LAURA KNIGHT-JADCZYK AND JOE QUINN
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
There are probably a myriad of factors involved in determining sexual orientation. This study has probably provided some useful information.
I once heard a beautiful LRH lecture dealing with this subject.
It can be a real problem for people.
But the hate comes from criminals (psychopaths), plain and simple, trying to screw up people's lives.
Imagine, if you can, that a person is, at their core, an immortal spiritual being. You don't need sex to be an immortal spiritual being. You only NEED sex to beget young, so that the species will continue.
So humans, as spiritual beings playing around with human bodies, must have been subjected to all kinds of infernal crap to bring them down to this much confusion about a subject that should not even concern them that much. Sex is, at its core, body. At the spiritual level there are different ways to love.
Perhaps you saw Wim Wenders' movie made for Ry Cooder about the traditional jazz musicians of Cuba. One scene showed a recording session in which two singers, a man and a woman, were placed on opposite sides of the microphone while they sang a song together. The camera circled around them, recording close-ups of their faces. Now, that was love!
We have to get past this sex thing. Most of those researchers don't know what they're talking about. If you don't want to believe Hubbard, I suggest you just let it go. We have more important challenges to face, don't we?
If at the core, sex is just meant to progress the human species, i.e. beget young, then you have just argued that anything apart from heterosexual sex and in that, that which is meant to produce offspring is illegitimate. That it's all just for self-pleasure, be it homosexual sex or heterosexual sex meant for fun or whatever other reason not meant to produce offspring... Uhmm, that doesnt sound that nice or need I say, fun ..
By any chance have you seen this movie, I think the lead character characterizes human beings as a whole quite nicely in this subject...(Imagine an alien species observing the human race as a whole, they'll probably think we are the lead character in that movie)
[Link]
Luke, I do not read l_e_cox as saying procreation is the ONLY purpose of sex, although it is easily proved to be its primary purpose and, as such, should never be entirely divorced therefrom. Doing so is akin to the Romans' use of vomitoria in order to enable and perpetuate their gluttony. Everything has its proper place and messing with proper use of the generative faculties is like our splitting of the atom -- and the results, although we are often oblivious to them until we have become enslaved to harmful habits, have been immeasurably worse for individuals and society as a whole.
As for the homophobia nonsense, this study is just another waste of taxpayer money used to produce a half-ass, pseudo-intellectual study which bolsters the Money Master Mafia's party line meant to turn everyone into mind-f*cked debt slaves totally subjected to their lower passions at the expense of their reason. The passions exist for a reason and are good in se; however, when we let them override reason and serve as our guide, we end up with some bad habits that adversely affect our ability to live virtuous, useful lives.
i.e. cox said:
"We have more important challenges to face, don't we?"
The "royal we" is a classic ploy of a virus seeking attachment. Used most frequently in advertising, war propaganda etc.
One should always speak for oneself, and respect the free will of others as to whether they wish kinship with you or not.
Oddly, your last sentence is a statement which is clearly offered in a manner that seeks to impose an idea and a particular course of action upon others! LOL! Kinship with you and your insane theories be damned! JK :)
Hey, did your math teacher demand assent to what he/she taught, or was it a "take it or leave it" kind of thing that failed to adversely affect your grade? ;)
FWIW, every use of "we" does not qualify as the "royal we." It is my humble opinion, which opinion I would never seek to force upon anyone as I am too intellectually modest to be certain whether or not I even believe it myself, that cox's use of "we" in this particular instance is not, in fact, royal. Just sayin...
Hmm, interesting article. I do think it is more to do with authoritarian parenting and conservative beliefs. The argument about it being because one might have homophobic tendencies to me sounds very Freudian. Like, you fear or are disgusted by something because secretly you are attracted to it...