I just had a homosexual arguing in an emergent Christian blog for same sex marriage tell me both:
First, homosexuality has now been considered a normal, non-deviant form of human sexual orientation for over 35 years by the American medical profession, longer, far longer in Europe
and
Third, sexuality is both immutable and the ratio of gay to straight is somewhere between 3 - 10%, depending on who is making up the numbers. If that 3-10% of us who don't reproduce are really that big a survival threat, then I suggest it is only because you haven't been doing your duty and making babies.
Now last time I checked, anything that was practiced outside of the 1st sigma of any given population in statistics was considered "abnormal", while anything inside first sigma was considered "normal". Does anybody believe, even the most radical numbers, that something that is only done by 10% of the population is not outside 1st sigma? And thus, wouldn't it be an ABnormal, deviant form of human sexual orientation? Why is it my autism (1:150 children are autistic) is considered deviant and abnormal when gays are normal?
8 comments:
Straight people can't speak English
Your comparison of gays to autistic kids illustrates the point the doctor is trying to make. Just because someone is in a minority doesn't mean they're "abnormal". Abnormal implies there is something "wrong". If there were 9 white people in a room and 1 black person, would you say the one black man is abnormal? No. You'd say he's different, because there's nothing wrong with him. Autism is a condition that can limit a child's ability to form social relationships, etc, and thus it's considered to be an illness, a deviation from a standard child who has a full range of social function. Gay people have the same functionality as straight people- thus homosexuality is not considered an illness by mainstream medicine.
Maybe if you payed attention to the connotation of words you use you wouldn't get into stupid arguments like this one. And please don't generalize; it's not nice.
Apparently, Jack, You've got the same problem the doctor does. Abnormal doesn't imply there is something "wrong" any more than "autistic" implies there is something wrong.
And yes, statistically speaking, when there are 9 white people in the room and 1 black person, that black person is abnormal in the sample.
Abnormal just means different.
Gay people do NOT have the same functionality as straight people- they can't have children with each other without severe medical intervention.
Maybe if you Neurotypicals stopped using "connotations" and started actually using words as they were defined, you wouldn't appear to be a bunch of idiots not worthy of breeding to anybody who is autistic.
You want to talk about how words are actually defined? Maybe you should check a dictionary for the word "abnormal":
1 : deviating from the normal or average;especially : departing from the usual or accepted standards of social behavior
2 : characterized by mental retardation or disorder
(Including the usage note: "2. departing from the normal in e.g. intelligence and development; "they were heartbroken when they learned their child was abnormal"; "an abnormal personality"")
If you really cared about the words you use and the meaning you convey (which clearly you don't) you would know that using certain words provokes people. So check the dictionary next time you want to have a legitimate argument. And check your science too- gay people are not phsyically incapable of having children, and many choose to do so.
And then you need to go look up normal- especially the mathematics definition.
And I don't care how "using certain words provokes people", that's THEIR mental disorder, not mine.
" gay people are not phsyically incapable of having children, and many choose to do so."
If they do, then that's proof that they're not gay in my book- that makes them bisexual at best, and they can CHOOSE to be heterosexual.
A true homosexual is NEVER attracted to somebody of the opposite sex in that fashion- just as a true heterosexual is NEVER attracted to have sex with their own gender.
You nonspecific types bug the hell out of me- and it's because of your addictions to the seven deadly sins that this society is going down the drain.
Ok, Ted, enjoy being misinterpreted the rest of your life because you're too lazy to choose your words more carefully. Hmm... isn't sloth one of the seven deadly sins? Interesting... And wrath as well, huh? Looks like you're doing just fine sinning on your own without the us "nonspecific types" helping you out. Too bad "stupid" isn't a sin, otherwise you'd really trump our score.
It is your choice to misunderstand me and use the 2nd (abused) meaning rather than the primary scientific meaning of the norm.
I have no control over YOUR choice to aggressively misunderstand me and be insulted by mere words.
We used to talk about the impossiblity of marriage between same sex several years ago.
I asserted so because definition of marriage is a legal connection between different genders and because of the economic perspective as longs as females were economically dependent on males generally.
It invites confusion since marriage is a legal matter. Law ought to be made from the eyes of majority.
So I say homosexuality and hetero sexuality don't make any difference when it comes to wrong or right. Both sexualities are normal. Some like cheesecake while others like tiramisu. It has something to do with reproductions certaily since many heterosexuals have babies, but that's not all. Some heterosexuals don't have babies on account of infertility and aging, of course. Some homosexuals have babies in test tube, surrogate mother or adoptation just as heterosexual infertiles do.
In short marriage is a legal matter, but whether we like males or females are just a matter of personal preference. Sex is fun. It belongs to personal freedom whichever gender we like.
From the conservative point of view, test tube babies are also breaking the link between sex and procreation- a link often held as sacred.
Also, my point was, in mathematics at least, normal has a *very specific* definition- one that cannot be widened to allow for outliers in the data. From THAT point of view- any minority is "abnormal".
Post a Comment