the accusation of bigotry and prejudice around with equal license, though I must admit, I have little in common with most opponents of homosexuality, and many of them do operate on a foundation that is irrational and reactionary. That said, my objection to homosexual behavior is not predicated on a hatred for a homosexuals, but a love for them, and a desire that they partake in sexuality in a way that is most dignifying to them as humans. Human action is constantly torn to and fro on a spectrum that encompasses behaviors entailing both timid subservience to appetite on one end, and overly-bold manipulation and perversion of it on the other. Nestled somewhere in the center of this spectrum is the realm of virtue, the realm of true human action--precisely where Aristotle posited that it lay thousands of years ago.

Mark...You have an amazing mind unlike anyone else...think of others as not having the mental capability to perceive what you see....as in those who are around you do not have the ability to comprehend the power and ultimate reality of your thoughts...those who do not understand your arguments are actually in fear of your arguments reality....as in your so obvious that those around you are still with shock...such as I...nothing is more clear, yet to millions of others the illusion is still the base of ones reality....There are those who believe the Government will always control the way our minds function...but to those who have freedom of thought...see the true reality of what a thing really is...what I'm really sayin is your on the right path no matter how many people say your this or your that...what really matters is the end.