The Rainbow Choice

What is the scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic?  Truth be told, little evidence has been shown.  And for reasons I shouldn't have to explain to you, to say that homosexuality is a trait passed on from one generation to the next, especially in the animal kingdom, is a little absurd, withstanding genes interacting with one another causing genetic anomalies.  Now, what is the evidence that homosexuality is biological?  Well, plenty.  In fact, all of the evidence points in that direction. 1) A gay man, no matter how hard he tries, cannot make himself straight.  He will, in fact, have a better chance of succeeding in suicide than conversion, at a clinic such as Marcus Bachmann's. 2) Homosexuality happens in nature. Naturally in nature.  Each year, more species are found to have homosexual minorities, from penguins to meer kats. 3) Homosexual males and females have been shown in tests to have physical differences (not only in their mannerisms, but physical, biophysical differences) from straight members of the same sex, as well as similarities between gay members of one sex, and straight members of the other.

These are just three examples of what I'm going to cover in this blog.  Skepticism gives me a pretty wide range of subjects to deal with, and this one is one that I've been itching to do since I first heard that there was one of these camps only tens of miles from me - an embarrassment on an otherwise blue state, to say the least.

Despite, many people choose to remain denialists of biological homosexuality, and choose to remain ignorant of the evidence.  This is nothing new, and per usual, it stems from religion/superstition in most cases.  They cannot accept that God would create people who are an abomination against Jewish tribal laws written by people who sacrificed cows to the sun, and believed the world to be flat.  It is truly a disorder if I've ever seen one, and trust me, I've seen my share.  How can these people, putting superstitious nonsense aside, actually think people would make a decision to be a ridiculed and oppressed minority?  How can people think one can chose their own sexual orientation?  I didn't choose to be straight, nor did any actual straight person (barring those like Marcus Bachmann who are putting on an act because they hate something about themselves).  I guess the only answer is this: Willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance is a powerful force in this world, and is leading the crusade against science in our world.  You see it with evolution, climate change, the mapping of the human genome itself, and you certainly see it with homosexuality.  Naivity is another force because there are those who capitalize on the naivity of others by providing either misleading information, or all-out lies.  Among the top of these activists who hasn't been caught with another person of the same sex, or a child of the same sex, is the reverend Fred Phelps.

Phelps is the head of the Westboro Baptist Church - the group that protests military funerals because they feel the deaths of soldiers to be God's retribution against the sinful culture of the United States, Canada, and Europe.  Their website is entitled godhatesfags.com, if that gives you any precept of whom we're dealing with here.  Phelps has been quoted in saying many things regarding gays, such as this:

"It’s NOT OK to be gay. It will damn the soul, destroy the life, and doom any nation that tolerates such evil. God Hates Fags is a profound theological statement, which America needs more than it needs oxygen or bread."

The first thing I'd like to point out is that nowhere in Moslow's necessities of life is theology, let alone violent, hateful theology.  I'm pretty sure I need to put water and food into my body more than I need to "accept" that "God hates fags."  Secondly, and with less jest, the entirety of this statement is theologically based, and therefore, meaningless.  Phelps does, however, openly claim that homosexuality is a choice, and that any homosexual can choose to be straight, and should do so immediately.

Phelps is not alone in this belief.  Among the many crazies in history like Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Bishop Harry Jackson, Michael Marcavage, Madeline Crabb, Pat Buchanann, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others, one of today's leading crusaders against homosexuality is James Hartline.

James Hartline had this to say regarding homosexual behavior:

"I am a man with the greatest of concern for my fellow Christian. In my daily course of life, I see the great burden being thrust upon the American Christian by satanic forces who are determined to wipe out every vestige of Biblical influence in this once godly nation. Everyday, I speak with moms and dads who are brokenhearted that their sons and daughters have had their vulnerable minds hijacked by advocates representing the Spirit of Sodom. Those dark, socialistic engineers of a resurrected Sodom are determined, in their rebellion against the throne of God, to plant a massive crop of what the Bible calls the 'Vine of Sodom'."

I'm seeing a pattern here.  Could it be that the world's leading anti-gay activists are all people of deep-rooted religion?  That can't be.  There must be someone of a scientific origin with a scientific argument against homosexuality, right?  I mean, just one?  Maybe?  Someone who won't say something like, "Gay sympathy in schools will destroy America, the world, and quite possibly the universe."  I happened across one who was pretending to take a scientific approach to homosexuality.  His name is Luiz Sergio Solimeo, the author of the book Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.

This book explores the scientific arguments that homosexuality is physiological, and contends that science cannot prove the claims that homosexuality is "genetic," or irreversible.  He also says the animal homosexuality argument is nothing more than a myth.  Would you like to read more?  I surely would.  Here is how he sums up his reasoning that the animal argument is a false argument:

"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:

1. There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
2. It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
3. Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man."

Let me just run through this step by step, as the author has seemingly taken a religious turn, no matter how much I tried to find an argument that wouldn't.  The first problem with this argument is that he's done what so many others have: used the classic reductio ad absurdum to discredit the initial argument.  He's claiming that if we justify one behavior because it's natural in the animal kingdom, then we have to justify them all.  This is like comparing homosexuality to murder or cannibalism.  Oops, no wait, that exactly what he just did.  He doesn't seem to understand social construct.  We have many instincts as animals that we've slowly honed out of ourselves, or teach against, in modern society, because they don't fit in with what we define as civilized culture.  We don't condone murder, cannibalism, infanticide, rape, racism, sexism, or any of these other components that are merely extensions of our animal brains; most of which are summed up with the word xenophobia. 

Xenophobia probably helped us a lot in our evolution, as it is a form of false positive reasoning.  I don't know if that other tribe is here to kill me or befriend me, but I have nothing to lose if I take the highroad and fear them.  Fear leads to hate, and hate leads to murder: yet another activity that we don't condone as humans (at least secular culture doesn't).  However, to align homosexuality with any of these natural instincts is inane at best.  We have natural instincts to eat, sleep, cry, sweat, drink, fornicate, procreate, consume, and so on, yet we don't compare these things to murder.  Why not?  It's the exact same thing.  The only difference is that the instinct to fornicate and procreate is slightly altered within homosexuals, although, most homosexuals still feel parental instincts and maternal/paternal clocks just like the rest of us.

The reduction of all instincts into one broad spectrum of contempt is an intentionally misleading, dishonest argument and holds absolutely no scientific water.  In the same respect, xenophobia seems to be an instinct that this author has absolutely no problem with.

Aside from this point, this argument neglects to dispute homosexuality as a natural behavior, which is the entire point of the animal kingdom argument.  I would also like to point out that this man must be either a psychologist (sorry to pick on the field again, but this is one of my largest complaints about the philosophy of psychology itself) or an engineer, as only one of those two groups would make a comment so stupid as to say that it is "poor science to read human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior."  There is not a human instinct, action or presupposition that is not an extension of our animal instincts placed on a more complex scale.  Any biologist will tell you that; any neurologist will tell you that.

He went on to say:

"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.'"

Once again, the reductio ad absurdem argument returns; therefore, I will not explain it again.  Once is enough for such an intellectually void and scientifically odious argument.  I will, however, mention that the author seems to have a very unclear perception of not only consciousness, but also brain activity in general.  It almost appears as if he's using arguments that would be made by a phrenologist.  Is animal behavior bound by the physical laws of the governing mineral world?  Interesting way of putting it, but yes, to an extent.  We do, however, obviously have a great ability to evolve and adapt to our circumstances.  Adapting to circumstances and climate is what drives evolution, and hence, is the reason we're here right now to talk about adapting.  And of course all animals respond to internal and external stimuli.  This is what shapes our lives and most of our decisions.  This is granted, but I'm still not seeing the connection with homosexuality.

He says something in his second paragraph that sort of confuses me a bit, though.  He states that all animals "lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception.  Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another."  So, how then to animals form packs if they frequently confuse other members of their species?  I always thought that sight and smell were two of the primary functions of animals that allowed them to detect those with whom they're familiar, but according to Solimeo, the frequently confuse these senses as well.  In other words, he's saying that animals can't really tell a tree trunk from a lion?  Because if that were true, I'm not so sure evolution would have brought us this far.  This argument could be true of some animals that display homosexuality. 

With my background in evolutionary biology, needless to say, I've done my fair share of work with fruit flies.  Fruit flies are certainly an evolutionary anomoloy.  Some of them have developed a third and fourth wing, which are both entirely dysfunctional, if not completely useless and disruptive to their existing, functional wings.  They have an uncanny ability to smell food as well, but seem to have a horrible ability to sense one another with smell.  The problem is that this is how fruit flies identify mates.  They identify possible mates through smell, which they are actually quite horrible at, hence, this could easily explain homosexuality in fruit flies.

However, other animals don't seem to have any problem at all identifying mates: animals as small as dung flies.  In fact, an evolutionary trait of some animals is the ability to disguise themselves as the opposite sex in order to confuse other male contenders.  They will mate with a female while other males pursue them, and quite often unsuccessfully (obviously) fornicate with them in between the initial male's copulations.  This vastly decreases sexual competition, which is certainly to the advantage of the male fish with this ability.  The most noted creature with this capability is the Goodeidae.  If the Goodeidae family of fish were incapable of detecting the sex of another fish, then this evolutionary adaptation wouldn't work one bit, or at least, would not work most of the time.  But it does, and it continues an amazing success rate among this teleost family of fish.

In another case, there is a species of albatross knows as the Laysan (Phoebastria immutabilis) which are known for their lesbian couples.  The species is a monogamous species, but does not always pair up with mates of the opposite sex.  In fact, the female's, in over one-third of observed cases, mate with a male, then split with the male to pair up with a fellow female Laysan albatross.  They do this for a very good reason: It greatly benefits the species.  Female Laysans have learned what many human women have yet to learn, which is that the female sex is much more successful at child-rearing than is the male sex.  They also use this technique to avoid divorce, as with a female partner, she is not likely to be lured away to fornicate with another female.  This is a case of homosexual coupling, but not homosexual mating.  It is a perfectly illustrates a deliberate sociobiological system wherein homosexuality is practiced, and certainly not by mistake.  And if this can illustrate a successful mating program wherein homosexual coupling is successful, what does it say for humans who do the same?  The success rates are similar, as children raised in homosexual households seem to grow up as better-adjusted individuals and average significantly higher levels of both education and income.  But I guess that could just be the gay agenda, right?

I won't spend too much time on this argument, as it's irrelevant, but I've heard it enough to make a slight mention.  There are those who claim that our culture is flying deeper and deeper into a fiery pit because the media is forcing a gay agenda upon us with shows like Will and Grace, Modern Family, Queer Eye, and others.  Can I just say that I've watched all of these shows and I don't feel any significant homosexual tendencies.  In fact, I'm also a fan of Rick and Steve, and my life has yet to spin into a circle of gay orgies and drugs, so I think I'm all right.  What isn't mentioned when these people spout this conspiracy thesis is the fact that the gay community needs shows like these to show bigoted, straight, religious people that they're just like everyone else: the same problems, the same confusions, but with one added stress to their lives.  The gay community needs good PR just like the atheist community does; just like the Muslim community does; just like the Christian community does; just like the Jewish community does.  And all of these sects have their own media PR circles, just as they should.  Bigots are everywhere and hate everyone, and nobody is safe from them.  And frankly, being an atheist myself, I know what it's like to be a part of a minority who is constantly demonized, and every homosexual on this planet feels the same.  We need it.

So, while I'm still looking for a truly scientific argument against homosexuality, I'm starting to wonder if I'll ever actually find one.  I know that there probably aren't any, but I'm still looking.  It just appears to be the logical conclusion, based on contemporary as well as traditional research, is that homosexuality is a result of many composite factors, including genetics, environment, and hormonal influences, which when commingled, make the proverbial "perfect soup."  One cannot isolate purely in a genetic format, as far too many genetic twins differentiate in sexual persuasion, as has been illustrated in the studies performed by the Twin Studies of Bearman and Bruckner (2002).  In this light, one cannot base it too far on upbringing either.  This does not mean, however, that the genetic option isn't a factor.  It could even be a rather large one.  Maternal linkage has been a long-studied hypothesis with very significant results.  In Hamer et al (1993), Sanders et al (1998), and Hu et al (1995), a link was made on the X chromosome, gene marker Xq28.  In rigorous studies, they found that a significant number of gay men tested in their studies had relatively high amounts of gay uncles or cousins on their mother's side.  The standout marker was, as I mentioned before, Xq28.  This study was later refuted in 1999 by Rice et al, which argued that there was no evidence at all of linkage of microsatellite markers at Xq28.  But this was not the end, as later Meta-analysis has showed that additional genes must be present to account for heritability of sexual orientation.  A later study performed in 2005 scanned the genomes of the subjects and families who participated in both Hamer and Hu, and added additional subjects, concluding that while Xq28's significance may have been overstated in Hamer, two other genes showed near significance, and one other, 10q26, showed significant maternal loading, thus adding validity to the family studies previously thought to be refuted.

One thing not mentioned in any of these studies was birth order, which I would really love to look at in the Twin Studies performed by Bearman and Bruckner.  Later sexual orientation studies included a lot of wild claims, but some of them turned out to be incredibly valid, which was the case in Blanchard and Klassen's Fraternal Birth Order study of sexual orientation (1997).  The two concluded the younger a brother is in the family, the greater chance of being a homosexual.  In fact, each older brother adds as high as a 48% chance of homosexuality.  This conclusion wasn't reached by statistics, however.  There is strict, hard science to go along with it.  An in-utero environmental causation has been shown that is linked to a maternal immune response linked to HY antigens.  HY antigens are involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates.  Maternal H-Y antibodies remember and react to specific H-Y antigens.  Much like any other antibody, it is going to attack anything it perceives as an invader, which, unfortunately for the younger brother, is going to be his H-Y antigens, and therefore, decrease the antigens' ability to masculinise the brain.  Obviously, this effect varies, which has been the origin of much of its criticism, but it still stands today as a prevailing theory, and none of its opponent "external sibling order" hypotheses have come to explain the link between boys of later birth moved into adopted households without adopted brothers who are also prone to this effect.

Certainly, this effect may even grow deeper, as the physiological differences between straight men and gay men, as well as straight women and gay women, as well as the similarities between gay men and straight women, seem to fall right into this theory of the brain not undergoing proper masculinisation.  As reported by the BBC in 2008, studies have found that gay men and straight women share have an equal average proportion of brain hemispheres.  Straight men and lesbian women also share extraordinarily similar hemisphere proportions, including one anomaly: slightly larger right hemispheres.  According to a paper published in Science by Simon Levay (1991), the average size of the INAH 3 (the third interstitial of the anterior hypothalamus) in gay men is approximately the same size as it is in women.  It's significantly smaller and the cells are far more densely packed than they are in those of heterosexual males.  McFadden (2002) also notes that the functioning of the inner ear and central auditory system in bisexual women and lesbians far resembles the functioning of non-gay men, far more than it does straight women.  These are two significant physiological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals of the same gender that primarily relate to the brain.  I'm leaving out research that states other differences such as the varying size of the suprachiasmatic nucleus, as well as varying activity in the amygdala, between straight and gay men, simply because these trial results have yet to be duplicated enough times to appease my hungry scientific mind.  Whereas in the case of the INAH3 study, it was duplicated with the same results by its largest detractor, which in science, means everything.

While I'll always say that correlation does not mean causation, many rather significant correlations have been made to varying brain activity as well as the relative sizes of certain areas of the brain and sexual preference.  What this means is that this is an area of sexual orientation science that needs to be explored further, and if trends predict anything, more significant variations will certainly be found, leading us to conclusive evidence of the cause(s) of homosexuality.

But in the end, I will always say that the best test of all is the Myth Busters form of investigation: Just ask.  We all know at least one homosexual.  Just ask him or her if he or she chose to be this way.  Not only will you get a resounding no, but you'll also receive a question in return: Why the hell would I have chosen to be this way?  It's not that, in asking such a question, they're admitting to being ashamed of who they are.  They are, however, illustrating how their lives have been, being so different from everyone else, and probably having to keep such a huge part of themselves secret from their friends and family for years upon years upon years.  Who in the world would choose such a thing?  A better question: Why do we live in a society where people have to hide who they are.

Whether homosexuality is a combination of genetic, biological, and environmental factors, or if one of these factors are dominant, it's obvious that a conscious choice was not made by the individual that determined his or her sexual identity and/or orientation.  And let us also keep in mind that even though most scientists would refer to homosexuality as a genetic defect, that doesn't imply negative connotation.  My height is a genetic defect, and so is the color of my eyes.  Any kind of genetic abnormality is a defect.

In summation, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a choice, nor is there evidence to suggest one can alter their sexual preference any more than they could alter the shape of their face or the length of their arms through sheer will.  There are mountains of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is biological and, to loosely use the term, genetic.  Environmental factors are also at play, but only when combined with preexisting biological components.  Homosexuality is in no way, shape, or form a choice consciously made by humans or other animals.

Cute Little Animals Without Souls

In all three major Abrahamic faiths, it is taught that God gave man the earth and all its inhabitants the earth to do with it as they pleased. Along with this teaching is that animals don't have souls and are mindless creatures that are here for our consumption. Well, although it disparages me that Anne Coulter would disagree with me, I happen to find this statement false, and I do so with a BIG, BIG SMILE!

While I don't particularly believe in the "soul", being an atheist, I tend to require some sort of proof of something to call it real, I stand against this belief simply because I love animals and I don't believe them to be our inferior when it comes to aspects of the "soul". Elephants mourn death, monkeys are capable of understanding currency, as was recently proven by economist M. Keith Chen of Yale, and all animals are capable of love and affection.

But I decided that it's not even worth arguing the point to my friends at the religious right. So I decided to make a blog for the young ones instead of the adults for a change and show you some adorable pictures of all of the cute little animals that, according to the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths, will burn in hell because they are soulless beasts.



Look at these two together. It sure seems like they like one another, but according to the Abrahamics, they're not capable of that. Well, at least they'll be together in hell.



An adorable little mother duck and her children that the Christians say she's incapable of loving. And she's leading her children straight to hell where Muslims say she and her children belong.




This soulless beast is clearly incapable of affection. It's a good thing that our friends in the Christian faith tell us that this horrific beast is going straight to hell, huh?



This may seem like a content little Hedgehog, but I assure you, it's eyes are only dreaming of MURDER!!! It's a good thing that after death, the cells and enzymes of this animal won't be recycled into the earth, as this animal will be burning in hell.



Animals, as is proven again and again (not by science, but by religion) are not capable of maternal instincts. Remember, they're just soulless creatures!



Those little cute eyes will surely look good roasting in hell, won't they?



Hang in there, Kitty. Hell awaits you!



Yep, so lifeless and meaningless are these creatures.

In the end, I must admit this blog to be a cheap blow. However, religious parents seem to forget to tell their children about the negative aspects of their faith, and there are plenty. And the parents who do inform their children of the negative side of religion either raise suicide bombers or atheists. The latter being the most common. Why do you suppose that is? And why do you suppose parents would abstain from telling their children about this part of the religion? Well, it would certainly interfere with the brainwashing if they were to tell their children that these cute and fluffy animals mean nothing in the "eyes of God", wouldn't it?

In the end, it's not cheap for me to do this. It's realistic. So, how about some realistic teaching and child-rearing. Instead of only filling the heads of your children with the brainwashing, cute and fluffy parts of faith, how about letting them in on the other 97% and letting them choose for themselves. Because you can't just choose bits and pieces - either you believe in it or you don't. Why don't you let little Timmy make up his own mind for a change. He may thank you for it one day.

Thank you. I'm the Smiling Atheist, and apparently I'm smiling my way all the way down to Hell. But one of the reasons I smile is because I know it doesn't exist.

Have a happy and guilt-free tomorrow.

A Day in the Life of an Atheist

I'm a laid back and moderate person in most cases and I don't pretend to be a representative of any kind of the Atheist community. However, reading a book recently about the Creation Museums which are now scattered across America concerned me. It would have enraged me, but I am the Smiling Atheist after all. Apparently, there is a part of numerous creation museums which contain sections on atheism and atheist households, depicting them as devil worshiping drunks, and homes laden with violence. The ironic thing about it is that atheists, being atheists, don't believe in the Christian Devil, therefore, we would feel pretty silly worshiping him, wouldn't we? But the second aspect of this is the all-encompassing lie that is not only being presented here, but is actually being believed.

I, then, thought it was my duty to run through the average day in the life of an average atheist to hopefully dispel the rumors and malicious lies which are being put forth by people who apparently aren't smiling all that much at all.

I'm going to use this past Saturday, simply because it was a pretty average day, other than the fact that my fiancee had the day off. Fiancee? Yes, atheists marry too.

The morning was rather average. Nicole awoke a few hours before me, as I was up all night writing and working on various projects as usual. She eventually woke me up around 10:30 with a kiss. I, being a pretty heavy sleeper, didn't awake immediately, but the touch of her lips, along with that big, bright, annoying globe in the sky did it for me.



I immediately took to the kitchen to make some coffee. Now, this is the part where, according to the Creation Museum, I should have been reaching for the bottle of Vodka that I feel asleep with the night before, only to notice I spilled it onto myself. At which point, I would lick whatever I could off the carpet and then beat my fiancee within an inch of her life for letting me spill it on myself. However, as will be the consistent theme in this little story, that could not be further from the truth.

Anyway, I was putting on some coffee when she came up behind me and gave me a hug, which was lovingly requited. I should make a note right now that she is also an atheist. In fact, her previous boyfriend of almost six years eventually "found God" and then would tell her all the time how much it saddened her that she would go to hell instead of joining him in heaven. Keep in mind that this is the guy who, the last time she went to see him to pick up her dog, was showing her his new military assault rifle. This is why she was more than happy to move from the south to be with me in Minneapolis.

But I'm getting side tracked here. After the coffee was done, we indulged in our favorite beverage. Really, any nice, rich, organic coffee on the darker side of the roaster is perfect for us. We love our coffee.

She then brought up how beautiful it was outside that day. Keep in mind, this is Minneapolis in the middle of November, so by beautiful, I actually mean about 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Her suggestion was that we would head over to Loring Park and unload the last of our buns to the squirrels there. For those of you who don't live in the Minneapolis area, Loring Park is an extremely beautiful park that is dead center in the middle of Minneapolis' gay community. The animals there are so friendly and used to people, they'll come right up to you and take the food out of your hand. Nicole was in love with this place the first time I brought here there. But since I notice that this blog has more exposition than Star Wars, I'll continue and try to make way without further explanation.

So, I hit the shower and she soon followed. Noted, we showered separately. I know that being atheists, we should be starting off our mornings with homosexual orgies in the hallway of out apartment building, but that was just not the case on this very day. Now, that's not to say that we don't enjoy our sex-life, but it just wasn't in the cards that particular morning. Oh, and no orgies either, contrary to the Creation Museum.

Now, according to the aforementioned Creation Museum, after the shower I should surely be leaving my beaten and defenseless fiancee on the floor while I head out to pick up hookers on Lake Street. However, it was at this point where we left for the park. It was chilly, but we were trying to soak up the good weather of the day as much as possible, knowing that the snow would be coming at any time.



The furry little creatures at the park were even cuter than normally, as they were so fat because they're all stocking up for Winter's hibernation months. But this only meant that those squirrels which would usually be more timid than the others were more than happy to come right up to you and gently take the food from your hands. You occasionally get the ones that will swat the food out of your hand first and then slowly inch away, but most of them are very cute and affectionate creatures. Well, for squirrels, anyway. Now, at this point, according to our friends at the Christian Right, we should have proceeded with our bag of poisoned food and choked to death whichever squirrels didn't fall for our evil and demonic scheme. But, again, this was just not the case, as the squirrels seemed well fed and we proceeded toward the pond area to toss some food at the seemingly endless amount of geese, ducks and pigeons that were all around.

We fed them for a while, but the seagulls were too much for us to handle, and they caught just about every bit of food from us that we tossed, in lieu of the ducks and geese. And since they seemed to be swarming us and we didn't want to get pecked or pooped on, we figured we'd take our cold asses home, barring a short stop at the grocery store. What did we buy there, you ask? Well, if you hold your pants on, I'll tell you.

According to the Creation Museum, we apparently should have been picking up more booze and the discarded fetuses from Planned Parenthood to fry with the animals we'd just needlessly slaughtered. But instead, we got a box of organic Christmas Cookies (I know that just because they're organic doesn't mean they're good for me, but I can burn the fat off - the other stuff, since I don't know what it is, I can't), some chicken and other useful sustenance. After the grocery store, we ducked into Traitor Joe's Wines. Oops, there we go getting all boozed up, right? Well, um, no. Actually, we picked up a bottle of wine for that night, as we had planned on a rather romantic evening, and we picked up a bottle of Riesling to bring to my Aunt's house for Thanksgiving this week.

After getting home, I started dinner. I'm the cook between the two of us. However, the Creation Museum would have you think that Nicole would be barefoot and pregnant, heating up said fetuses while I punched her for overcooking the fetus roast. Yet, it's funny that that is the image I get in my head when I think of most southern Christians. Ironic, isn't it.

I made dinner and we indulged in a little wine, but for whatever reason, instead of catching a nice, calm buzz, the wine made both of us tired. Me, because I didn't sleep for very long, and her because she never sleeps very well when I'm not in there with her. So, we forewent our romantic plans and I put in a movie and the both of us laid down together on a thick blanket on the floor and cuddled. Wow, so instead of mass orgies, these two atheists didn't even indulge in innocent and monogamous sex after their "boozing"? No, not that night.

Now that I look at it, it seems rather boring, but it isn't to me. We're both in our late twenties. And even though we still go out and have tons of fun a lot, most of the time, we just stay in, cuddle and enjoy our mutual love for horrible and wretched B-Z rate cinema.

So, while the Creation Museum teaches that atheists homes are riddled with violence, drug use, alcoholism and everything allegedly non-Christian under the sun, let this story be a lesson to all. Atheists are people just like anyone else. We vary just like any other group in the country as well. There are atheists out there who buy into Christian rhetoric and actually believe that homosexuality is a choice, or that abortion is immoral. But over all, atheists seem to be much more able to have calm and rational discussions about controversial topics, simply because we came to all of our conclusions, morals and values on our own through constant conversation and questioning. We didn't, however, come to our conclusion because it was told to us without factual foundation by a biased source with cool wax sculptures of a group of people maiming one another in their own homes with a sign that reads, "The Typical Atheist Home. A Culture in Despair."

If you're willing to formulate your opinions in such a manner, then I'm afraid nobody can help you in the first place, so I'm sorry you just wasted your time reading the truth, because it's something that you're obviously not interested in. But if you're one of the few intelligent religionists out there, I hope that this story helped you buy taking you first hand into the life of an atheist couple. And while I'm sure it's not going to convert you, I hope it helped you understand that atheists aren't how they're portrayed by your leaders. In face, we're just the opposite.

Thank you all for your time. I'm The Smiling Atheist. I'm good without God, and I'll smile faithlessly to the end. Thanks again.