Hi Ocean,
To UNDERSTAND anything you (meaning anyone here throughout this) must OEN MIND and BE OBJECIVE about all things. Without that you understand - and learn - nothing. Truthfully or accurately or completely.
I have no generic problems with this assertion but to point out that the scientific principal does not always guarantee a solution since observations are limited to ability to perceive and understand without influencing that which is observed. Also, not all those in society are scientists and some think we have been greatly misled in only seeking to study and understand those things that have a financial motive or political force behind them for some ???special interest???. [OD]
You mention the "psychological" - if you will notice this book was authored by the MEDICAL community - the American Medical Association. There findings are based on their research - SO FAR. It is ongoing.
The psychological community I am certain has its own leading and specific specialized science journals but in a general sense the medical community at large is an umbrella for all branches. Clearly the report had a reference to psychological distress and did not feel the need to make a differentiation that it was published in the context of only medicine or medical science. I understand that research continues. [OD]
By YOUR rational, anything that "sounds insane to me" - "must be". THAT is NOT being accurate, complete, honest, objective, etc. YOU (meaning anyone likeminded) are just postulating what "you believe" to be "true" WITHOUT accurate FACTS.
That is precisely my point I wanted to make. These days, there are ???facts??? and then there are ???opinions and conjectures??? from all kinds of organizations, special interest groups and individuals expressed as probable facts. This latter kind of ???fact??? that come from special interest group sponsored studies are always dubious to me. We all have the fundamental right to decide for ourselves what we accept as ???reasonable??? and truthful and worthy of respect do we not? The way the process works for Facts in Science is they must be ???sold??? to the science community before they are accepted from a majority of its members. Even then there is almost always a consenting minority view that casts a shadow of a doubt on most anything (ironic that minority views have this kind of power isn???t it?). Similarly facts at large, no matter where they extend from, must be ???sold??? to the populace at large for them to be accepted as community truth otherwise they might as well have never been discovered as facts. The main point of argument here being that they must be credible and accepted by a large number of people.
No doubt some in society would likely feel more comfortable that some facts were best left unknown or unacknowledged too. And then we have the presumption of infallibility ??? even accepted facts can later be found to be dead wrong or inadequate approximations of nature or phenomenon etc. As you already indicated there is much ongoing research and theory and the implication is a lot of unknown answers. I was alluding to the ???fact??? that the research is based on fuzzy theories and that the branch of science (psychology) performing the research had a dubious legacy and track record. I essentially challenged the legitimacy of the standard since I have legitimate cause for concern (and some suspicions about agenda and balance). Clearly I am not currently ???buying??? the research from this body of study since I do not have faith in its ability nor the objectivity in its motives. From my personal perspective I don not believe that their pedigree and track record is a sufficient consideration to warrant trust of infallibility on a very important topic. This is a personal decision that is based on my own high standards for quality (I never buy ???bargain??? or ???good??? and seek out ???premium???). But I think, that a majority of people also feel this way and in general I think people are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the popular practice of trusting special interest researchers to do all their own thinking and trust them to tell us what is "right or wrong" without thinking it through for ourselves. I think that most people prefer to run any info these days through the old ???common sense??? sieve before relying on anything. Of course our populace of rugged individualists will at times have those among us who are more predisposed to be blindly obedient and sheepish or submissive with respect to believing anything they are told to be the truth; the 3% ???oddity??? pattern seems to be statistically present in most every process in nature and human behavior. In this sense I (and I think a majority of people) are seeing that through the pretense (or inability) of science to present concrete answers we have assertions and conjectures and opinions being presented as ???theoretical or probable fact???. This is not comforting nor credible nor acceptable to most individual sensibilities. This I think are observed by average people (including myself) to have elements of religion that require us to have faith to believe in the infallibility and sincerity and credibility of those high priests of science that come up with this stuff. It seems in fact that what use to be ???objective??? science has somehow managed to enlighten itself to seemingly heavenly standards and push out much of what use to rightfully be the delegated domain of religion and now come full circle to become a faith based science; but without the traditional religious figures and characters. Spooky stuff. Thus, from this current-event perspective, when it comes to a call of faith (e.g. when such have a conflict with what science is telling them and what their common sense is telling them) I think people tend to prefer to fall back to basics and trust the original experts in ???faith??? (e.g. the religions) over the other non-religious communities (e.g. medical, science, etc.). Homosexuals, like any arbitrary special interest group, just prefer to chose the competing standard that seems to works to their greatest benefit and which they can control or shape (through research grants and political lobbying). So Let???s be honest here as you say. I am not different than most others in this regard. [OD]
Additionally you mention "... no real reliable standard for what constitutes 'normal' mental health..." - anyone MUST REMEMBER that there is VARIETY - VARIATION in ALL THINGS in life and living INCLUDING Sexuality. What YOU (meaning anyone here) "consider" to be "normal" or not may not BE FACT. WHO would you "select" to BE the "judge" of what "is normal" or "not normal"?
Ideally I???d select God to be the judge of what he thought was normal. Since he is not on speaking terms with everyone these days, fortune for many, we do have quite a bit of literature that gives an opinion on his take of things (ref. the published works reviewed by a body of esteemed religious leaders describing Sodom & Gomorrah [the etymology for the English term ???sodomy???; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11]). But I am certain that you want to discount that standard as not coming from an ???environment that is acceptable to you.??? I say fine then, let???s be even more fair about and toss it back and rhetorically ask ???what standard would you chose???? I am certain you would not chose one that did not promote your own interests or pleasures. Ain???t variety grand? But why pick and chose at all? Everyone has an opinion and in a Democracy that is suppose to mean ???majority prevails???. But that does not produce the desired outcome for the homosexual group since that is an environment and social system which it finds unacceptable. In the end, lacking any standard that works to your benefit, you would have us go to anarchy where the only rule would be ???if it feels good do it???. The danger with that of course is some would take that as call to go bash homosexuals since some in society would no doubt derive great pleasure from that. I myself am not predisposed to this behavior but caution that is a possible outcome if the government is petitioned by homosexual special interest groups to legislate the ???respect??? of individuals that is divorced from their behavior (of any conceivable behavior no matter how individually repulsive) as a condition of staying within the law. That would in my opinion, at some point of exceeding the majority of personal indifference levels, spark a societal war (which we are currently in btw) that would move from the confines of free assembly to actual blood letting. [OD]
I Certainly we have been told - especially by the "religious community" that, for example BiSexuality and Homosexuality, are "not natural" - NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH - OR ACCURATE. To the contrary, BiSexuality and Homosexuality ARE natural most definitely. They are - just as is Heterosexuality - VARIATIONS of Sexuality.
Just as we all have differences in intelligence we all have our opinions of truth don???t we? No doubt you hold your self to be more enlightened in this regard than all the combined centuries of study contributed from the various morally based religions? Do we accept this assertion of yours as a matter of religious faith or humanistic faith? One way or the other it is faith. I am skeptical but will not turn my back on the possibility that they are natural ??? but only in the sense that ???accidents??? happen in nature. The worm, possessing both sexes can copulate with itself to reproduce. A heterosexual retard can reproduce with its opposite. An intelligent homosexual can not reproduce naturally it can only compel opposite others through payment or reciprocation of favor (or pressure) to do that for them. One would think it should be a regressive condition. So perhaps it is a learned or elected behavior after all?[OD]
Let's go to your statement of "normal mental health" - I COULD, as could anyone else, consider "normal mental health" to be the USING AND ABUSING of another for Sexual gratification which many certainly are guilty of with respect to the Heterosexual community - ALL the time (and NOT "knocking" anyone necessarily here) Heterosexual people brag and boast about their conquests - people they USE for their Sexual gratification. This could be considered "normal" since many here DO this - so then I have to ask you if you were setting the "standard" or "norm" would this USING and / or ABUSING of another be a proper standard for what is "normal"? And I am not forgetting that SOME BiSexual and Homosexual people are also guilty of this...
Simple direct question, simple direct answer ??? Deviant behavior is improper from a moralistic perspective. Absent a moral standard then anything goes and society goes out the window since the most overbearing would dominate and dictate their will on anyone. But I caution you that "bragging and boasting" are like facts of both kinds ??? some are absolute truth others are conjecture or fantasy. 
No matter how much wind is put behind them utterance of truth should in theory not be a cause for worry unless they have a criminal weight on an individual. Why would anyone care to associate with these kind of people anyway when we all have the right of association? [OD]
I can say that observing Nature can set the "standard" of what is natural. And that would include Human Beings since Human Beings ARE a part of the Natural World - whether you, I, or anyone else agree, disagree, accept, etc. - THAT IS A FACT.
The FACT that there IS VARIETY - VARIATION - IN ALL THINGS IS to deny life itself! And that variety IS IN ALL THINGS - INCLUDING SEXUALITY. So why would you or anyone else DENY the fact of Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality? Each has ANYWAYS EXISTED in ALL areas of the world - throughout history. Did YOU "choose" to BE Heterosexual? WHEN did you "MAKE that choice" - the SAME applies to everyone else. It IS AS BORN surely as the color of your skin. And not to get this subject confused - as some like to do - with murder, Sexuality and its variation has nothing to do with "murder". We are speaking of Sexuality, NOT murder.
Too many questions to tackle at one time ??? send research money. Of course the fallacy of relying on observation is that it is not infallible ??? observation can effect behavior. Ever notice how some species of monkeys masturbate when being looked at (maybe it depends on how cute you are)? How many do the same thing when they are not being looked at? Who knows? I agree that humans (in all their diverse forms) are a part of the environment and that is unfortunately what homosexuals often find to be objectionable to their environment - the majority class. Those diverse individuals, each with their own opinion, present a frustration to homosexuals when they find that the majority can not be persuaded to accept them or to make themselves available to facilitate and accommodate their personal desires. So we have partial agreement here ??? there is diversity of opinion we just need to get you to respect that the majority are entitled to theirs too. But I would caution against an argument that appeals to behaviors that have always existed in nature throughout history since history has shown that behaviors deemed inappropriate have resulted in persecution, death and even divine punishment. Pardon the association but as a point of argument recall that once you include humanity into the Nature mix then we see that Nature has always had its share of psychopaths, murderers, molesters, saints, visionaries and all manner of diverse behavior. Diversity is always not so grand and at times saintly. The religious have called one extreme set of these behaviors "good" and the other "evil". That is in fact what our law is based on ??? moral standards. Since some special interest groups have succeeded in partially marginalizing some of the religious influence in this country (ironically, pragmatically cloistered them into the closet where the homosexuals use to be) we now have a set of laws emerging that are more based on consent and less on morals. This creates a standard which is abhorrent to the moral sensibilities of the religious (majority?) since it now becomes OK in law to "abuse" or do anything short of murder if someone are of the age and consent and permit it (they had this option under the old law too since they could always elect to not report it [or wait until it was convenient to do so e.g. relational blackmail]). Not to get off topic but it???s also interesting to note in your hypothesis that ???denying variation in all things is to ignore life??? is essentially why we have as a society that now routinely denies life to millions of unborn children whose only crime is that they are dependent on their mothers during gestation and are different with respect to age, size and ability to express a direct opinion on their desire to live. It would seem that society as a whole is insensitive to not just the homosexual agenda here. But I digress. The point being if humanity is part of Nature as you assert then absent a moral standard no one should expect consistent and uniform fairness or compassion principal since we clearly have such a wide variety of opinions on what constitutes ???acceptable??? behavior.[OD]
It has always been my belief that people MUST be of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely. Using and / or abusing someone - regardless of Sexuality - is I believe wrong. That you (meaning anyone here again) care about and respect those you are with is paramount REGARDLESS of the Gender of those involved. If a "standard" is to be applied to anything, this is the "standard" which I would apply to personal Sexual relationships with others - that they EACH CARE HONESTLY about each other.
It looks like you are trying to push a moral based standard on the rest of society. I don???t think you can appeal to this on one hand and on the other reject the conventional moral view without sounding inconsistent. The fundamental problem I have with your philosophy and ideas on this is that you pretty much want to cherry pick the standards based on what works best to maximize your personally comfort (e.g. a little of morality, a little of common sense, a little of ???hey if it feels good???, a little of common law etc.).[OD]
Remember Sexuality IS a private matter between two people - who are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely. In all honestly it is no one else's business unless those involved give their consent to "making it" someone else's business. Sexuality is I believe naturally a PRIVATE matter. Sexuality and Sex are not the "business of" the government or even religion. Period. And it has been made the "BUSINESS OF" government and religion because it has been realized by them to be "profitable" to get into that "business" by them.
A profit motive is something I have not ever considered. But you are stating opinion here on it being a private matter between any arrangement of sexes and consenting adults without any supporting evidence, fact or proof. Not that I really disagree in the conventional sense though. You should be consistent with your earliest complaint about this matter. But here is where logic fails us because behind closed doors we all have a cloistered/closet environment. Outside beyond those doors we have a heterogeneous environment (contrasted with homogeneous environment) of varying western society full of competing and conflicting standards (e.g. morality based, legal based, humanity based, individual interpretation based and anarchy etc.). In this environment, where the majority or ???common??? standard prevails (and homosexuals have an unacceptable environment), if anyone (homosexual, heterosexual, pervert, child abuser, thief, etc.) tries to get outside the envelope on the acceptable standard we can have an explosive reaction; depending on what social system was attacked and what social class member or numbers were in the vicinity at the time of the infraction. Frankly, most heterosexuals probably could care less that homosexuals can somehow find a way to derive what they think are approximate expressions of love through what they consider weird sexual practices behind closed doors. But outside I still personally think homosexuals would be better off to try to blend in and wear social camouflage or be prepared for the inevitable social conflicts.[OD]
Take Care, John H.
OK you to OD [OD]
( hey . I'm not going to argue.)
.
He didn't seem to want to wash another guys gym shorts. Go figure.
You've been to Sickville before?? Is my neighbors house where you get your gerbils?? Amazing!! What a small world.....
food for thought
