Originally posted by XanthosNZSome how I got the feeling that you are aggreesive aganist the one who don't agree of your opinion. I said before that I might be wrong , I admit, and I will not be ashamed or afraid of saying so. No body knows everything. (Althougth I cann't judge the links you and others gave me because they don't have enough information for me)
So now homosexuality isn't normal. That's after you've been shown that in fact it does occur in nature.
So what is normal?
But that doesn't change my point.
For me homosexuality is wrong.
Originally posted by ahosyneyStop sidetracking and answer the question. What, in your opinion, is normal? Is the 1950's household normal? Should we all aspire to be normal? Is being not normal bad?
Some how I got the feeling that you are aggreesive aganist the one who don't agree of your opinion. I said before that I might be wrong , I admit, and I will not be ashamed or afraid of saying so. No body knows everything. (Althougth I cann't judge the links you and others gave me because they don't have enough information for me)
But that doesn't change my point.
For me homosexuality is wrong.
Originally posted by NemesioSorry, my English sometimes doesn't help me much. Some parts of your post I didn't get 100%.
Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]The normal person get attracted to a person of the opposite sex.
By normal, you mean normative. Statistically, yes, most people are attracted to a person
of the opposite sex.
But you are using the word 'normal' to mean 'good' and 'abnormal' to mean 'bad' or 'less good.'
For example, being right o you explain aborigines or my neckties?
Nemesio[/b]
I really find it hard to disattach my thinking from my moral ideas. My be "not the normative thing" is a good explaination of my point about abnormal, but it also has somthing to do with my faith, which of course is not the point of discussion here and I prefere not to introduce it.
Originally posted by XanthosNZHay, I'm from Egypt,I don't know everything in this world and I don't know what 1950's household is. If you can explain it to me I will tell if it is normal for me or not.
Stop sidetracking and answer the question. What, in your opinion, is normal? Is the 1950's household normal? Should we all aspire to be normal? Is being not normal bad?
didn't I answer your question?, please review my posts
Note: I see that you don't like any one, why care about homosexuality?
Originally posted by ahosyney1950s household is a husband and wife with two kids. Husband works, wife does all the housework. They probably have a pet.
Hay, I'm from Egypt,I don't know everything in this world and I don't know what 1950's household is. If you can explain it to me I will tell if it is normal for me or not.
didn't I answer your question?, please review my posts
Note: I see that you don't like any one, why care about homosexuality?
Originally posted by ahosyney
Sorry, my English sometimes doesn't help me much. Some parts of your post I didn't get 100%.
Please don't let it discourage you; you will only get better with practice (and a dictionary!) 🙂
You can PM me if a word or phrase confuses you, and I will rephrase for you.
I really find it hard to disattach my thinking from my moral ideas. My be "not the normative thing" is a good explaination of my point about abnormal, but it also has somthing to do with my faith, which of course is not the point of discussion here and I prefere not to introduce it.
Someone else has shown that homosexual experience occurs in nature, so it's not a 'natural versus
unnatural' issue. I showed that sexual expression need not have a procreative (making babies)
purpose or even take place in a coital fashion (penis inside vagina) for it to be socially recognized
as acceptable, or normal, so it's not a 'biological' issue.
My point is that left-handed people are also 'not normative,' but would you describe them as
'abnormal?' I don't think you would. You would just say it is biologically rarer.
People who run around naked in the forest aren't abnormal either, because for them 'normal' is nakedness.
When normal is merely the subject of opinion then there is no good or bad: for most people,
it is normal to have desert right after dinner; for me, it would make me sick. This may be socially
abnormal, but it has no moral significance (just like my neckties).
Merely being 'not normative' doesn't make homosexuality bad. Yes, perhaps you are straight
and the idea of sex with a man makes you uncomfortable, and there is nothing wrong with that.
However, to simply say 'Because it makes me uncomfortable, therefore it is bad' is
not okay (just like I wouldn't tell you it's bad to eat desert just because it makes me uncomfortable).
Nemesio
What a load of rubbish, building up moral standards from animals.
I had a rottweiler a while ago, who tried to hump my leg a few times.
We as humans rule over the animals, so if you are going to justify the rights and wrongs of homosexuality through animals then you may find the downhill slide will next pertain to marrying them.