Minutus

Here are some archived snippets, in no particular order, very random
I'm afraid but perhaps grist to the mill; cud, purposes for the chewing
of?

I should add that my views currently may or may not be as I expressed
back then.

Simon
ps. I don't have anymore, you would have to hunt the onelist archives
============================
============================Subject: Re: Hst homosexuality and opinions
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 13:26:19 +0000
From: Simon
Reply-To: Homlist@onelist.com
Organization: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/Homlist
To: Homlist@onelist.com

From: Simon

my comments as #below

Shonit Danwer wrote:

so
patients.
But
sexuality.

#Im not aware that it was ever suggested that the matter of sexuality
should
be put aside, what was suggested was that it needed always to be
considered
a Symptom rather than a characteristic.
I disagreed .

If someones is in a climate that is totally accepting of homosexuality
and
you realise they are homosexual not by their stating it to be a
Symptom
but by their casual referrence to their partner as he or she (
depending on
the sex) then I think it is a very different situation to someone who
complains that their sexuality is a problem for them, or where you
observe
that it is.
This decision it should be said will have to also be wheighed in light
of
the prevailing cultural climate.
I dont think it was suggested that sexuality shouldnt be taken into
account
during casetaking .
what was suggested was that it should be considered whether this aspect
of
the patient constituted a symptom or a characteristic.
The statement had been made that homosexuality was always , i.e
invariably,
without exception , a symptom.
This is where I disagreed.
perhaps the question should also be asked whether ALL constituents of a
case
taking are to be considered as Symptoms.
if so, this sheds another light on it. personally i dont consider (or
call )
all aspects of a case 'symptoms'
I also consider parts to be characteristics , modalities etc.To my way
of
thinking a symptom is only something that needs to be changed
The inference as I understood it was that if homosexuality is always a
Symptom then by virtue of it being a symptom that means it always
needs to
be cured.
Homosexuality itself is a huge subject and outside the scope of this
discussion, but within the therapeutic sphere we should be able to
discuss
whether or not it invariably is something that needs to be 'cured'
My arguemnet is that if it is to be considered in every case as a
symptom
then in every case it is part of what needs to be cured.
This is what i disagre with.
I do not agree that it is always neccesary or desirable to 'cure'
homosexuality.

I am not sayiong that the rubrics pertaining to homosexuality shouldnt
be
used in a case, but that 'rubric' doesnt always equate to 'symptom'.
I do not disagree that it can be part of the case, nor do I suggest
that it
be specially disregarded
Incidentally The post i was replying to some time ago was one that
stated
categorically that homosexuality was always a 'symptom'.
ATB
Simon
Subject: Hst homosexuality and opinions
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:27:49 +0000
From: Simon
Reply-To: Homlist@onelist.com
To: homlist@onelist.com

From: Simon

The original question was not whether we should use rubrics about
homosexuality in our repertoristaion , but whether homosexuality was
per se, was ALWAYS a SYMPTOM
I had understood some posters to be saying that it was ALWAYS a SYMPTOM
(specifically), i.e.without question.
My arguement was that it is as often a CHARACTERISTIC as it is a
Symptom and that to call it a Sx without exception could be construed
as judgemental. I also found it surprising that the examples used to
illustrate the opposite opinion used such extremes and steroetypes as
abusers and criminals. I find it difficult not to feel that this betrays

a judgemental attitude.
Calling something a Sx when its not, is what I called cheeky . Im not
saying it's cheeky to include it in the repertorisation. Thats not the
same thing.
What I was proposing was that it should be differentiated ( between a
Sx or characteristic) according to the individual case not simply by
virtue of its existance.
It may be that its a question of semantics I appreciate that , but if
its not what I wanted to explain was that personally i do not count
homosexuality specifically as a Sx irrespective of whether its pertinant

to the presenting Sx or not.
So if for example we see a Px who is of a mesomorph type build, I ,
personally refer to that as a characteristic, not a Sx. I use it in the
repertorisation or in Rx choice , but dont refer to it as a Sx. If
however someone was uncomfortable with their body type/shape then i
might consider it as a Sx.
This comparison isnt perfect but i hope it illustrates the point.
As Shonit Danwar wrote "Homosexuality is not a desired behaviour from an

adult and hence it is a disease state."
As a statement as fact (presumed to be incontrovertable) I do not agree

with it, and I do not see patients with that perspective. Im not
insisting that others agree with me , just stating that I dont accept
this.

These discussions, along with any others that deal with difficult
topics ( "uncomfortable questions and uncomfortable answers"),arent
relegateded automatically to homgod , this only happens when they
becomes off topic.
I realise that theres it's fine line, but past experience has shown that

when a topic leads , for example
to religion, and the discusssion instead becomes one of religious
perspective and the relevance to homeopathy has been lost, then it has

become off topic, and as this has in the past happened and lead to
objections from other listees, it was decided to set up the homgod list
to cater for those who wished to continue such discussions.
ATB
Simon

Jeremy Chiew wrote:

carefully put aside when we take a case that should involve the whole
person?
forehead or a liking for salty or, is it an acquired taste?
applicable is not trying to change the sexual orientation of that person
and he could not
even if he wanted too because that is the person's own free will. No man
can change the free will of another.
that it is relevant to treat the person with a rubric based on
sexuality?
and take note of so many other things about the patients without asking
the patient' s
permission to prescribe on. Like when we find the patient is
superstitious and we prescribe on that, is that cheeky?
based on?
natural, yet I watched a documentary on bears last night , they fight to
kill to mate with
the female and even kill their children to make the sow bear want to
mate again. So are these ok by human standards?
Simon King is also not on this list..so why is he asking discussions to
be posted there? I
have not joined Homgod because I still think its the dumping ground for
uncomfortable questions and uncomfortable answers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hst Re:homosexuality and opinions
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 20:19:09 -0000
From: "merren parker"
Reply-To: Homlist@onelist.com
To:

From: "merren parker"

Hmm. Well, I think it's time I piped up in this conversation, cos I
think
I'm hearing a lot of judging going on and it worries me a lot. Sooo,
here
are my thoughts; they may not be worth very much, but they do, I think
explain a perspective or two. Please take as read the fact that each
point
is qualified by IMO.

1) No person has the right to make moral judgements about another
*provided* that the behaviour is not *objectively* harming a third
person.
When somebody comes to a healer for help, they are not coming for
actual or
implied lectures on morality, especially the 19th century kind of
morality
that is enshrined in many/most classical homoeopathy texts. The fact is
that
masturbation doesn't make people mad (lunatics); nor does it send them
blind.

2) Sexual orientation is a very unique personal characteristic. Each
person
is different from any other, and that difference should be respected,
*regardless* of the orientation/opinion of the therapist, who would do
well
to look at the totality of the case or the acute symptoms or the layers
or
whatever is being looked at. Sexual orientiation should be given the
same
weight as any other physical characteristic such as hair colour. If a
person's hair colour is causing pathology such as excessive self
consciousness, then certainly one answer might to to dye the hair.
Equally
another answer might be to educate *other* people to accept that
characteristic of the person. In neither case is the person to blame for
what is happening, though they may have in themselves, with help, the
power/ability to modify what is happening to them,.

3) Social mores *have* changed. I think they've changed for the better,
but
do not seek to have others agree with me. Of course some societies have
always accepted, even embraced homosexuality. I wish I could remember
which
Pacific Island it is--Tonga, Niue, Samoa, Cook Is. I think it's Samoa.
Anyway, this society has a special attitude to so-called 'effiminate'
men
[why is it considered perjorative for men to be considered 'effiminate
Grrr). Anyway, these people are recognised from childhood, and they are
honoured and treasured for who they are. They dress as women. They are
placed in positions of honour at festivals and feasts. This is not what
we
would think of a s cross dressing. No, there is no evidence to suggest
that
some children are lured into homosexuality by the attractions of these
practices. The elders among these people are *very* experienced and very
wise about identifying these 'different' ones. And no, there are no more
than a (relative) handful at any one time, a fact which suggests that
the
selection process is carried out with experience and wisdom.

4) What's wrong with a woman wanting to be a stripper? If she feels
comfortable doing that. so what? Abnormal? Only if she's forcing
herself/being forced into doing that. Moscha is a remedy I have very
mixed
feelings about, because of the value judgements involved in its use. I
did a
bit of a study on it for something else, and really found it wanting as
a
remedy *unless* the therapist was prepared/willing to make the kind of
value
judgements that I find personally abhorrant. Interesting that Mosch
(nutmeg)
is traditionally seen as an aphrodisiac, a fact that would reinforce the
idea of giving it to modify sexual behaviour--a kind of stealthy social
engineering. (BTW this is not a criticism of you, Suriya, or anybody
else
for using it; it is my subjective opinion on the remedy itself.)

Finally, I feel this constellation of subjects is too important to be
relegated to Homgod, because it is a part of the heart of homoeopathy
and
how homoeopaths treat (literally and figuratively) those who come to us
for
help. As for a teenager giving up or keeping her child, that's another
story
that is much, much more complex and complicated than it seems.

pax merrenp

Subject: Re: Hst Re:homosexuality and opinions
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:57:20 +0530
From: "Shonit Danwer"
Reply-To: Homlist@onelist.com
To:

From: "Shonit Danwer"

Dr.Suriya wrote on Sunday, November 07, 1999 9:05 AM
use
that person s assesment of her/his own state to use as a yardstick of
what
is normal. I have pointed out that our patient s come in many psyches
and it
is recognised in mental illness that thare are patients who come to us
who
have insight into their problem and some who don t have insight.
Supposing
someone in an Arnica state comes and says there is nothing the matter
with
me, when you could see that there actually was something the matter. If
what
it was is a physical
what
it is is a psychopathic state of mind then it is not so easy but why
would
you differentiate between sexual orientation and say a tendency to stab
people if its the sexual orientation that is a problem?If it was a
tendency
to stab people then its not acceptable, does that make a tendency to
seduce
young boys, acceptable? We are talking about sexual preferences arent
we?
the
patient s judgement and may have to decide for the patient in the patie
ts
best interest some of the time when the patient by his signs and
symptoms
show to us that he has no insight. Of course you would have had to have
some
understanding of counselling ( some knowledge of personalities etc) to
be
able to make that analysis.Which is I think why we are having this
discussion, ie to find out how much a healer should know about all these
things in order to be a perfectly

Actually we prescribe on what is found as the change in the state of
normal health and this change of health is called as disease.
But for prescribing purpose we choose the characterstic symptoms.
What
ever mental Sx are seen in a patient as [PPP]:
P for Present
P for Predominent
P for Perisistent

Qualify as prescribing symptoms.
No need to analyse any symptom, but just the synthesis is required.

customer is
always right is it?

Well, the outward manfestation of the internal disorder to the
physician's
watchful eye is always right. So the patient who is sick is always
right,
according to his diseased perception. That is why psychological
analysis and
psychotherapy mostly fails.
Councelling rarely works as for as the real disease is concerned.
But a proper prescription corrects, what the advice could not do.

without changing aspects of anothe . i do get patients who come to me
saying, i want to you to treat my headaches but please do not treat my
tummy
aches..yes i do have patients who ask me to do that but i tell them i am
sorry i cannot do that. And if they also say to me, pelase do not let
your
treatment affect my bad temper, i want to keep my bad temper, well can
you
say yes i can do that for you.?

That is Indifference about his recovery [mostly]. Page 136 ,
Synthesis-7.

[snip]
solutions.

Yes, we are. But there is no confusion, Hahnemann has already done that
job.

counselling and
understanding emotional intelligence.

Yes, in a way, yes. But mostly it is not needed. It does not work
espically
when you have a patient who has :
Consolation agg.
Defient
etc. etc.

regards
Shonit Danwer

Dear Simon and all,
Well if it helps, I've had 3 homeosexual patients in the recent past.
Each was open about their sexual tendencies. But only one of them
expressed a "problem" with it, in terms of "I may be suffering becasue
of the 'wrath of God' "!

THe other other two had homeopathic treatment over a couple of years
and were completely cured of their complaints (well, as cured as one
can get), and the homosexuality was not a characteristic of any of the
prescritions.

The homosexuality isn't a characteristic of the third prescription
either. What I had to first understnad from him was why he felt his
deviation was causing him to suffer the "wrath of God". Also though he
feels homosexually inclined/attracted, he has never had a sexual
relationship. The basic reason is that he feels so hopeless about his
universal psoriaisis, and completely in despair about anything curing,
the only fault he can find as to why he cannot experience any relief
from any system of medicine and why his life is a mess is because he
is homosexual and God will not allow him to get well!!! So I had to
first get him to understand his sexuality with a balanced perspective
and he's currently on Thuja - for nearly a year. Finally, I've got him
to give me a completely new case -and guess what - the "wrath of God"
does not figure at all - instead a deepseated "RAGE" of HIS OWN
towards this illness has surfaced! Which parallels a RAGE towards
those who are cruel to animals.

A lot of problems around homosexuality arise out of a general and
prejudicial misunderstanding about its spiritual connotation. If my
opinion is worth anything more than 2 cents, here is what I think:

Homosexuality is a 'problem/weakness' at the level of the soul - as
ALL other sexual problems are. One can choose to change it if one
wants to deal with issues within ones soul. IF one is not concerned
about such deep issues, homosexuality becomes an acceptable deviation
to live by - which is how it is today in most situations. Who is
ANYBODY to judge another persons spiritual growth?
Though, laying down clear SPiritual principles and truths is a
responsibility by those who have been given such responsibility..

On a parrallel if one is alcoholic, there has to be a healing at the
level of the soul to be freed from alcholism - a mere homeopathic
remedy is unable to do so, as we have all experienced. The damage in
previous generations, or some very hurtful soul experience (in utero
or in childhood) has produced a weakness that expresses as alsoholism
(most often it is an experience of being UNLOVED).

HOmosesuality is a SPiritual issue. When one reaches a level of
Spiritual "enlightenment" or more clearly "deeply expereincing the
Love of God", there may come a stage that one would want to change.
And YES it is possible to change one orientation at that stage - but
it remains a choice.
Till that point, I dont' agree that anyone else should be prejudiced
towards or make judgements about a human person with homosexual
feelings - religious or otherwise. They should be loved, like anybody
else.
D.r leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Simon King wrote:
discussion on
they
would
state of
seek

I continued this discussion in regard to Chris's comments, as I have no
particular interest in discussing homeosexuality per se. ( i.e. I don't
expect to change the world!) I am aware that I am no expert on
sexuality but offer my point of view for discussion.

I have not counted the patients I have treated who were homeosexual, (
or lesbian) although at a guess I'd say they represented about 15% of
the people I have seen, it is of no concern to me whether they are gay
or not. There have been patients perhaps who chose not to mention it.

Of those patients I have seen who expressed a specific concern with
their sexuality, the problem was usually about the acceptance of their
sexuality, or resolving associated trauma, never truly a discomfort
with their sexuality. ( although this sometimes had to be pointed out).

I do not consider homosexuality a 'deviation' as you put it. My
question is deviation from what? If by deviation it is meant - from the
Majority preferences or the dictates of some religions, then perhaps
yes, but deviation in the other sense, my question is still from what?
What criterion can be used to label homosexuality a 'deviation' that
doesn't also apply to heterosexuals? i.e. if one is to label
homosexualily a 'deviation' then so must all human behaviour be so
labelled, must it not?

Procreation of the species is often used as a yardstick, but if that
is the measure of non deviant behaviour then, so must EVERYTHING that
does not fulfill that dictum be so labelled. I don't know about anyone
else but I can think of a LOT that fits that criterion. Even then it
must also be asked deviation from what.nature...nope... the
'norm'...what? This is important because the label 'deviation' is used
to disempower or belittle people on the basis of their sexual
orientation. One thing I am sure of is that homosexuality is no more a
barrier to enlightenment, spiritual 'growth' , happiness or fufillment,
than heterosexuality is, unless made so by society.

Below you equate homeosexuality with all other sexual problems...again
presupposing it is a problem. It may appear to be for you or your
society or religion, that does not prove though that it is invariably
so for the individual in any absolute sense.

The idea that homeosexuals are somehow less able to resolve problems
with their soul or 'deep' issues, again is based on moral presumptions
dictated by society or religion. (enforced by your analogy to
alcoholism) Heterosexuals are not better off in regard to spiritual
'growth' unless homosexuals are exempted by their chosen religion, in
which case perhaps they should question whether they have chosen the
right religion. (or do they have that choice?)

Homosexuality is only a spiritual issue if heterosexuality is, unless
one's measure of homosexuality is a set of religious rules that have
issue with it. I have yet to hear anyone declare, after truly
experiencing the love of God, that they spontaneously feel the need to
act heterosexually. (there are those that do so because the religious
environment they subject themselves to stipulates that to experience
the love of God they must renounce their homeosexuality, but could also
be sen as brainwashing)

Orientation can change for some people irrespective of whether they are
involved in spiritual 'growth' or not some people have that choice,
others do not.

Simon
On Aug 10, 2005, at 05:31, doctorleelah2h wrote:

"there are those that do so because the religious
environment they subject themselves to stipulates that to experience
the love of God they must renounce their homeosexuality, but could also
be seen as brainwashing"

Yup! (BTW, that post rocks)

And there are those who believe that in order to experience the love
of God they must renounce their their sexuality altogether (hello,
chastity vows?).
Dr Leela:
for the mentioned case I would try Lachesis rather than Thuja, for I
had an ALMOST IDENTICAL case -it's almost eerie- (including, mentally,
the tons of sexual guilt + feeling of "Wrath of God" from eruption
and,years later, the same Rage + sensitivity towards cruelty to
animals before homeopathic treatment) that responded wonderfuly to it,
and I think the patient's sexual inclination is completely irrelevant
to the case. My patient was a heterosexual female.
Perhaps Lachesis' sexual guilt is not very renowned (more so the
opposite) but I've seen it come once and again in Lachesis patients
who have strong religious beliefs ("religious mania". I presume it's
more marked in women- perhaps homosexuals too?). See if it fits your
case.

Best wishes,
Caro.

Hi Simon,
Right, I clubbed the whole lot into one - probably they are all at
different levels.
BEfore i go on - just to say - just hope you don't mean "moral" and
"religious" as invectives of some sort.... (haha)

Deviant is Homosexuality and all sexual problems that do not confrom
to what is "normal" sexual instinct which in each individual is
modified into positive behaviour intentions. IT is what I call part of
emotional maturity.
By this I mean all actions have their consequences - socially and
personally (spiritually). the consequences of ones behaviour is not
confined to oneself, but has a fall out in ones family relationships
and socially as well.
So anything that is "deviant" means behaviour that will untimately
result in consequences that will be detrimental towards ones spirit,
ones family and ones society.
Fullfiling a dictum has less to be with being religious or moralistic,
but more do with personal and social maturity and responsiblity.
I don't think this is what I said, if I get over the fact that you
probably take me for some moral and religious freak (haha).(Obviously
I"m not in fashion.

What I said that if one wants to resolve homosexual feelings - that is
if one considers that it is deviant in the first place, then the only
way to deal with it and to change ones sexual orientation comes from
FIRST experiencing the love of God - ispite of being homosexual.
(since you seemed to allude to later in this post). NO, one does not
need to be "straight" to experience the love of God, one does not need
to be non alcoholic to expereince the love of God, one does not need
to be "good" to expereince the love of God.
One expereinces the love of God through being HUMBLE in our hearts,
just the way we are and where we are at any point of time,
irreligious, immoral, moral or religious. IT is the only POWER we can
have to overcome whatever weakness or "deviant behaviour" we are
fighting with.
What I can tell you is that for the "religious" to expereince the love
of God is much harder - because they are so full of pride!!! Poor
people. If only they knew it requires humility to expereince the love
of God adn be truly SPiritual people.

If alcoholics in AA are helped, it is because they expereince the same
power of the love of God through other alcoholics, till they are ready
to expereince it directly from God (by choice). the love of God works
through human beings as well.
Heterosexuals are not better off in regard to spiritual
EVERYONE has a choice. Are they well informed about their choices?
AND THAT IS HITTING THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!

YEt how we deceive ourselves that sleeping around and casual sex is OK
and will have no longterm consequences!
unless
also
Contrary to your expereince, I have heard any number of people who
have changed their orientation declare that the only reaosn they have
wanted to change is because they had experienced the love of God which
not only made them committed to the process but gave them the reason
and the POWER to do so.
As i explained earlier - it is a paradigm shift. Just as one
understands that TRUE cure takes place homeopathically and not
antipathically. Is that brainwashing? MAybe.
are
Again - everyone has the choice. It depends how well informed they are
about it and whether they are willing to make it. Its a hard choice to
make and requires a lot of courage.
The same goes for someone addicted to pronography, or who is in a
promiscious lifestyle, or who sexually abuses other people, children, etc.
Dr. Leela

within the
whole
sucessful
homosexuality
someone who
constituents of
my way
always a
shouldnt
that
steroetypes as
between a
from
it
be so
No
questions
fight
discussions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
think
fact
them
would do
blame
Samoa.
'effiminate
They are
these
use. I
wanting
kind of
reinforce
to
another
to us
matter.
arent
etc) to
symptoms.
concerned.
treat my
them i
well can
recommendation
special,
change
receive a

Hi Caro,
thanks for your suggestion. I'll certainly look into the possibliity
of Lachesis.
dr. leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Caro wrote:
have no
don't
out).
from the
perhaps
fufillment,
also
they are
past.
becasue
of the
though he
about his
curing,
perspective
got him
God"
deviation
alsoholism
anybody
random
expressed
archives
within the
to be
the whole
sucessful
sexuality
homosexuality
someone who
constituents of
consider (or
my way
always a
this
shouldnt
'symptom'.
one that
homosexuality was
used to
steroetypes as
between a
simply by
but if
behaviour from
accept
then it
to be so
whole
will. No
questions
fight
want to
there and,
discussions
topics as
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sooo,
I think
each
fact
send them
Each
respected,
would do
given the
colour. If a
blame
help, the
remember
Samoa.
'effiminate'
'effiminate
They are
of these
suggests that
very
use. I
wanting
kind of
reinforce
anybody
to be
homoeopathy
come to
another
yardstick of
psyches
come to us
matter
matter.
but if
but why
tendency to
preferences arent
using
etc) to
symptoms.
concerned.
part
to me
treat my
them i
not let
well can
recommendation
special,
change
receive a
Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no
representations regarding the individual suitability of the
information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation
offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any
purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the
recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual
members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special,
punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to
receive a single daily digest.

As I said before I am not really into arguing this topic so excuse my
short answers

below as #
#what?

#like war for example?

# how can these be separate?

#what?

#who is this 'one' - the patient, the practitioner, or the almighty?

#That is SO funny, experiencing the love of God 'in spite ' of being
homeosexual. ROTFL!!
# Are YOU the 'we' above, or not, if not who is this 'we'??
There seems to be two topics here, one :whether homosexuality is
deviant, Two: whether certain people can experience God

What I can tell you is that for the "religious" to expereince the love
#I'm not sure that that is true as I was under the impression ( I
readily accept it could be wrong) that in some cultures the Religion is
mandatory.

# so it is actually promiscuity you are concerned with, not sexuality??

#One of the reasons this is a difficult discussion to transact over
the internet is because the subject concerns with individuals.

# how is that relevant to the question of whether homosexuality is
deviant or not?

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Simon King wrote:

Hey Simon, don't run away after opeining the can of worms.
***Right - just asking.
***Sure - it is ONLY a last resort. But then that could be another debate.
***They aren't.
But the reason we have religion and morals is becasue of the latter.
ANd not the other way around.

presumptions

***Well apparently being part of an established religion or having
moral inclinations (as opposed to reltivism) seems to be out of
fashion. Or so I've heard....
***Good one. But here I was refering to the homosexual.
***WHAT IS So funny? You've lost me here.

***Sure I am the we.
So is every human being wiht a rathional mind. Are there any disticntions?
is mandatory.

***Probably, but that does not change the truth of what IS.
***Why should I be concerend about normal seuxality? IF anything I'd
want every person on this planet to expereince what it is to love
someone and share that love through a loving sexual relationship.
HEterosexual preferably, because for me, that is normal.
I think a homosecual would still be missing what the completeness of
this experience is, becasue the fruit of this is the creation of children.
need to

***Sigh, Simon. ONE can only know through long term the consequences
(the question of devaince).
From my persepctive, I just wish that every homosexual knows that they
have a choice. The hope is in a truly fulfilled life, in the Love of
God. DO you know any homosexual who has expereinced this and been
happy in a homosexual lifestyle/relationship?
Its upto each one to make the choice. It will mean going against the
grain and going against what they feel IS not in their control, or
changing their mindset (brainwashing?). MAny may not find that necessary.

PArt of this I answered earlier in the addendum to the earlier post.
D.r leela

#LOL. I don't run away. It's jst a question of how much something
interests me. I'm not interested in converting anyone to my POV just
saying how I see it. You see it how you see it. It would be
intertesting to see whether our differing perspectives resulted in any
given Px getting the same or diffferent Rxs
# I wouldn't know - I don't have religion

# LOL! which one?
# From where I stand it's very funny. As we do not stand in the same
place I doubt I can explain it to you

# so you fight with deviant behaviour?

#I assumed the implication was that by 'deviant' you still referred to
homosexuals
#which is?
# then we are discussing at cross purposes. I though you were saying
that homosexuality is deviant; not normal.
# I don't think the suggestion ever was that you should be in a same
sex relationship
# how can you know what any homosexual feels , whether they are
fulfilled or not , unless you speak to them individually.

# most definitely