9/11 compensation fund is anti-gay

IDMR · Post by **IDMR** » 2002-07-21 03:54am

Pablo Sanchez wrote:<Snip>

This might be a controversial statement, but I don't think anybody should be getting government compensation for this. At least not in the amount being shelled out. Essentially the government is giving people millions of dollars because their spouses were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's just a politicized waste of money to salve the nation's conscience.

I find myself in complete accord with the statement.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-21 07:18am

"I don't want to string gay people up from the nearest tree, nor do I care to bar them from marrying, or serving in the military."

That's allright, I'm not casting aspersion on your character.

"I simply point out that homosexuality is not normal for humans, or any other animal."

I still haven't gotten your definition of the word normal. Since homosexuality occurs among animals and among humans, it is an unusual practice. It is not unnatural. Hence, if you by "not normal" mean "unusual", you're right. If you mean "unnatural", you're wrong.

"I don't see how you can be intellectually honest and say otherwise."

See above. Durandal made a valid point. You might want to answer it.

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-21 07:49am

No physiological characteristic that can occure in nature is unnatural. This includes homosexuality. However, such characteristics CAN be abnormal. Homosexuality falls into this catagory. Why? Because, all other things being equal, a homosexual individual will not reproduce. And before you sound off, I know all about modern fertility techniques, and I know about greco-roman and other cultural homosexual practices. The fertility tech IS unnatural. The cultural homosexual practices are cultural artifacts, and don't necessarily mean the participants enjoy it. For example, in western culture for years gay men and women were required to hide their preferences and enter into hetero relationships. That doesn't mean the lesbian enjoyed her husband's attentions.
As for the chimps, I am unaware of that particular example. Just guessing, I would say that the 'bi-sexual' behavior is either a result of sexual frustration among the males, since the females are only sexually receptive when they are on heat; or it is a cultural artifact (and yes, chimps have culture); or it is real, biologically driven bi-sexuality (their brains are undifferntiated between male and female in the structures that control sexual orientation); or it is a figment of the observers' imaginations (they are anthropomorphizing, or interpreting the observed behavior according to too broad a standard).
Happy now?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-07-21 09:09am

Durandal wrote: But most, if not all, the anti-homosexuality movements originate within Judeo-Christian groups. Muslims don't like it, but they're not as vocal.

http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/egypt/egnews97.htm

It read: "Egypt is a Muslim country and according to our Islamic Sharia teachings and tenets, sex should be practiced between a male and a female strictly through conjugal relations—the "family" being the core and nucleus of the Islamic society. That is in full obedience and conformity with the natural disposition of Mankind as Created by God for the population of the Earth with righteous men and women, not wrong doers who commit vice by practicing their lusts on men in preference to women (or the latter with the same sex in preference to men)."

.......

The statement comes days after five men were sentenced to hard labour in prison on convictions related to homosexuality.

It follows comments made last December by the Speaker of the Egyptian parliament. Ahmed Fathi Surer said: "Homosexuality does not figure in Egyptian law."

In recent years the Egyptian government has mounted an increasingly aggressive campaign to arrest and prosecute homosexuals.

Although homosexuality is not explicitly referred to in the Egyptian penal code, a wide range of laws covering obscenity, prostitution and debauchery are applied to homosexuals

The Egyptians just HATE homos. BZZZZZZT.

Try again in your pitiful anti-christian tirade.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-21 09:13am

Yet another thinj you can die for in the Middle East.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-07-21 09:55am

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ution_dc_1

Killer, Rapist to Be Thrown Off Cliff in Sack
Thu Jul 18,10:44 AM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian man, convicted for raping and killing
his 16-year-old nephew, will be executed by being thrown off a cliff
in a sack, a newspaper reported on Thursday.

If the unnamed man survives the fall down a rocky precipice, he will
be hanged, legal experts said. He has 20 days to appeal the court
sentence.

The killer was arrested last year in the northwestern city of Mashhad
after "seducing" and killing his nephew, who worked as an assistant
at the man's carpenter's workshop, the Norouz daily newspaper said.

Under Iran's Islamic law, applied since the 1979 revolution,
pederasty, homosexuality and adultery are among a long list of
crimes punishable by death.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-21 10:45am

"No physiological characteristic that can occure in nature is unnatural. This includes homosexuality. However, such characteristics CAN be abnormal. Homosexuality falls into this catagory. Why? Because, all other things being equal, a homosexual individual will not reproduce. And before you sound off, I know all about modern fertility techniques, and I know about greco-roman and other cultural homosexual practices. The fertility tech IS unnatural."

You seem to subscribe to the idea that only sexual practice resulting in offspring is "normal". I disagree, and I have a feeling I'm not alone.

"The cultural homosexual practices are cultural artifacts, and don't necessarily mean the participants enjoy it. For example, in western culture for years gay men and women were required to hide their preferences and enter into hetero relationships. That doesn't mean the lesbian enjoyed her husband's attentions."

Bullshit, frankly. You're not being forced by culture to be homosexual today. The situation is quite the opposite, as I hope you are aware.

"As for the chimps, I am unaware of that particular example. Just guessing, I would say that the 'bi-sexual' behavior is either a result of sexual frustration among the males, since the females are only sexually receptive when they are on heat; or it is a cultural artifact (and yes, chimps have culture); or it is real, biologically driven bi-sexuality (their brains are undifferntiated between male and female in the structures that control sexual orientation); or it is a figment of the observers' imaginations (they are anthropomorphizing, or interpreting the observed behavior according to too broad a standard)."

All of these are possibilities. I would peg the "culture" argument as far too sophisticated - there is no evidence for chimps having a homogenous culture that stretches over and between tribes - and anthropomorphizing sounds pretty silly. Surely the researchers can be expected to analyze and apply critical thinking?

In the end, I think the Rainbow Lady summed it up best:

"Because the simple fact of the matter is that "otherly-oriented" persons DO constitute a minority in this country. And as such, based purely on the numbers, it is "abnormal" to be otherly-oriented. Just as it is abnormal to possess a genius IQ. Or to become a nun or priest or minister. And that is the ONLY way in which homosexuality can be considered abnormal."

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-21 01:59pm

The chimps bisexual behavior is thier way of solving problems. Instead of fighting like other chimps, they have sex, this apologetic(sp?) sex can and does on many occasions digress into a huge bisexual orgy

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-21 02:10pm

They treat sex like other chimps do grooming(and yet still find time to groom)

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-07-21 03:04pm

MKSheppard wrote:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ution_dc_1

Killer, Rapist to Be Thrown Off Cliff in Sack
Thu Jul 18,10:44 AM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) - An Iranian man, convicted for raping and
his 16-year-old nephew, will be executed by being thrown off a cliff
in a sack, a newspaper reported on Thursday.

If the unnamed man survives the fall down a rocky precipice, he will
be hanged, legal experts said. He has 20 days to appeal the court
sentence.

The killer was arrested last year in the northwestern city of Mashhad
after "seducing" and his nephew, who worked as an assistant
at the man's carpenter's workshop, the Norouz daily newspaper said.

Under Iran's Islamic law, applied since the 1979 revolution,
pederasty, homosexuality and ery are among a long list of
crimes punishable by .

Just to show how lucky gays in America are. Of course, in the Middle East, "Getting Stoned" means having an actual rock thrown at you.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-21 10:17pm

Shep: For fuck's sake, get a clue. I'm talking about homosexuality in America. Any idiot who can read context correctly could tell that. In America, the movement against homosexuality is entirely based in Judaism/Christianity/Islam. And, surprise! They all have the Old Testament as one of their Holy Books!

No physiological characteristic that can occure in nature is unnatural.

Homosexuality occurs in nature. It occurs with animals as well as man. Man is a part of nature. If it occurs with man, it is natural. Case closed. Whoops, you lose.

This includes homosexuality. However, such characteristics CAN be abnormal. Homosexuality falls into this catagory. Why? Because, all other things being equal, a homosexual individual will not reproduce.

Wrong. Ever hear of a sperm bank or cloning? "Abnormal" and "unnatural" are two entirely different things.

And before you sound off, I know all about modern fertility techniques, and I know about greco-roman and other cultural homosexual practices. The fertility tech IS unnatural.

Who cares if something is "natural" or not? Are you one of those people who only takes "natural" painkillers or herbal supplements or something? Why does it matter?

The cultural homosexual practices are cultural artifacts, and don't necessarily mean the participants enjoy it.

Some heterosexuals don't enjoy sex. What's your point?

For example, in western culture for years gay men and women were required to hide their preferences and enter into hetero relationships. That doesn't mean the lesbian enjoyed her husband's attentions.

Well, duh.

As for the chimps, I am unaware of that particular example. Just guessing, I would say that the 'bi-sexual' behavior is either a result of sexual frustration among the males, since the females are only sexually receptive when they are on heat; or it is a cultural artifact (and yes, chimps have culture); or it is real, biologically driven bi-sexuality (their brains are undifferntiated between male and female in the structures that control sexual orientation); or it is a figment of the observers' imaginations (they are anthropomorphizing, or interpreting the observed behavior according to too broad a standard).
Happy now?

What the Hell is your point? Whether or not homosexuality is "natural" is completely immaterial. Even if it was relevant, you're wrong anyway, because it occurs in nature, so it must be natural. But, again, who cares? Survival of the fittest occurs in nature. It's natural. That doesn't mean that it's a particularly compassionate or moral way of doing things. What are you trying to prove? That you're better than gay people because you're "all natural"?

Your reasoning would lead us to conclude that, since 90% of people in the world believe in God, it must be "unnatural" to be an atheist. Or, since 90% of people in the world aren't Eskimos, that it must be unnatural to be an Eskimo. Or that it's unnatural to be from Portugal or live in Vatican City (that one's pretty funny).

Here's the basic problem with the naturalistic stance. If you assume that technology is unnatural, you're basically assuming that all the laws of physics cease to apply when humans intervene. That's simply preposterous. The laws of physics obviously allow for a refrigerator to work, so it must be something natural, i.e. found in nature. Same with gay people. Same with cloning. Same with genetic engineering/tailoring.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-21 10:56pm

On a lighter note, being Canadian is not abnormal, it's just strange.

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-21 11:30pm

You seem to subscribe to the idea that only sexual practice resulting in offspring is "normal". I disagree, and I have a feeling I'm not alone.

Sex exists in nature solely as a means of reproduction. That sex is pleasurable is only nature's way of encouraging us to do it.

Bullshit, frankly. You're not being forced by culture to be homosexual today. The situation is quite the opposite, as I hope you are aware.

I never claimed anyone today is forced to be homosexual. I said that in the past, homosexuals were forced to act like heterosexuals. The point being that attitudes toward homosexuality are cultural artifacts, and thus completely arbitrary and subject to change.

All of these are possibilities. I would peg the "culture" argument as far too sophisticated - there is no evidence for chimps having a homogenous culture that stretches over and between tribes (neither do humans) - and anthropomorphizing sounds pretty silly. Surely the researchers can be expected to analyze and apply critical thinking?

Actually, anthropomorphizing is quite common, even in the field of anthropology. And yes, you would EXPECT the researchers to analyze and apply critical thinking, but just as often you get interpretations of observations filtered through the researcher's political beliefs, cultural values, and pre-conceived notions about what they are going to find.[/i]

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-22 03:52am

"Sex exists in nature solely as a means of reproduction. That sex is pleasurable is only nature's way of encouraging us to do it."

In this case, and for this kind of debate, I think you should define your meaning of words that have a strong emotional impact. Words like "normal" and "natural" imply deviation to be unhealthy, immoral and/or dangerous. One prime religious argument against homosexuality, for example, is that such practices are "unnatural", i.e. "against the will of God". If you don't specify what you mean, it's easy to leap to the conclusion that you hold such opinions.

"I never claimed anyone today is forced to be homosexual. I said that in the past, homosexuals were forced to act like heterosexuals. The point being that attitudes toward homosexuality are cultural artifacts, and thus completely arbitrary and subject to change."

My mistake. But I must say that just the fact that cultural attitudes play a role does not make them the only determining factor, or even the most important one. Or, more clearly, why should attitudes toward homosexuality be completely arbitrary just because they might be dictated by culture?

"Actually, anthropomorphizing is quite common, even in the field of anthropology. And yes, you would EXPECT the researchers to analyze and apply critical thinking, but just as often you get interpretations of observations filtered through the researcher's political beliefs, cultural values, and pre-conceived notions about what they are going to find."

It is a possibility, but I still don't think we should blithely assume the researchers to be blinded by their own beliefs. That's too convenient a reason to turn one's eyes away from the facts.

Sebastin · Post by **Sebastin** » 2002-07-22 10:23am

Sex exists in nature solely as a means of reproduction. That sex is pleasurable is only nature's way of encouraging us to do it.

For humans and anthropoids sex is primarily a means of securing bonds. Consider: a average of 1 in 1000 sexual contacts between partners results in offspring. Thats 0.1% effective. If it was only for reproduction nature could have easily introduced some hormone lever to make humans only having sex when they are fertile as most other animals do it.

In bonobo chimp society every last one of them is bisexual for thier species it is "normal"

Thanks for bringing bonobos up. They are my favorite animals for sure. For bonobos sex is like shaking hands for humans. And yes, every single bonobo is bi, males and females alike. The average bonobo has 4700 sexual contacts in his 30 year lifespan - the average humans has 2500 in 70 years. And they live in a true matriachariat(sp) where the females have the power in the tribe and the males do all the work, getting sex in return.
And the best part: bonobos are the closest human relatives closer even than chimps. Sorry for getting ot but i`d sure like getting reborn as a bonobo, preferable a female. Sadly i don´t believe in reincarnation.

Back on Topic
I don´t think it is discrimination to only pay for legal marriages. I think gays should have the same rights as heteros but i think the discrimination here lies with the inabillity to legaly marry, not with the relief fund going along with the law. It has to and thats OK.

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-23 01:47am

Durandal wrote:Shep: For fuck's sake, get a clue. I'm talking about homosexuality in America. Any idiot who can read context correctly could tell that. In America, the movement against homosexuality is entirely based in Judaism/Christianity/Islam. And, surprise! They all have the Old Testament as one of their Holy Books!

Homosexuality occurs in nature. It occurs with animals as well as man. Man is a part of nature. If it occurs with man, it is natural. Case closed. Whoops, you lose.

"And what part of that didn't you get? I said homosexuality was natural."

This includes homosexuality. However, such characteristics CAN be abnormal. Homosexuality falls into this catagory. Why? Because, all other things being equal, a homosexual individual will not reproduce.

Wrong. Ever hear of a sperm bank or cloning? "Abnormal" and "unnatural" are two entirely different things.[/i]

And before you sound off, I know all about modern fertility techniques, and I know about greco-roman and other cultural homosexual practices. The fertility tech IS unnatural.
"Are you even reading what I write?"

Who cares if something is "natural" or not? Are you one of those people who only takes "natural" painkillers or herbal supplements or something? Why does it matter?
"Gee, I know several thousand anti-nuke activists who will be severely distressed to know that the fact that plutonium is 'unnatural' doesn't matter."
The cultural homosexual practices are cultural artifacts, and don't necessarily mean the participants enjoy it.
Some heterosexuals don't enjoy sex. What's your point?

For example, in western culture for years gay men and women were required to hide their preferences and enter into hetero relationships. That doesn't mean the lesbian enjoyed her husband's attentions.
Well, duh.

As for the chimps, I am unaware of that particular example. Just guessing, I would say that the 'bi-sexual' behavior is either a result of sexual frustration among the males, since the females are only sexually receptive when they are on heat; or it is a cultural artifact (and yes, chimps have culture); or it is real, biologically driven bi-sexuality (their brains are undifferntiated between male and female in the structures that control sexual orientation); or it is a figment of the observers' imaginations (they are anthropomorphizing, or interpreting the observed behavior according to too broad a standard).
Happy now?
What the Hell is your point? Whether or not homosexuality is "natural" is completely immaterial. Even if it was relevant, you're wrong anyway, because it occurs in nature, so it must be natural. But, again, who cares? Survival of the fittest occurs in nature. It's natural. That doesn't mean that it's a particularly compassionate or moral way of doing things. What are you trying to prove? That you're better than gay people because you're "all natural"?{/i}

"Hey Durandal! Ever hear of the Song of Roland? You're still a dip-shit who doesn't understand what he's reading."

Your reasoning would lead us to conclude that, since 90% of people in the world believe in God, it must be "unnatural" to be an atheist. Or, since 90% of people in the world aren't Eskimos, that it must be unnatural to be an Eskimo. Or that it's unnatural to be from Portugal or live in Vatican City (that one's pretty funny).
"If 90 percent of the worlds people live in Vatican City, then yes, it would be unnatural to live outside VC."

Here's the basic problem with the naturalistic stance. If you assume that technology is unnatural, you're basically assuming that all the laws of physics cease to apply when humans intervene. That's simply preposterous. The laws of physics obviously allow for a refrigerator to work, so it must be something natural, i.e. found in nature. Same with gay people. Same with cloning. Same with genetic engineering/tai[i}loring.

"Wake up, half-wit. If you'd read the thread you would know I've been arguing that homosexuality IS natural, just abnormal. I haven't been advocating the execution of gays, or anything remotely like that!"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-07-23 01:56am

David wrote:On a lighter note, being Canadian is not abnormal, it's just strange.

What's wrong with being abnormal? I'm proud to be abnormal. The normal person has an IQ of only 100, watches "Friends" and "Survivor", and is willing to eat food from McDonald's.

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-23 02:01am

$#@%-*&, someday I'm gonna figure out how to edit these things...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-07-23 02:03am

John wrote:Sex exists in nature solely as a means of reproduction. That sex is pleasurable is only nature's way of encouraging us to do it.

Quite true. By that token, it is unnatural to have sex with a condom on, or to use any other contraceptive device or even technique, such as the rhythm method. For that matter, oral sex is unnatural. Completely mindless sex and unplanned pregnancies is completely natural. Does this imply that it's good?

Don't pretend that you're "just pointing out" something without making any value judgements. Why are you making such an effort to point out that homosexuality is not "natural" or "normal" unless you assign some value judgement to being "natural" or "normal"? People never just "point out" things unless they think they mean something.

Most people engage in all sorts of unnatural sex acts. So what? If I ask my wife for a blowjob, that's an unnatural sex act because it cannot possibly lead to procreation, which is the evolutionary raison d'etre for sex (in fact, it does not even employ the sex organs in the "correct" manner). Does that mean I won't ask for blowjobs in the future? Hell, no.

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-23 02:10am

Good, Bad, I'm the guy with the gun. I'm not interested in sexual morality. I'm talking from a strictly evolutionary point of view. Sex exists for reproductive purposes only. Sexual pleasure, and human female sexual availablity on a constant basis exists to facilitate the survival of the species.
That is my entire point.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-07-23 02:25am

John wrote:I'm not interested in sexual morality. I'm talking from a strictly evolutionary point of view. Sex exists for reproductive purposes only. Sexual pleasure, and human female sexual availablity on a constant basis exists to facilitate the survival of the species.

Yes, that is the evolutionary incentive behind sex. So what? Are you trying to suggest that the evolutionary future of the human species is threatened or harmed in some way because of homosexuality? Because that would be completely false.

Since the majority of the population is heterosexual, the presence of homosexual species variations is harmless and will have no effect whatsoever on species viability. Moreover, the massive overpopulation of the world is creating serious socio-economic and environmental problems, so there is no reason to fret that a tiny percentage of the population not having children will somehow cause the world harm. In fact, one could make a perfectly reasonable argument that the world overpopulation problem calls for societies to encourage homosexual behaviour

That is my entire point.

With all due respect, this sounds like a cowardly evasion to me. This thread is about anti-gay prejudice, remember? Why the hell would you claim that gays are "abnormal" or "unnatural" in a thread about anti-gay prejudice and then suddenly try to waltz away claiming that you're not trying to make a point about the morality of homosexuality?

Admit it: you said homosexuality was abnormal and unnatural because you felt that this would prove it is a bad thing. But when you realized that everyone would blast you with the logical fallacy inherent in the "natural = good" assumption, you tried to pretend that you weren't making a value judgement at all.

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-23 02:36am

I said homosexuality was abnormal. I never said it was unnatural. The two terms don't mean the same thing. I don't give a damn who you boink (provided they are of legal age) and don't see how you could conclude otherwise unless you weren't actually READING what I posted. As for your accusation, yes, I do think male homosexuality is immoral and disgusting. I also think female homosexuality is kind of a turn on! (Hypocrasy, I know) But I never said it should be illegal, or that gays should be discriminated against. If you had read my posts OBJECTIVELY you would have realized that.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-07-23 03:12am

John wrote:I said homosexuality was abnormal. I never said it was unnatural. The two terms don't mean the same thing.

Fine, split hairs if you like. You said that "No physiological characteristic that can occure in nature is unnatural. This includes homosexuality. However, such characteristics CAN be abnormal. Homosexuality falls into this catagory. Why? Because, all other things being equal, a homosexual individual will not reproduce." (note: failure to reproduce, ie- employ sex for its natural purpose, used as proof of abnormality). You also said that "Sex exists in nature solely as a means of reproduction" and "Sex exists for reproductive purposes only. Sexual pleasure, and human female sexual availablity on a constant basis exists to facilitate the survival of the species."

If you want to think like a lawyer, you did not use the word "unnatural". You carefully defined "unnatural" using the most anal-retentive definition possible, in which nothing because it all occurs in the natural universe. However, this is not a court of law, and semantic bullshit will get you nowhere here.

What you did do was repeatedly point out that homosexual sex does not lead to reproduction, and you concluded that it is therefore abnormal. Bzzzt! That's where you fucked up the charade, John. Homosexuality is abnormal because it is rare. Period. That is the only reason it is abnormal, and only if you use the definition of "abnormal" which deals strictly in terms of population counts.

By using evolutionary and natural factors in order to show that homosexuality is "abnormal", you have inadvertently welded "abnormal" and "unnatural" together (using the natural "purpose" of sex to show that homosexual sex is abnormal). Therefore, whether you admit it or not, you have claimed that homosexuality is both abnormal and unnatural (using the normal definition of the word, not your carefully chosen, overly strict definition). In fact, you have claimed that homosexuality is abnormal because it is unnatural, which is not only evasive but completely wrong. Homosexuality is abnormal simply because it is not practiced by the majority. It is a matter of simple numbers, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with reproductive usefulness. Of course, inter-racial sex is also abnormal by that same token; oddly enough, you don't feel compelled to point that out (after all, you wouldn't want to admit that "abnormal" doesn't mean squat, would you?).

I don't give a damn who you boink (provided they are of legal age) and don't see how you could conclude otherwise unless you weren't actually READING what I posted. As for your accusation, yes, I do think male homosexuality is immoral and disgusting.

You don't even realize that your second sentence directly contradicts your first sentence, do you? You're trying hard to walk the line without admitting bigotry, but you do give a damn: you think it's immoral! Do you know what "immoral" means? You may not take action on this belief, but that's like a white supremacist saying that he doesn't advocate hurting blacks; he just feels that they are inferior.

I don't want to see two guys having sex because I think the male body is grossly unattractive compared to the female body, and I'm not even sure why women like to look at us. But I don't think it is immoral. Unlike you, I have actually put some thought into the definition of morality, and I can find no justification whatsoever for accusing homosexuals of being immoral solely because of their orientation. Most anti-gay prejudice comes from Judeo-Christianity-Islam, along with a large dose of general fear and loathing of that which is different. None of that can be justified in any meaningful way. In your case, you say it's "immoral" but your justification ("it's abnormal") is worthless.

I also think female homosexuality is kind of a turn on! (Hypocrasy, I know) But I never said it should be illegal, or that gays should be discriminated against. If you had read my posts OBJECTIVELY you would have realized that.

Strawman. I am not claiming that you're out to criminalize homosexuality (but please, go ahead and attack your convenient strawman; you've use the exact same strawman on everyone else already; I am starting to feel a sense of community, and I wouldn't want to be excluded). One can be a bigot without criminalizing everything he bears hatred for. Suppose somebody walked up to you and said that "white people are all inherently evil. Not that I advocate criminalizing white genes or discriminating against them; just pointing out a fact". How would you feel?

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-23 03:34am

Darth Wong wrote:
John wrote:I said homosexuality was abnormal. I never said it was unnatural. The two terms don't mean the same thing.
<Fine, split hairs if you like. You said that "No physiological characteristic that can occure in nature is unnatural. This includes homosexuality. However, such characteristics CAN be abnormal. Homosexuality falls into this catagory. Why? Because, all other things being equal, a homosexual individual will not reproduce." (note: failure to reproduce, ie- employ sex for its natural purpose, used as proof of abnormality). You also said that "Sex exists in nature solely as a means of reproduction" and "Sex exists for reproductive purposes only. Sexual pleasure, and human female sexual availablity on a constant basis exists to facilitate the survival of the species."

If you want to think like a lawyer, you did not use the word "unnatural". You carefully defined "unnatural" using the most anal-retentive definition possible, in which nothing because it all occurs in the natural universe. However, this is not a court of law, and semantic bullshit will get you nowhere here.>

At long last, I'm up against Mike himself. Hoo-ahh!
All right. Objectively. Is anything that can occure in nature un-natural? I think not. Homosexuality occures in nature. Therefore, it is not un-natural. However, if 99% of the population is hetero, and 1% is homo, then hetero is normal, and homo is...ABNORMAL. That is what I have been saying from the beginning.<

<What you did do was repeatedly point out that homosexual sex does not lead to reproduction, and you concluded that it is therefore abnormal. Bzzzt! That's where you fucked up the charade, John. Homosexuality is abnormal because it is rare. Period. That is the only reason it is abnormal, and only if you use the definition of "abnormal" which deals strictly in terms of population counts.>

I think you're starting to get a clue Mike,

<By using evolutionary and natural factors in order to show that homosexuality is "abnormal", you have inadvertently welded "abnormal" and "unnatural" together>

When, since I have insisted that homosexuality is abnormal, but not un-natural?

<(using the natural "purpose" of sex to show that homosexual sex is abnormal). Therefore, whether you admit it or not, you have claimed that homosexuality is both abnormal and unnatural (using the normal definition of the word, not your carefully chosen, overly strict definition). In fact, you have claimed that homosexuality is abnormal because it is unnatural, which is not only evasive but completely wrong. Homosexuality is abnormal simply because it is not practiced by the majority. It is a matter of simple numbers, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with reproductive usefulness.>

So stone age gays could reproduce?

<Of course, inter-racial sex is also abnormal by that same token;>

Assuming you're one of those half-wits who thinks skin color is any more releavnt than eye color.

<oddly enough, you don't feel compelled to point that out (after all, you wouldn't want to admit that "abnormal" doesn't mean squat, would you?).
I don't give a damn who you boink (provided they are of legal age) and don't see how you could conclude otherwise unless you weren't actually READING what I posted. As for your accusation, yes, I do think male homosexuality is immoral and disgusting.
You don't even realize that your second sentence directly contradicts your first sentence, do you? You're trying hard to walk the line without admitting bigotry, but you do give a damn: you think it's immoral! Do you know what "immoral" means? You may not take action on this belief, but that's like a white supremacist saying that he doesn't advocate hurting blacks; he just feels that they are inferior.

I don't want to see two guys having sex because I think the male body is grossly unattractive compared to the female body, and I'm not even sure why women like to look at us. But I don't think it is immoral. Unlike you, I have actually put some thought into the definition of morality,>

So have I. Morality is completely arbitrary.

<and I can find no justification whatsoever for accusing homosexuals of being immoral solely because of their orientation. Most anti-gay prejudice comes from Judeo-Christianity-Islam, along with a large dose of general fear and loathing of that which is different.>

An entirely natural instictive response.

<None of that can be justified in any meaningful way. In your case, you say it's "immoral" but your justification ("it's abnormal") is worthless.
I also think female homosexuality is kind of a turn on! (Hypocrasy, I know) But I never said it should be illegal, or that gays should be discriminated against. If you had read my posts OBJECTIVELY you would have realized that.
Strawman. I am not claiming that you're out to criminalize homosexuality (but please, go ahead and attack your convenient strawman; you've use the exact same strawman on everyone else already; I am starting to feel a sense of community, and I wouldn't want to be excluded). One can be a bigot without criminalizing everything he bears hatred for. Suppose somebody walked up to you and said that "white people are all inherently evil. Not that I advocate criminalizing white genes or discriminating against them; just pointing out a fact". How would you feel?

>

First I'd say, "You say that like it's bad." Then I'd say "Fine."

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-23 01:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:
David wrote:On a lighter note, being Canadian is not abnormal, it's just strange.
What's wrong with being abnormal? I'm proud to be abnormal. The normal person has an IQ of only 100, watches "Friends" and "Survivor", and is willing to eat food from McDonald's.

In that case I guess I'm abnormal, I don't watch either one of those shows, I don't eat McD's unless I'm forced to, and I'm at the top of my class.

But at least I'm not Canadian

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

9/11 compensation fund is anti-gay

Re: Normality

Unusual, abnormal, what's the difference?

Another thing to die for.....

Re: Unusual, abnormal, what's the difference?

Re: Another thing to die for.....

Re: Unusual, abnormal, what's the difference?

Re: Unusual, abnormal, what's the difference?

Post processing.

Re: Unusual, abnormal, what's the difference?

Unnatural Sex.

Re: Unnatural Sex.

Can you read?

I can read, but you can't keep your arguments straight

Re: I can read, but you can't keep your arguments straight