No there doesn't. Otherwise you are blaming the higher reason.
Posted by McReal, Monday, 4 April 2011 7:16:46 AM

No McReal, that is your (with respect)assumption not mine.

There is no black and white alternative as you preside.

When a young person's life is taken early and tragically, I was forced to 'think outside the square' pondering questions and asking for reasons (while a teenager myself) from God as to why certain families lose their children early and tragically. Later as a woman in her twenties, I lost another two close people in my life tragically and suddenly.

The same answers from God were delivered in a couple of different ways during those years.

Unless you have 'experienced' a relationship with God, McReal, you would have no concept at all in comprehending my viewpoint.

Do you believe in God McReal?

If you honestly believe that children die young and tragically with no reason whatsoever, there is no point at all in debating Christianity and Spirituality with you, or interacting regarding this issue, whereby you believe there is no other reason for children passing away tragically.

Another aspect to people (including myself) losing loved ones, is that other people meet and interact forming friendships (many special and deeply loving) through their losses and grief. There are reasons for every one of us losing loved ones, in which God is fully aware and known previously; although He/She in His/Her love, not the cause.

No, Philo.
My comments pale into insignificance against your many offensive remarks about gay people.
You still haven't addressed my questions about your assertions about environmental reasons for 'causing' homosexuality?

That's an interesting throwaway line, Philo.

>>Homosexual men are equally aroused by the presence of nude females<<

According to scientific research, the opposite is true.

The British Journal of Psychiatry vol 123: pp579-585 has a good discussion on the topic, including a controlled experiment to determine their reactions that concluded, inter alia:

"...homosexuals showed significantly greater galvanic skin responses to the preferred than to the non-preferred sex"

Another study was done by the School of Psychiatry, UNSW, published in Behaviour Research and Therapy Volume 5, Issue 1, pp43-48:

"The sexual orientation indicated by the test was heterosexual for all the completely heterosexual subjects and homosexual for fourteen [64%] of the subjects conscious of homosexual feeling"

The American Psychological Society also published on the subject, in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 70(3) pp165-168.:

"The pupil response of each individual in a group of heterosexual males was greater when looking at pictures of women than when looking at pictures of men. Homosexual male subjects responded in the opposite direction. Measurement of changes in pupil size permitted clear-cut discrimination between the 2 groups"

Commercial market research for pheremone-based "sprays lotions and gels" support these findings.

"...when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men... The response in gay men and straight women was concentrated in the hypothalamus with a maximum in the preoptic area that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior"

And

"...when estrogen, the female hormone was used, there was only a response in the olfactory portion of the brains of straight women. Homosexual men had their primary response also in the olfactory area, with a very small reaction in the hypothalamus, while heterosexual men responded strongly in the reproductive region of the brain."

http://www.pheromone-sprays.net/gaymen-pheromones.html

These folk have no gender bias. To them, the instinctive reaction of the subconscious is strictly business.

Which sources did you use in your research, Philo?

Philco you have made some very negative comments towards your fellow beings, and now you have the opportunity to prove your point.
Should you not respond with factual evidence, your comments are a sad reflection on yourself.

Kipp,
If you had read my previous posts you would note the report I quoted was from an article in my Drs Surgery on male sexuality that I had read. I have indicated I will seek to copy the article so I can post the research done and by whom. It dealt with the responses from heightened visual stimuli on men. Just be patient. I visit my Dr again on the 29th.

Pericles,
I note the atricle in the URL posted dealt with smell, which would be already pleasantly familiar stimuli to practising homosexual men.

On several occasions researchers studying male sexuality have used prisoners in past studies, and as you might realise hetrosexual men in prison engage in homosexual practises.

My nephew returning from Iraq quoted the view of many Iraqi men as saying, "Sex with Wemon are for babies, but sex with men is for pleasure". Homosexuality is a choice of behaviour, that if engaged in increases the risk of perferated bowel and diseases like Aids HIV etc