How to Stop Homophobic Behaviour

Being a minority doesn't make you outside the social norms.

Your trying to compare apples to oranges, or as I like to put it force a square peg into a round hole.

 

I was speaking in terms of behavior.

"In behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality_(behavior))

Not social Norms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(sociology))

 

no, homosexuality isn't and won't be normal sex until the majority engage in it. Just because it is abnormal does not mean it is evil or wrong.

You see, you don't like the term "abnormal" being used when it is a perfectly fine word. Is homosexuality abnormal behavior; absolutely.

But you know what, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are not your normal NFL quarterbacks.

If someone said that homosexuality is wrong or evil then I'd be shoulder to shoulder with you saying it is not.

 

Definition of normal sure gets them worked up. Lets try another word, peversion.

Theyve certainly convinced themselves that homosexuality is "normal", surely they wouldnt try to argue that it is also "orthodox".

 

The average changes from one geographical location to another.

So to say or suggest that 'normal' can be whittled down to a narrow definition is fairly asinine.

If you think that normal is dictated by the things the largest amount of people are doing...then homosexuality...isn't that far outside the norm if you take into account global population.

 

really, according your magazine "the advocate" only 3% of the USA population admits to engaging in gay sex. Are you implying that the percentage borders 50% in other countries and the USA is just an anomaly?

 

Is being left-handed "normal"? What about having blue eyes?

Homosexuality isn't "abnormal" by definition, though you 'wish' or 'believe' it to be.

It's certainly not about the word "abnormal"; it is about what YOU yourself are COMMUNICATING with your words.

You are speaking from ignorance, and it seems 'willfully' so.

And the other "quarterbacks" are somehow "abnormal"? (What you're implying here, is ludicrous.)

You have SOME things right... but you're way-off about the "abnormal" thing.

 

Need a "significant deviation" from the average. A blue eye functions just like a brown one. A left hand functions identically to a left. Not really a SIGNIFICANT deviation. Sex between a man and a woman has the potential to perpetuate the species. Sex between two men is where we find 57% of the new HIV cases in America and 10 years less life expectancy. Id call that a significant deviation

 

And from one time period to the other. This new "homosexuality" is something they came up with in the last couple hundred years.

 

not at all. And I deliberately use that word to point out the reaction it gets. You want to police how words are used.

Manning ( I hope he is better than the Docs are telling us and plays this season) and brady are not your NORMAL NFL QB's. They are exceptional. A normal QB can't read defenses the way they can

You are in the norm if you are right handed. It's normal to manufacture scissors for right-handed people.

It's not normal to eat your dinner while you stand on your head

you are ok with all of that but you aren't ok if I say it's not normal for a woman to have sex with another woman....................why is that?

 

For the reason I already explained earlier in the thread.

What is the point of you saying it's not normal? I don't think anyone here is trying to say that two people of the same sex having sexual relations with each other represents a statistical norm.

So either you're hell bent on stating the obvious, or trying to get a reaction (trolling) based on an alternate meaning of the word: that of mental illness. And then trying to cover it up with "no, no - that's not what I meant!".

Point is, it was established several posts prior that your sole point in bringing up the word 'normal' is to get a rise out of people. Pretending ignorance will not save you here. You know why it gets a rise out of people, it has been ably illustrated why it gets a rise out of people, and you're ignoring all that in favor of continuing to troll for responses.

 

Your point? Heterosexuality has changed in the last hundred years.

Divorce used to be an unheard of event. You either outlived your spouse or killed them discretely. Why has marriage changed? Answer: Society has changed.

Homosexuals deserve the same rights, responsibilities, and protections as heterosexuals. There isn't anyway around that.

 

Yeah society changes but its still exclusively the heterosexuals producing children. Thats why thousands of years ago the law was

and thousands of years later the biology of procreation stays the same and so do the fundamental laws regarding marriage now

because

 

Not to speak for him but I believe his point was that homosexuality is not normal, offered in direct response to the claim that homosexuality is normal.

 

so again, the thought and word police arrive. You call it trolling and I call it you wanting to silence free speech.

I've been quite clear that I do not think a person is any different than me despite how they engage in sex. What i will do though is point out the hypocricy which is rampant. You want free speech yet want to silence those with opposing views. Instead of conmtinuing wit the tired same old drudgery, why not consider that perhaps I'm pointing out to you whats wrong with the way the movement conducts itself.

 

I'm not going to rehash all this for your benefit, especially when it's beyond clear that the issue here is one of equivocation.

 

For starters, the freedom of speech is a restriction upon the government, not other posters on a privately run forum. The forum owner is free to make up their own rules, including limiting the ability of people who troll to do so unchecked.

You are being dishonest. I didn't say you should not be allowed to speak. I simply shined a bright light on what you're up to.

And as I said elsewhere, these statements are not the equitable viewpoint they're pretending to portray, since they're offered for the purpose of pretending that the complaints of gay people have no validity.

No, I want responsible speech. If you offer a view that I consider invalid, you can expect me to point out its flaws. If you don't like having your statements criticized, then don't post. It's really that simple.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I should find value in your opinion on such matters. I do not.

 

Big impressive word you dont have a clue as to its meaning if you think this is an example of equivocation.

 

and again on the personal attack. I could care if you give 1 iota of worth to my opinion because it works both ways.

One more time, the only difference between you and me is how we have sex. That is it.

I have pointed out that there are inequties everywhere including what is doen to single people but that doesn't matter to you. Since 3% of the population in the USA admits to engaging in gay sex then i suggest to you that there are a lot more single people who have straight sex who are treated unfairly by the tax and insurance codes too.

It has nothing to do with how you have sex yet we continuously hear how what someone does in their bedroom has a major bearing on anything, oh really? It has no bearing whatsoever.

If you want to fight the good fight, then find out what happens to SS to single people when they die. Find out why as a single person you can't buy a family plan of insurance and add siblings or parents.

None of those above examples care about the color of your skin, your gender or how you have sex.

 

You're aware that both 'normal' and 'equivocation' have multiple meanings, correct? I'm not using the latter to describe a formal logical fallacy, if that's what you mean.

 

And I consider that a false statement. It doesn't get truer with each time you post it. It's just as false now as it was the first time.

Define 'unfairly' in the context of your statement.

Another false statement.

I don't disagree with you about those things, but they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You're mistaken. In the case of Social Security, the surviving spouse in a heterosexually married couple has access to the social security benefits of the deceased. The surviving spouse in a homosexually married couple does not.

 

Won't work.

 

do you not use your legs to walk?

Do you eat with your mouth? We can compare many things and find that sex is the only difference. I'm sorry if somehow you feel that lessens your whining but it is what it is. You sleep with guys, I sleep with women. That is the only difference.

 

Are you attracted to the same-sex? Could you fall in love with someone of the same-sex and want to spend the rest of your life with that person?

It doesn't matter how many similarities you trot out. Obviously gay people and straight people are far more alike than different.

You're willfully missing the point, which is that opposite-sex couples enjoy considerable legal and social privilege that same-sex couples do not. If we were to buy into your argument that we're the same except for the sex of the person we sleep with, then that only strengthens the argument that our government should ignore our irrelevant differences and treat us as equals. That isn't happening, and I'm not going to shut up about it just because you're sick of hearing it.

 

And you maintain the option of entering into a marital contract and forming a family with the sex of people you like to sleep with and he does not so that's another big difference especially since forming a family is about the most important thing in most adult's lives.