Dominica Island Blog: Sharing Every Dominican Moment with the World

Have you considered that what is considered “normal” is actually what the majority believes are the norms we should be following as a society? In Massachuttes, women were burned alive because they were considered to be witches - in part for believing in natural healing and in part because they were “different”.

Insanity simply is a view that is rejected by the majority of societies and that definition will change in different different eras. For example, while I consider it insane that women were burned at the stake, at the time it was quite sane. I consider the fear that surrounded the “dark ages” of Europe to be insane but at the time it was considered sane. I consider the idea of enslaving men and women because of the color of their skin to be insanity, yet it was the norm. I consider enslaving/killing people because of their religious beliefs over thousands of years of our known history to be insane, yet this was the norm. We need to really consider before we label something as “bizarre”.

I believe that fear has this current society going through their own period of insanity that time will reveal. Why are we concerned about what is “bizarre”? Should the real test not be whether a behavior is hurting another human being one on one? How can I and why should I concern myself with how someone else views my behavior? What happened to Larry King is no one’s fault other than the person who hurt him. No one else bears responsibility, just because I do not agree with something or do not understand it does not give me the right to hurt anyone.

In the United States, people who practice voodoo/hoodoo do so in secret because the majority would find those beliefs/behaviors “bizarre”. In the United States, you can be charged with any number of crimes if it were discovered that you took a child to a voodoo practitioner rather than a doctor when the child became sick. Natural healing is not viewed as a legitimate option though that opinion is quickly changing.

We can not blame people’s sexual orientation for the spread of disease any more than we can blame a group of people who are predisposed to carrying a gene for a disease for continuing to procreate amongst themselves.

Tolerance and acceptance of people for who they are will be the only way that we can survive as a human race. It is not for me to judge who should be able to make a commitment to one another.

You ask, “Why should we support gay people who want to get married?”

Who are you or any of us to presume that gay people need our support? They simply want to be left alone to be allowed the same freedoms as anyone else.

You ask, “can’t they just live together?” This is the same thought process that contributed to the rules against interracial marriage in the United States. Who by the way is “they”? I suspect if “they” were a close family member, your cousin, best friend, etc. you would have a different opinion on the matter.

You ask, “Isn’t marriage supposed to be a sacred union between a man and woman?” - Says who? If you are speaking in religious terms, then what do you say to those who do not believe? Would it be too “bizarre” for them to get married? Marriage does not require a religious ceremony, all that is required is civil ceremony and that is what gay people are asking for - the ability for them to make the statement that they are committed to a relationship.

Finally, you say, “Yes, stigma is wrong. But I find it very alarming to know that we live in an era in which many children know what it means to be gay even before they know what sex is. To me, that just cannot be right.”

Why do you find it alarming when children know their mother and father sleep in the same bed before they know what sex is.

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

Below is an excerpt with regards to animals that display homosexual behavior - perhaps it is not so “bizarre” after all.

Homosexual behavior is widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates.[3]

“No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.”
—Petter Bøckman[3]

Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have yet to be fully understood. Bagemihl’s research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[5][6]

Homosexuality in animals is seen as controversial because some assert it points to the naturalness of homosexuality in humans, while others counter that it has no implications and is nonsensical to use animal behavior to justify what is or is not immoral.[7][8] Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behaviour. Thus homosexual behaviour has been given a number of terms over the years. The correct usage of the term homosexual is that an animal exhibits homosexual behaviour, however this article conforms to the usage by modern research[9][10][11][12] applying the term homosexuality to all sexual behaviour (copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behaviour) between animals of the same sex.

I have the distinction of living both in Oxnard California where the young man Larry King was murdered and Dominica (in Fortune). I’m also a research psychologist who has spent my career studying human social behavior.

The author has many valid and serious concerns. I think however, that some real issues have gotten mixed together with diversions, and some misconceptions. Homosexuality is no more a “preference” than is heterosexuality. I do not “prefer” being heterosexual, I simply am heterosexual. The same is true of folks who are homosexual. That many cultures in many times have put down homosexuality says nothing about the people themselves. Many cultures put down people for all sorts of differences. That does not mean the “different” people are wrong for being who they are.

The author also makes the common mistake of attributing HIV to gays. This mixes together a variety of issues into a dangerous brew (dangerous, because it leads to hate). Gays are not responsible for the HIV epidemic. HIV appeared first in subgroups that had many sexual partners. Both straight and gay subgroups exist that fit this profile. In Latin American countries, the highest rate of getting HIV is among monogamous married woman because their husbands bring it home from their numerous outside affairs. Does this mean that married husbands are responsible for women getting HIV? No. It means that SOME married husbands are.

How do we change the fact that some gays have many partners? Perhaps by offering them the same rights to socially accepted and legal relationships that straights have. Consider how you would view the world if you were literally not allowed to have a stable relationship that was legally protected. Consider if you were shunned,, put into a cateogry labeled deviant, told you were “not okay.” How would you feel? Might that rejection shape your behavior differently than if you were accepted as part of society? (The actual answer is “yes of course it would.)

It is time for all of us to step back from our own self-centered world views and allow people to be who they are, all of us. ALso consider that the distinction “straight vs gay” is just one way of classifying sexual orientation. Many societies see things very differently, have many and varied gender definitions. Ours is just one world view.

One of the most tragic aspects of the murder of Larry King is how many commentators have twisted the murder around to make it his own fault for being “different.” The tragedy is that American society makes his difference an offense deserving of hate.

Yes, we need to adopt policies that will reduce the spread of diseases. This has nothing to do with folks who are gay. In fact, allowing gays to be accepted, and giving those folks the same legal and social rights as straights will go a long way toward reducing the spread of disease among those who react to rejection with perfectly understandable responses.

Peace to all

Dan

Human beings have long childhoods compared to their natural lifespans. Human females have long and dangerous pregnancies and because of the newborn’s cranial size, have difficulty giving birth, and human sexual dimorphism (physical differences between the sexes) are fairly great. All of this creates a social need for nurturing families and that makes one-man/one-woman marriage the best social and cultural adaptation.

Homosexual behavior has no useful biological purpose. And where homosexual activists (who are unencumbered by the time and money demands that having and raising children bring about) promote homosexuality as a simple legitimate choice of an alternative lifestyle, they make political progress.

But that does not make them right. In high school our daughter, an honors student, had a teacher who was promoting the homosexual agenda. When our daughter used the word “straight” to designate a heterosexual the teacher admonished her saying that using that word implies that homosexuals are crooked. Our daughter asked why using “gay” to mean homosexual couldn’t be construed to imply that heterosexuals are sad. She was disciplined by being sent to the principal’s office.

I will not use slang or “politically correct” (”PC”) language. That biases the debate. I also could cite abundant medical and sociological research supporting the position that homosexual behavior is abnormal. We currently live in a US state (Massachusetts) that enforces stupid “civil rights” laws that do not permit people to even engage in the debate about homosexuality, and requires us to consider same-sex marriage legal and the equivalent of traditional marriage.

Men commit many sexual acts that are not normal, bestiality and rape being two examples. Declaring them to be normal would be no different than to declare, say, murder and theft, also normal, moral, and perfectly permissible.

Wow! I just found this on-line. Not exactly James Bond…

MI5 seeks gay spies in attempt to expand its recruiting base

By Jean Eaglesham in London

Published: August 18 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 18 2008 03:00

MI5, the UK security service, is looking to recruit more gay staff - following many investment banks and private sector employers - in a move that reflects dramatic changes in the attitudes of the British establishment over the last decade.

Stonewall, the gay lobby group, has been hired to advise MI5, the domestic arm of the intelligence services, on how to encourage its spies to be more open about their sexuality and how to attract more gay applicants for posts.

The contract marks a significant change in stance by MI5. Gay men and women were barred from working in sensitive posts in the diplomatic or security services until the early 1990s, a quarter of a century after sexual acts between men were decriminalised in 1967. The ostensible rationale was concern that gay spies could be vulnerable to blackmail, while gay ambassadors could exacerbate tensions between the UK and countries that still criminalise homosexuality.

MI5 would have been highly unlikely to want to work closely with Stonewall in the decade to 2002, when the group was headed by Angela Mason. Ms Mason was tried and acquitted in the 1970s of planting bombs on the doorsteps of Conservative ministers.

Jonathan Evans, who became MI5 director-general last year, has now sanctioned a policy of targeting the gay community as potential recruits. Stonewall will include the security service in its guide of gay-friendly employers this year. The lobby group is also advising MI5 on how to create a supportive environment for its existing gay employees.

The decision is part of a broader cultural shift by the service, away from the traditional “tap on the shoulder by a don” method of attracting Oxbridge graduates to a more open recruitment of people from across society. The change is driven partly by necessity - MI5 has been rapidly recruiting hundreds more staff since the July 7 2005 bombings.

Ben Summerskill, Stonewall’s current chief executive, said yesterday that MI5 faced the same dilemma as other employers for whom the calibre of employees makes a difference to organ-isational performance, but who have traditionally recruited from a relatively narrow base. Stonewall has been working with investment banks for the past five years to try to help them reach employees who do not conform to City stereotypes.

Thanks for that info Dan!
All of this discussion has lead me to ask, “why do lesbians and gays
always wish to promote and spread their “culture”? “Normal” men and women do not go around
asking people to become heterosexual… So, it’s like asking, why would an HIV positive person go about spreading the disease when he knows he is positive and the effects of the disease? Or why should you invite ur friend to have whiskey everyday when you know that he may possibly became an alcoholic? None of these cause physical pain, but they destroy the “person”.
Is it that they see nothing wrong with it or do they just want to spread the habit or the disease? Have we become so immune to HIV because we know that we are able to live healthy lives for an entire lifetime once the proper drugs are taken?
The Bible states that the Word of the Lord is written on our hearts, so I believe that once we are involved in something wrong, we become aware of it. We get a deep down feeling of discomfort. To what level we deny or accept our wrong doing depends only on us, and how much we actually become immune to our bad habits also depend on how much we allow ourselves to accept them and deny to ourselves that we are actually doing something wrong.
Likewise, homosexuality becomes a mind set. But how many homosexuals are really truly happy with who they are? How many men wish that they were attracted to women and not men? How many men or women wish that they had never been introduced to homosexuality, well… and even sex for that matter?
It’s all in the heart. We all have a conscious, and whether homosexuality is wrong or right we all know the response to that deep down in our hearts despite the millions of explanations that we may present for and against the issue.

Dan (the other Dan here) states: “I also could cite abundant medical and sociological research supporting the position that homosexual behavior is abnormal.”

Since I work in health care, and teach sociology, and do research in both areas, I’d simply like to refute the allegation. “Abnormal” is a value judgment, nothing else. And one can stretch what is called science to cite anything. Research can be cited to support just about anything. Psychiatry gave up on this debate more then 30 years ago, finally removing homosexuality as a diagnosable “illness.” The question about research is to know its validity, the values (and pay source) of the researchers, and the pattern of results across studies. And, normal is also culturally specific. In Fiji, India, many cultures, you find very different ways of defining sexuality than our simple black and white gay-straight bipolar manner.

Dan, it would simply be more honest to say that you just don’t accept homosexuality and leave it at that. Of course, whether a person accepts any aspect of reality doesn’t alter the reality. What it does do is create hate, bigotry, and discrimination, and ultimately, spirals out to where people are injured and killed, whether individually as in the case of the young man in my US community, or en masse as in the case of Hitler slaughtering thousands of folks who were homosexual. There is a direct linear relation between your type of comments and what happens in real life when people turn words into hate acts. Someone mentioned “political correctness” which is just another way of saying “I have a right to make statements embedded in hate. Well, of course, people do, but they must also then take responsibility for such positions, and also accept that people of conscience will object.

Peace to all, you included Dan, and please, learn better to live and let live

Dan Jordan, PhD, ABPP

“I also wonder if animals can be gays or lesbians too- I’ve never seen any that are. Are human beings the only creatures with strange sexual behaviour- and if so, why? It would then seem as if homosexuality is not so normal, after all.”

Actually, if you grew up on a farm or ranch you would know that roughly 8% of all male mammals and birds are homosexual in nature (it is difficult to show homosexuality in female animals). It is a part of farming. If these animal were designated for breeding then you separate them out of the breeding stock and into the food stock then slaughter them when they get of age/weight with all of the rest. True equal opportunity with no prejudice. Just the financials of farming.

Joel

Hi guys,

I can see you are so well read up on facts that most of the disspelling myths has already been done, so I only want to add a couple of quick links for you. These are to the BBC and The University of Oslo who did some great coverage of gender and sex variant behaviour in the animal kingdom. These have a lot of photographic evidence of animal homosexuality and gender variant behaviour, as well as academic references and studies if you really want to verify that it is fact that even creatures that run on instinct alone and so have no choice or preference in the matter can be homosexual or transgendered.

Illustrations of Gay Animals at Olso Uni

Against Nature? Exhibition at Olso University

BBC coverage of Gay Penguins in Berlin Zoo

There are also many references to animals behaving in “sex swap” behaviours, from the obvious like fish and alligators which physically change to those like hens who act like roosters.

There’s tons more of this info out there so I won’t go on, suffice to say that the notion that these behaviours are made by choice is nonsense. I am transexual and I understand it to be natural, just not the norm - and a good thing too! I hope that the rest of the world are born normal, it’s not something people do for fun although obviously we like to enjoy our lives just like everyone else does.

Personally I think “morally loose” is allowing the real issues of the world to go on without notice - the repression of the 3rd world, the destruction of the environment for profit, the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the wars that create terrorists. Two men getting it on together or a guy who thinks he is a girl really doesn’t make much difference in the grand scale of things since if the violent, profiteering straight men carry on the way they are we’re all doomed! Let’s get back to dealing with the real sickos of the world - the George Bushes who invade little, defenceless countries, the WHO who allows bad medicines to flood Africa, the Chinese arms dealers selling uranium to terrorists and the oil companies creating global warming. Perhaps if we stop looking at the small fish of the world and look at the big picture, we’ll get a better idea of why the world is headed where it is.

Danielle,

I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject matter at this point given the information that exists in the responses as well as through some simple research. I don’t of course expect you to change your opinion but I would imagine that your question,

“I also wonder if animals can be gays or lesbians too- I’ve never seen any that are. Are human beings the only creatures with strange sexual behaviour- and if so, why? It would then seem as if homosexuality is not so normal, after all.”

has been answered and will no longer be used as one of your arguments for the “bizarre” nature of homosexuality.

SKT

OK, is bestiality with a cow, a sow, or a nanny-goat (none of which are likely to hurt or harm the animal) “normal” then?

The bible is a collection of myths, nothing more or less.

Homosexuals are sick people who deserve our sympathy, but homosexual acts are not tolerable in a society concerned with public health and family welfare.

Hi Suki,

I completely understand your point of view. The truth is that homosexuality exists and it is an issue that has to be confronted. I must admit that you are quite open minded, and I appreciate that.

When I made my comments, there are a few things that were not explained. I have quite a few very close friends who are homosexuals. It is just very interesting ‘how’ they became homosexuals. It’s not that they were born like that, but were what we would say “molested” as young boys. From my friends’ experiences, sometimes, at a young age, they are confused, not sure whether what they are being made to do is wrong or right, and were made to swear to secrecy. Homosexuality was not being seen as such, but as something that you do with another man. It becomes normal to them, but they do become aware of the fact that it is not fully accepted in the society, so they secretly develop relationships with other boys. They did develop as human beings, became sucessful men, but sometimes feel trapped in something that they did not call on themselves or willingly accept and are at times feel unhappy about it because they too feel that they wish they were ‘normal’. They were introduced to it. So I would really appreciate it if you could share some light on this.

Where adults are involved, it’s their choice how they decide to live their lives. But, where children and teenagers are concerned, how do we confront the issue? Many of them are the people who develop into the ‘gay’ men that we speak of today.

thanks

Don’t know why I have stayed in this, but, what the heck. The other Dan writes another completely unsubstantiated, but morally oppressive statement, “homosexual acts are not tolerable in a society concerned with public health and family welfare.” Nothing supports such a stance.

If we want to live in a world where people stop killing each other, then we must all of us back off, get out of each other’s business, and get down off of our self-righteous nonsense that passes for thought and humanity.

By the way, Suki, your quote does not come from the US Constitution. It comes from the Declaration of Independence. While both are deeply flawed documents, the point is worth noting. The Declaration uses the word “equal.” It is dropped, on purpose, with tragic consequences, from the Constitution. Lincoln came, during the US Civil War, to realize this. His conversion to human rights was revealed in his Gettysburg Address. How? He opened with “Fours score and seven years ago . . . .” That year count refers to 1776, the year of the Declaration, not the Constitution. He saw the distinction (quite a bit has been written about this, I’ve researched it pretty extensively). He saw that we must balance equality with freedom, and that the official document of the US does not do that. Freedom without equality is a sham of rights.

And so, we need to identify a higher ideal, one for all of humanity. The best work toward that ideal can be found in the effort to establish a new standard, that of human rights. And guess what, human rights allows for marriage of any pair of adults, however they choose. It is the human right of gays, male and female, to marry. And those who disagree are therefore anti-human rights, and pro-their-own-petty-biases. Not because I say so, but because that is where this reality leads.

The human rights domain has many areas needing work, the whole concept is young in human thought and thus roughly formed so far. But we must do the work, work toward new universal standards for all people. I work for that in my own life, am dean of a graduate studies program that includes a human rights domain (in St Kitts & Nevis). I hope to use that to further this work.

As for the others, either you need to rethink your realities, or accept that you are promoting hate. By the way, the message where the author talks about how gay animals are culled out for slaughter is a thinly veiled metaphor of hate.

Daniel Jordan, PhD, ABPP
International University for Graduate Studies

There is no need for same-sex marriage. It can have no purpose. Marriage is a cultural device to provide a nurturing environment for children, a biological impossibility in same-sex marriage. Same-sex partners (or even friends) can make living wills and last wills, so hospital visits and inheritances are red-herrings.

But speak the truth and be accused of hate. The debate has become political. It should be purely scientific. Religion is not science.

The purpose of sex ix procreation. That it feels good leads to bonding, which also has a purpose — keeping a family together to nurture the offspring.

Homosexuals seek only gratification. For them, procreation is neither possible nor desired. That is unnatural.

It is culturally stupid and perhaps culturally disastrous to equate any same-sex arrangement or even opposite-sex promiscuity with opposite-sex marriage and family life. The family is the basis of society.

The other Dan states that “same-sex marriage….can have no purpose” that it is “a cultural device to provide a nurturing environment for children and [that] legal issues are red-herrings.”

By predefining (and mis-defining) the purpose of an aspect of contract law, the author predefines his own outcome. In fact, more than 1,200 federal laws, much less state and local laws, apply to marital partners. Spinning off the purpose of marriage is children, then all married people must have children. That would mean we should also not allow marriage of women beyond child-bearing age or men who are sterile.

The author states “But speak the truth and be accused of hate.” The problem is that the author speaks only self-reinforcing culturally-bound rhetoric, has not spoken truth. Any speech or policy that denies equal rights is hate speech. It is speech designed to oppress.

The author states “The purpose of sex ix procreation.” If true, then why does 99.9+% of all sex acts not lead to procreation? The purpose of an act can be found in itself. This argument also opens a window on the issue of whether women should be allowed to use birth control, which the current American administration is attempting to deny.

“Homosexuals [are] unnatural.”

Again, by staking the claim to definition of natural or normal, the author predefines his own result, but of course that is a tautology.

The author states “The family is the basis of society.”

I heartily agree with that latter, which is why homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. And, again, one must not limit the definition of family to any one narrow definition of what that means. Families come in all sorts of permutations across time and cultures. We must be open to them all.

I truly feel sorry for people who cannot open their minds and hearts to ways of being that are outside their own narrow preconceptions. It is sad for them, and sad for the world. Their shallow end of the pool of discrimination is directly linked to the deep end, and it is an easy slide down into the depths. These slides are historical realities.

Peace to all, even those who want to control the lives of others

Dan Jordan, PhD, ABPP

Funny, I originally hit this site because I thought I might make some connections with folks in Dominica, my and my wife’s new home. Wind up instead in a debate over something that should have been long ago settled. I’d much prefer connecting with folks around issues of life in Dominica. We cannot yet live there for extended periods, but that is in our future, especially if things keep sliding toward Fascism in this country.

Peace

Dan

If not-reproducing individuals served no biological process then how do you explain ANTS? After all only the Queen reproduces! Termites too! And many kinds of wasps! They do quite well so there must be a biological function then to have ant nests filled with ants who don’t reproduce!

And there are lots of gay animals. My neighbours dogs are gay for example.

Please look into the science a little bit. You’ll find some answers to some of your questions there and more is discovered every year about lifes mysteries through science.

As for HIV, education is the key to that. Thats what has worked in the countries with the least HIV. They still have gay people. Oh and straight people sleep around lots too, about 30% at least of married MEN AND WOMEN cheat on their partners!

And also consider the ethics. A person should be free to do whatever they want so long as they respect anothers freedoms and choice.

So a murderer can murder rightously only if the victim chooses without coercion to be murdered. Sure it sounds odd but think about it. It means that the murderer doesn’t get to murder anyone because no-one wants to be murdered! If they go ahead and kill someone anyway the fact it was done against the other persons wishes is what makes it wrong! Rape is just the same!

But the gay person does get to be gay so long as they find a partner who can give uncoerced informed consent. Now only adults and only humans can give that consent! See, no bestiality no pedophilia but lots of other ‘bizarre’ stuff is ok because it involves only consenting adult people.

So there you go. A simple piece of philosophy that deals with all your issues. Transgender people can and should be able to be free to make their own choices. If you think they shouldn’t imagine if YOU were not free to be straight? Imagine if YOU were not free to choose what you would want to choose!

You can fairly claim no right or freedom that you do not freely allow and support for all others!

It’s all a matter of consent. We not only should support whatever bizarre things others want to do but in fact we must. It’s the only thing that validates and justifies our own freedoms!

Otherwise it’s might that makes right, who has most power, whose religion has the most power etc etc.

Might I suggest you look into the philosophies of the Enlightenment, on the origins of Human Rights, Civil Rights, the French Revolution and the basics of modern democracy. You’ll find these philosophies of how to define right and wrong in countries with multiple religions, races and cultures work quite well.

But there are some who want others not to be as free as them, who want others not to be equal but lesser. Those people are evil because what they want, the restrictions of other peoples freedoms, is evil.

In the past and still sometimes today it was complaining about black people being tolerated as equals, then complaining about women being tolerated. Now it’s gay and transgender people.

Those people should be as free as any other person. You only deserve your freedom if you support the freedom of everyone.

So then do you deserve your freedom? Or are you become like the whites who oppose/d black equality, the men who oppose/d womens equality? Are you becoming the same as them?

I have not resorted to ad hominem (meaning “Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents’ motives.”) attacks in this thread.

I have also used facts, not beliefs.

But I am now being called a racist. For that person’s info, I risked my life and my career during the Civil Rights movement.

I can see that people are irrational on this topic. I will not contribute further to this thread.

People let us stop the nonsense. The issue is about human rights. Jesus said Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So simple put, dont label people, accept them, and allow them the same rights you take for granted for yourself. If we stop the labels, we would stop the hate. Now I think everybody should marry, and everybody should be counselled that once they get married they cannot separate. Again that was Jesus teaching. Find a partner u love settle. We are limiting Gods creativity if we think he only created heterosexual, God was very curious and inventive, in his experements he created all sorts, black ,yellow ,pink, blue-black, grey-white, browns, just look at nature, and say that God did not create differences in people, physically so why not sexually?. Now trans-is another subject, but u know something, that is their prerogative so I respect them. Jesus also said mind your own business. Judge Not He loves ALL his creations. Not some all. I have this to say to my black brethren, remember is the same misinterpretation of scripture that was used to enslave us, segregrate, and to support the system of aparthied. The same scripture that was used to refuse us the basic human rights of marriage,the same scritpure that was used to dehumanise us. Let us not buy into the religious bigotry used by some to control many. Let us read the bible with intelligent understanding, and note that the only them of Jesus was love towards your fellow man. The rest are just stories of mankind creulty towards each other without Jesus love in thier hearts. so all u haters, please stop quoting scriptures and start living by loving and accepting.