Yes, seemed a bit off to me too. There are co-authors listed somewhere.
You will find something on the internet always to support any hare brained theory you may have.
Even men having sex with goats while they are on fire.....
And we know how "reliable" is research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. I wonder why they bothered? Perhaps they are hoping to create a need for a drug that will "cure" homosexuality, just as viagra and cialis have been presented as a highly profitable "cure" for inadequate heterosexuality.
JLNobody wrote:And we know how "reliable" is research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. I wonder why they bothered? Perhaps they are hoping to create a need for a drug that will "cure" homosexuality, just as viagra and cialis have been presented as a highly profitable "cure" for inadequate heterosexuality.
Excuse me but how did "all available research" (which is what I wrote on the previous page of this thread) morph into "research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies"??
"All available research" means exactly what is says. If you think ALL research in this world ever undertaken in history was financed by big pharma, you probably want to reconsider your thinking.
I'm not an expert in hormonal imbalances but checked the "neoteny" domain name (that's the link I posted earlier, just there's no confusion on that subject) and all sources are listed punctiliously far as I can tell.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Pardon me, Louise, but that was my recollection. I should have checked it out. Nevertheless, if "all available research" shows that homosexuality is the effect of physiological forces beyond the control of the homosexual, then we cannot support a condemnation of homosexuality as the result of immoral CHOICE.
Another point: the title of this thread is that "Homosexuality is not 'unnatural'." It seems to me that NOTHING is unnatural, even deformities, cancer, earthquakes and all phenomena that we either dislike or that we cannot fit into our paradigm of The Natural.
To say that something is unnatural because I do not like or understand it, is to say that what I do not like or understand should not exist within the world of Nature.
JLNobody wrote:Pardon me, Louise, but that was my recollection. I should have checked it out. Nevertheless, if "all available research" shows that homosexuality is the effect of physiological forces beyond the control of the homosexual, then we cannot support a condemnation of homosexuality as the result of immoral CHOICE.
Another point: the title of this thread is that "Homosexuality is not 'unnatural'." It seems to me that NOTHING is unnatural, even deformities, cancer, earthquakes and all phenomena that we either dislike or that we cannot fit into our paradigm of The Natural.
To say that something is unnatural because I do not like or understand it, is to say that what I do not like or understand should not exist within the world of Nature.
Well thank you very much, JLNobody!!
What's with the "moral / immoral cchoice" first I hear about it, the genetics is all that medical research can ever show? Was this a religion thread, if so I missed it, sorry.
But yes many things are unnatural even if ppl are b orn that way!!!
Anyway I mean no offense to you or to anybody who parented or who has any abnormal characterisitics, so again my Thanksgiving wishes to all!!
Thanks, Louise, and happy thanksgiving to you and to any abnormal children you may have parented.
The last genetics course I took was over 10 years ago but my
nephew was telling me about this interesting news tidbit when he was
here just a few weeks ago. Genetics is THE course of the future & it
is the most absolutely fascinating; there is so much to be learned. I expect that over 50 percent of all major advances in science and
medicine of the future will all have their basis in genetics.
As for the topic of sexuality/sexual preference/homosexuality and
yada yada yada - I do hope to see an end to the concept of "labeling"
people in this way at some point in the near future. People just are
who they are. And they love who they love. It could just as easily be
a same sex person as an opposite sex person -- except for our very
EXTREME predjudice against homosexuality in the US.
I'm reminded of The Crying Game. Stephen Rea plays
the part of an IRA member, a group of whom kidnap a British soldier
(Forrest Whitaker) & are holding him with the threat to kill him unless
one of their own guys is released. Over the course of several days,
Rea and Whitaker talk, tell jokes, & are essentially just average human beings (as opposed to the rest of the IRA group; who do not want to
get to know him because they may have to shoot him in a few days.)
Rea is supposed to shoot him, but instead tells him to run, but, alas, poor guy gets hit by a truck as he runs for the road. Anyway, Rea had allowed himself to become emotionally attached to his hostage and so, afterwards, he goes to London to look up Adele, as he had promised the soldier he would. And he gets emotionally attached to her also. She is a
hairdresser, sings in a local pub, he's attracted to her. After a week or
so, Rea finds out that Adele is really a man. Adele thought that he KNEW. But he didn't. The whole point is that sometimes two people just love each other ... their sexual roles in life are far less important than the love is, I guess. In the end of the movie, he is in prison for shooting one of the IRA people who found him and want him to go on a suicide mission.
Adele won't let him go, then shoots the IRA woman who comes to shoot Stephen Rea. Rea tells Adele to leave... he takes the rap for killing the IRA woman, he goes to jail where Adele visits him faithfully. Every time she calls him darling or sweetheart he tells her to stop that ... but she
just keeps on and the 2 of them just love each other. Life is funny to
say the least
I would have killed the dude that pretended to be a chick. That's some treacherous sh!t.
Sorry, John. It WAS a beautiful movie. I hope the subtlties that made up its beauty can get past the rigidity of your prejudicial concepts. Our greatest disease is hardening of the categories.
John Creasy wrote:JLNobody wrote:John Creasy, since you find homosexual sex acts repulsive, it would be "eeeewwww." But don't you think that for homosexuals who enjoy it, it is not eeeewww? The same applies to the many possibilities in heterosexual sex. Repulsiveness and deliciousness are in the eye of the beholder.
I guess so. To each his own. If that's what they enjoy, then who am I to question it??? But I still can't help but think that there is something inherently unnatural about it. By no means am I the final word on right and wrong though.
I find your general attitude extremely unnatural bordering on perversion. Sounds like you have a guilt-ridden twisted abnormal view of human sexuality.
Let's check in and see what my aura thinks:
Yep, she agrees.
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:John Creasy wrote:JLNobody wrote:John Creasy, since you find homosexual sex acts repulsive, it would be "eeeewwww." But don't you think that for homosexuals who enjoy it, it is not eeeewww? The same applies to the many possibilities in heterosexual sex. Repulsiveness and deliciousness are in the eye of the beholder.
I guess so. To each his own. If that's what they enjoy, then who am I to question it??? But I still can't help but think that there is something inherently unnatural about it. By no means am I the final word on right and wrong though.
I find your general attitude extremely unnatural bordering on perversion. Sounds like you have a guilt-ridden twisted abnormal view of human sexuality.
Aren't you a transvestite??? And you are lecturing me on perversion ??? Ah, only in America.
No I am not a transvestite. You, OTOH, are an obvious closet case.
UUUMMMM... Who diagnosed John as "an obvious closet case"??
Nikki or her/his "aura" Nicole?? Such a natural thing it is too, having an "aura" who gets consulted for her opinion, when you think about it......
Welcome to my world...
Or is it only a shadowing of a world...
Let me consult my mystic and his tambourine.
Now back to you Nikki, why would you say John Creasy is a closet case. He feels towards sex with men in much a similar way as to my thoughts about sex with women. Am I now to be considered a closet-heterosexual?
Louise_R_Heller wrote:UUUMMMM... Who diagnosed John as "an obvious closet case"??
Nikki or her "aura" Nicole?? Such a natural thing it is too, having an "aura" who gets consulted for her opinion, when you think about it......
Actually, I am a psychic so is my aura. But I was joking, Heller.
It is her BTW do not make the same mistake again.
Sturgis wrote:Welcome to my world...
Or is it only a shadowing of a world...
Let me consult my mystic and his tambourine.
Now back to you Nikki, why would you say John Creasy is a closet case. He feels towards sex with men in much a similar way as to my thoughts about sex with women. Am I now to be considered a closet-heterosexual?
I am not so sure that you are even gay. I have had a strong suspicion all along that you are a parody.
Sturgis wrote:
Now back to you Nikki, why would you say John Creasy is a closet case. He feels towards sex with men in much a similar way as to my thoughts about sex with women.
No he doesn't. I am basing my opinion on the sum of his posts here not just this one stance. He has a problem with transsexual woman. That is a strong indication that he has doubts about his own gender/orientation.
twin_peaks_nikki wrote:
Actually, I am a psychic so is my aura.
Now I see. BTW, what the hell is OTOH?
