<<I deny absolutely that a married purely heterosexual person can become a great painter or sculptor, or novelist, or leader of people. >>
nihil, please say you're kidding, or at least engaging in hyperbole... Dickens? Joyce? Tolstoy? Chekov?(I know he didn't write actual novels, but it's the same thing. Hardy? Gissing?) Rodin? Chamberlain? De Kooning? Picasso? Franklin D. Roosevelt, unless you know something I don't? Churchill?
This is a silly proposition anyway. What does "exclusively" mean? That we can prove there was never any adolescent homosexual event? How could one know that?
If you can prove that every married apparently hetero great artist or statesman was, in fact, gay, or partly gay, you've got a book there, dude. I'd love to see your archives. But I think you've said something pretty notional here.
It's silly of me to argue about this. I don't care about it. It just seemed so... odd an assertion!
<<Nature does not need much of our reproductive powers. It needs people who can love each other.>>
Hey, I thought you watched the Discovery Channel!
'Nature' doesn't have needs, does it? Isn't just... nature? Whatever is, is nature. The impact of events on Nature may be better for us or worse for us (or our descendants), and accordingly as we assess that situation, we call it what Nature 'needs,' or doesn't. I think this is almost tautologically true. |
