9/11 compensation fund is anti-gay

[Durandal]

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.

That's right. It doesn't. Nukes aren't bad because they utilize plutonium! They're bad because they can kill hundreds of thousands of people! I can't believe you actually need this explained to you!

Hey Durandal! Ever hear of the Song of Roland?

Of course I have. Do you really think that a handle or screen name like "Durandal" is common amongst people online or something?

You're still a dip-shit who doesn't understand what he's reading.

Then, by all means, explain your stance to me. You've made a very big deal out of your idiotic assertions that homosexuality is "unnatural" or "abnormal," but for what reason? What are you trying to prove?

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!

I've read the thread, and you've made your stance so ambiguous that even Miss Cleo could probably divine a valid interpretation for your stance on the issue.

Who cares if it's abnormal? Why are you bringing it up? Again, what the Hell is your point?

You can be a hate-monger without wanting to kill people you hate. For example, the Church hates gay people, but they don't advocate killing them. They just label homosexuality as a "condition" that will land gay people in Hell.

[Darth Wong]

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.

By that definition, nothing is unnatural. That is nothing but a bullshit definition, designed to get you off the hook. I made this point in my last post, but it obviously went over your head.

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.

I will explain this for you yet again: you use the so-called natural "purpose" of sex as justification for calling it abnormal. This means that you are indeed using the common definition of "unnatural" in order to prove that homosexuality is abnormal. Stop bullshitting and admit it; you think homosexuality is unnatural; you just won't admit it, and you use a ridiculously strict definition of "unnatural" to avoid taking the hit. Again, I made this point in my last post, and it obviously went over your head.

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

Too bad you aren't. You use violation of natural sexual "purpose" as proof of abnormality rather than simple population statistics. This means that you don't understand the definition of abnormality. You are using it the way most people use the word "unnatural". Do I need to explain this a third time, or do you get it now?

<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.

It isn't. Neither is sexual orientation. Nothing has anything to do with being moral or immoral. Yet again, you completely missed the point. I pointed that out because your "logic" (that abnormality is bad) is obviously broken as shown by the example, and yet again, the point went right over your head.

Morality is completely arbitrary.

Yet you feel strongly enough about it that you fill this thread with your posts about how homosexuality is abnormal and immoral. Why, if you think it's completely arbitrary?

John Ertz, you are obviously one of those little fuckwits that thinks the best way to debate is to carefully avoid staking yourself to a meaningful position. You say that homosexuality is unnatural (ie- violates the natural purpose of sex) but you replace the word "unnatural" with "abnormal" in order to avoid getting slammed. You say that homosexuality is "immoral and disgusting", but you abruptly protest that morality is "completely arbitrary" when somebody challenges you to justify the statement (if it's arbitrary, why do you care?)

An entirely natural instictive response.

That is the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that xenophobia comes from natural instincts does not make it acceptable.

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."

Yeah, sure you would.

Let me summarize: you think homosexuality is abnormal because it's unnatural, ie- violates the evolutionary purpose of sex, yet you deny claiming that it's unnatural (because you didn't use the word "unnatural", even though you used its meaning). You think homosexuality is immoral because it's abnormal, but you don't think morality means anything (yet you obviously care enough to make these posts). You use abnormality as proof of immorality, and when an example is produced to show hor absurd that "logic" is, you ignore it. And finally, you don't think it's "bad" to accuse an entire race of being "evil". So why do you give a shit about anything, John? You seem to be claiming that nothing means anything.

Your pattern is consistently that of someone who is afraid to stake a position on anything, and who thinks that by making statements and then trying to minimize their importance after the fact, you can get away with putting your foot in your mouth. Sorry, but there are lots of people around here who are observant enough to see through that shit.

[John]

I find it amusing that I can post a comment supporting equal treatment for homosexuals (they should be allowed to marry, etc) and end up getting pilloried as a homophobe. Not to mention accused of racism. All because I say homosexuality is abnormal. I guess supporting equal treatment for homosexuals is a no no unless you are doing so for the "right" reasons. And when did 'tolerence' come to mean 'unreserved and whole hearted acceptance and approval?

[Johonebesus]

Bonobo sexuality has been well documented by many naturalists for about twenty years. It is not a matter of frustration, for the females are just as active as the males. Homosexual behavior has been observed in many species, dolphins, some bird species, even my dogs, two males, frequently mounted each other, and considering the neighbors' complaints, I doubt that it was because of frustration.
The truth is that sexual behavior is not just about reproduction. In many higher species, it is as much about social relationships as creating babies.

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.

I am a bit confused now. If homosexuality is not unnatural, then how does its connection to the natural process of reproduction matter?

[Darth Wong]

I am a bit confused now. If homosexuality is not unnatural, then how does its connection to the natural process of reproduction matter?

Don't bother trying to question John Ertz's "logic". He's one of those people who's a bigot but tries really hard to tell himself he's not (ie- he figures it's OK to say that gays are evil, as long as you don't advocate taking any action against them). This kind of self-conflicted position is invariably supported by self-contradictory arguments, as you may have noticed.

[David]

Canadians are evil but I don't thuink we should invade. Does that make me a bad person

[John]

So, when I say homosexuality is abnormal, I'm actually saying 'Gays are evil'? Thank goodness you pointed that out Mike. Now I'll know that when I say diabetes is abnormal, that I'm actually saying that diabetics are evil. I didn't know that physiological conditions could be evil. I thought they just were. So tell me Mike, which of these other abnormal physiological traits are evil? 1) Albinism.. 2) Color-blindness. 3) Pierced anything.

[Darth Wong]

So, when I say homosexuality is abnormal, I'm actually saying 'Gays are evil'?

Actually, when you said "yes, I do think male homosexuality is immoral and disgusting," you said they were "evil". In case you hadn't noticed, "immoral" and "evil" are basically the same concept. But please, feel free to continue whining that you're being treated unfairly.

Thank goodness you pointed that out Mike. Now I'll know that when I say diabetes is abnormal, that I'm actually saying that diabetics are evil. I didn't know that physiological conditions could be evil. I thought they just were. So tell me Mike, which of these other abnormal physiological traits are evil? 1) Albinism.. 2) Color-blindness. 3) Pierced anything.

Your sarcasm is matched only by your stupidity and your inability to remember or account for your own words. If you call gays "immoral", you are accusing them of being evil, you stupid asshole.

Oh, and by the way, when you compare homosexuality to diabetes and other physiological conditions, you inadvertently contradict yourself. A physiological condition is, as you say, not evil. Therefore, since you seem to consider homosexuality akin to a physiological condition rather than a "lifestyle choice", as the Christian Idiot Right would have us believe, you have inadvertently acknowledged that homosexuality is not immoral. Therefore, your assertion that homosexuality is immoral is based purely on bigotry, just as I've been saying. Thanks for confirming this for all to see.

[John]

Ok, I'm able to admit mistakes. I shouldn't have used the word immoral to describe male homosexuality (I still think it's disgusting.) since it is ridiculous to favor one kind of homosexuality (female), but disapprove of another (male). Moreover, I don't think homosexuality is immoral. I used to, until I learned that sexual orientation is determined in the brain before birth. The point I was trying to make (and I know I didn't do a very good job of it...piss poor in fact - just goes to show that I shouldn't post when I've been drinking.), the point I wanted to make is that labels like 'moral' and 'immoral' are arbitrary, applied to things mostly on the basis of the labler's personal likes and dislikes. On the other hand, one of the things that bugs the hell out of me is when advocates for say, equal rights for women (for example) deny that there are real, distinct and significant differences between the genders (mostly in terms of biochemistry and brain structure) and get angry at people who say otherwise. That is why I've been instisting that homosexuality is abnormal. It is, biologically, and anyone who denies that is, in my opinion, being intellectually dishonest. Now, for those of you who have been offended by my prior postings, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. I will try to do better in the future. If I start ranting again, you can assume that I've been drinking again.

[Antediluvian]

Ok, I'm able to admit mistakes. I shouldn't have used the word immoral to describe male homosexuality (I still think it's disgusting.) since it is ridiculous to favor one kind of homosexuality (female), but disapprove of another (male). Moreover, I don't think homosexuality is immoral. I used to, until I learned that sexual orientation is determined in the brain before birth. The point I was trying to make (and I know I didn't do a very good job of it...piss poor in fact - just goes to show that I shouldn't post when I've been drinking.), the point I wanted to make is that labels like 'moral' and 'immoral' are arbitrary, applied to things mostly on the basis of the labler's personal likes and dislikes. On the other hand, one of the things that bugs the hell out of me is when advocates for say, equal rights for women (for example) deny that there are real, distinct and significant differences between the genders (mostly in terms of biochemistry and brain structure) and get angry at people who say otherwise. That is why I've been instisting that homosexuality is abnormal. It is, biologically, and anyone who denies that is, in my opinion, being intellectually dishonest. Now, for those of you who have been offended by my prior postings, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. I will try to do better in the future. If I start ranting again, you can assume that I've been drinking again.

Hold on there. I'm an advocate for women's rights and don't deny there are significant differences between men and women. Don't make a sweeping generalization, chief.

Homosexuality may be abnormal to heterosexuals, but not to homosexuals. Normalcy depends on the person and their point of view, you know.

But to be honest, who cares if it's "abnormal" or not?

Normality isn't always a good thing.

[John]

Homosexuality may be abnormal to heterosexuals, but not to homosexuals. Normalcy depends on the person and their point of view, you know.

An excellent point. I would argue that the same applies to morality, as well as notions of good and evil, religious beliefs, etc.

But to be honest, who cares if it's "abnormal" or not?

Some people seem to care a great deal.

Normality isn't always a good thing.

It would get awfully dull if everything was normal all the time.

[Antediluvian]

(Some people seem to care a great deal.)

Too bad.

(It would get awfully dull if everything was normal all the time.)

True.


(An excellent point. I would argue that the same applies to morality, as well as notions of good and evil, religious beliefs, etc.)

Yep. Relative morality all around for the most part.

Of course, there's also universal morality too.

[John]

Of course, there's also universal morality too.

That I'm not sure about. Would you give some examples of what you mean? I'm guessing, perhaps incorrectly, that you refer to moral concepts common to all known human cultures, like the notion that lying is wrong. Many times though, the notion that lying is wrong only applies to other members of the group. Lying to outsiders might be perfectly acceptable.

[Antediluvian]

Of course, there's also universal morality too.

That I'm not sure about. Would you give some examples of what you mean? I'm guessing, perhaps incorrectly, that you refer to moral concepts common to all known human cultures, like the notion that lying is wrong. Many times though, the notion that lying is wrong only applies to other members of the group. Lying to outsiders might be perfectly acceptable.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Like stealing is wrong, raping is wrong, murder is wrong etc.

Things like that.

[Durandal]

Ok, I'm able to admit mistakes. I shouldn't have used the word immoral to describe male homosexuality (I still think it's disgusting.)

So do I (well, of the male variety, anyway :)), but I also think that Haggis is disgusting. It's immaterial.

since it is ridiculous to favor one kind of homosexuality (female), but disapprove of another (male).

Are you referring to the horny 17 year-old Bible Belt teens that want Betty Sue and Mary Jane to get it on in front of them, but think that Bobby should be burned at the stake for being gay?

Moreover, I don't think homosexuality is immoral. I used to, until I learned that sexual orientation is determined in the brain before birth.

Therein lies the problem. If homosexuality wasn't determined before birth and a simple lifestyle choice, would you think it was immoral? Why? What justification would you give for saying that such a lifestyle choice is evil?

The point I was trying to make (and I know I didn't do a very good job of it...piss poor in fact - just goes to show that I shouldn't post when I've been drinking.), the point I wanted to make is that labels like 'moral' and 'immoral' are arbitrary, applied to things mostly on the basis of the labler's personal likes and dislikes.

Right. You thought that gays chose their lifestyle, and you were uncomfortable with that idea, so you deemed it evil. Don't you get it? That's what bigotry is.

Again, I'm uncomfortable with the fact that Scotsman stuff a sheep's stomach with all sorts of raunchy shit, but I don't label it as evil. It's simply something that some of them like to eat. They're not hurting anyone, so whatever. Same with gays. Even if homosexuality wasn't determined before birth, what does what two gay men do together in private have to do with you? Nothing. So, why are you passing judgment?

On the other hand, one of the things that bugs the hell out of me is when advocates for say, equal rights for women (for example) deny that there are real, distinct and significant differences between the genders (mostly in terms of biochemistry and brain structure) and get angry at people who say otherwise.

Who cares? Why does any of that matter? Women are human beings and deserve the same rights men do. You're treading perilously close to defining "human" as "male."

That is why I've been instisting that homosexuality is abnormal. It is, biologically, and anyone who denies that is, in my opinion, being intellectually dishonest.

So what? I still don't get the point you're trying to make. Fine, according to the numbers, homosexuals are a minority, but so are blacks. Who cares?

Now, for those of you who have been offended by my prior postings, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. I will try to do better in the future. If I start ranting again, you can assume that I've been drinking again.

I'd suggest laying off the bottle or endeavoring to become a happier, more entertaining drunk. Or, just make it clear that you're drunk when you're posting, that way you don't have people like me assuming that you're simply incapable of admitting that you said those words in a straight condition, and instead backpeddle to the "I was drinking" excuse.

[John]

Are you referring to the horny 17 year-old Bible Belt teens that want Betty Sue and Mary Jane to get it on in front of them, but think that Bobby should be burned at the stake for being gay?

Exactly. They like the one, dislike the other, so they call the other 'bad' and 'immoral', not realizing how silly they are being.

Therein lies the problem. If homosexuality wasn't determined before birth and a simple lifestyle choice, would you think it was immoral? Why? What justification would you give for saying that such a lifestyle choice is evil?

Because that is what I was taught to believe. When I realized the error of my ways I quit believing that homosexuality was evil.

Who cares? Why does any of that matter? Women are human beings and deserve the same rights men do. You're treading perilously close to defining "human" as "male."

I can see that I am not being as clear as I think. I have no problem with equal rights/treatment for women. What I have a problem with is a small, but highly vocal, group of feminists (feminazis ) who get bent out of shape when you point out these differences, and accuse you of being a bigot if you don't repent.

I'd suggest laying off the bottle or endeavoring to become a happier, more entertaining drunk. Or, just make it clearhat you're drunk when you're posting, that way you don't have people like me assuming that you're simply incapable of admitting that you said those words in a straight condition, and instead backpeddle to the "I was drinking" excuse.

Fair enough.

[Durandal]

Because that is what I was taught to believe. When I realized the error of my ways I quit believing that homosexuality was evil.

You're missing the point. What would have have done had it been revealed that homosexuality was simply a choice? Would you have kept on believing that it was evil? If so, then you've got a bigoted mindset.

I can see that I am not being as clear as I think. I have no problem with equal rights/treatment for women. What I have a problem with is a small, but highly vocal, group of feminists (feminazis ) who get bent out of shape when you point out these differences, and accuse you of being a bigot if you don't repent.

I ... see. And, you brought this up, why?

[John]

I looked up 'bigot' on Dictionary.com. Shit...I'm a bigot. What do I do now?

[Durandal]

Reevaluate your perceptions.