Gay Muslims Made Homeless By Family Violence

[sausage]

It's not really an on/off switch is it? This is normal / That's abnormal.

It is. Heterosexuals talk in terms of normal and abnormal and categorise anything outside of that as being abnormal.

 

As a heterosexual I find your sweeping generalisation above pretty offensive. I for one have never spoken about normal and abnormal when it comes homosexuality. Perhaps you should consider apologising for tarring so many people with the same brush

[theman]

STONE THEM!!!!

[aimeejulia]

It's not really an on/off switch is it? This is normal / That's abnormal.

It is. Heterosexuals talk in terms of normal and abnormal and categorise anything outside of that as being abnormal.

 

As a heterosexual I find your sweeping generalisation above pretty offensive. I for one have never spoken about normal and abnormal when it comes homosexuality. Perhaps you should consider apologising for tarring so many people with the same brush

 

I think you should apologise too as I for one (see my previous posts) have repeatedly said that there is no such thing as normal or abnormal and in fact I said that we are all equal.

[Declan]

And they're all a matter of personal choice?

 

Does the distinction matter?

 

I would say it does. Being a homosexual isn't a "choice" thing, any more than you have "chosen" to become bald. It's just how you're made. Suggesting that it's a choice implies that it's possible to choose the other way.

 

You are correct in the context you state.

 

I meant that the distinction didn't really matter in the context in which the first question was asked ie in response to this post -

 

It's not really an on/off switch is it? This is normal / That's abnormal.

 

Lots of things - supporting Bury, liking the music of the Espers, watching ITV4, owning an electric car - are uncommon but they're within the spectrum of normal behaviour. I suggest that the same applies to homosexuality.

 

In effect I'm saying, supporting Bury, liking the Espers, watching ITV4, being gay, baldness etc are all uncommon but they're not abnormal, and it doesn't really matter whether these traits are caused by choice or not.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

My goodness you do talk toss sometimes you know.

What have I said that is 'toss'? If you are going to be so rude, then at least refer to what you disagree on.

 

As a heterosexual I find your sweeping generalisation above pretty offensive. I for one have never spoken about normal and abnormal when it comes homosexuality. Perhaps you should consider apologising for tarring so many people with the same brush

 

I think you should apologise too as I for one (see my previous posts) have repeatedly said that there is no such thing as normal or abnormal and in fact I said that we are all equal.

I was implying at all that all heterosexuals use normal and abnormal in speech. I am referring the fact that the current language of sexuality is one that places heterosexuality as the norm and homosexuality as the abnormal. And this came about through the historic and continued use of this language.

 

Normal and abnormal do exist and have meaning, but it whether you want to the 'understanding' that talk of normality offers or reject it.

[Rog]

Is that really all you've got to justify to prejudices?

 

1) we are better than animals.

 

2) Homosexuality is abnormal. Being left handed is abnormal, being an albino is abnormal. In none of those cases (and more) does it or should it result in a person so afflicted be treated in any way adversly from any other person in a social context but it remains the case that it is abnormal.

 

3) It's not prejudice.

[Rog]

Normal, natural, perversion, deviancy, right and wrong. How many normative adjectives and terms are you going to use to explain some yet elusive point?

Your statements don't have substance. I can see right through the hollowness of what you are saying because the nature of the language you are using.

 

All you are doing is using the most dominant discourse on sexuality (the heterosexual one) because it offers a perspective on sexuality that you prefer or it is that you dont understand any other way of lookings of sexuality. It is a discourse that works to continually reinforce the heterosexuality identity, because without the homosexual identity existing there would be no existence of heterosexuality. The latter just continually props itself up and tries to maintain itself in the face of reality and how sexuality orientation is really displayed.

 

You also seem to be merging sexuality and sexual orientation as if they are the same.

 

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that perverts will go to in order to justify and even attempt to normalise their perversion.

[Declan]

2) Homosexuality is abnormal. Being left handed is abnormal, being an albino is abnormal. In none of those cases (and more) does it or should it result in a person so afflicted be treated in any way adversly from any other person in a social context but it remains the case that it is abnormal.

 

Aren't they all within the realms of normality. Otherwise white people or black people are abnormal (depending on which skin tone is most prevelent).

[Rog]

2) Homosexuality is abnormal. Being left handed is abnormal, being an albino is abnormal. In none of those cases (and more) does it or should it result in a person so afflicted be treated in any way adversly from any other person in a social context but it remains the case that it is abnormal.

 

Aren't they all within the realms of normality. Otherwise white people or black people are abnormal (depending on which skin tone is most prevelent).

 

No.. They’re within the range of social acceptability.

 

It’s always going to be a matter of the paradigm employed, but in the case of homo sapiens homo sexual people are in the minority and so are by definition abnormal.

 

Socially acceptable, even socially immaterial, but still abnormal.

[aimeejulia]

you are applying the word normal to reassure yourself that you belong with the majority because you feel the need to belong

 

I am left handed and consider myself equal to all others irrelevant of which hand they write with, you seem to be trying very hard to label what you consider normal and abnormal instead of just accepting that we are all equal irrelevant of our differences.

 

You said we are better than animals, what makes you think you are better than them? I think all creatures including us are equally important and you shouldn't feel that you are more important than anything else.

 

Maybe a spoonful of humility would be appropriate to get off the self importance high chair.

[Chinahand]

Is that really all you've got to justify to prejudices?

 

1) we are better than animals.

 

2) Homosexuality is abnormal. Being left handed is abnormal, being an albino is abnormal. In none of those cases (and more) does it or should it result in a person so afflicted be treated in any way adversly from any other person in a social context but it remains the case that it is abnormal.

 

3) It's not prejudice.

Rog, you deliberately use the most derogatory words (abnormal, perverted), but then imply that these words are simply synonyms for rare and that you are fine with society accepting homosexuality and say people shouldn't be discrimated against.

 

But then you add in things like this:

 

homosexual behaviour ... is not right and proper from a moral or ethical ... perspective.

 

Your use of this derogoratory language and moralist attitude make it very difficult to reconcile your claims to be fine with homosexual's position within society.

 

I strongly get the impression that you are morally and ethically repulsed by homosexuality - you'd reject a child who behaved in such a way - but you seem unable to articulate any reason for this.

 

You are stuck on a rut that it is "against the natural order" even though anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the natural world would know homosexuality is a widespread natural behaviour.

 

You then go "we are better than animals" - true - but therefore what is the moral issue here - that moral issue is NOT that it is 1) rare, or 2) not a part of nature - neither of those make a moral point - and the second one is factually wrong.

 

If you were to say homosexuals spread disease, or are promiscuous* at least you could develop a rational discussion rather than your blind insistence, with no argument to back it up, that "homosexual behaviour is not right and proper from a moral or ethical perspective".

 

Of course the fact that any such statement is too sweeping - some homosexual activities can spread disease (but guess what, so to can some heterosexual ones) and some homosexuals are promiscuous (ditto re: the straight community) - and it is those behaviours which are ethically problematic, not the homosexuality per say (and hence homosexuality without those behaviours has no moral issues), but at the moment you won't even do that. All we are getting from you is that homosexuality is abnormal and hence it is wrong.

 

That is not a logical statement. Homosexuality is rare and therefore it is rare - whether it is "right and proper from an ethical perspective" is an entirely different issue, one you still seem unable to articulate for all you have written about perversions and abnormality.

 

Modern life - clothes, medicines, glasses - are all distinctly unnatural, and there are myriad examples of rare behaviour and manifestations - Rog's already said Albinos are abnormal - is he also going to say Albinos are perverted and "not right and proper from a moral or ethical perspective"? If not why not?

 

What is the moral issue here Rog - if you can't articulate it all you are left with is prejudice.

 

Most people on here think you are a homosphobic, reactionary bigot - you claim you are not. You have to back up that claim with more than just statements that homosexuality is abnormal.

 

*I think it is an interesting question if promiscuity is morally problematic - I think I would define promiscuity as sexual activity at a level that it causes ethical dilemmas due to jealousies, deciet, and selfishness. Sex on its own doesn't necessarily create these problems but the more sexual partners the more likely the problems and so at a general level I would say promiscuity is morally problematic, some people would claim there are individual circumstances where this isn't so - maybe, but I think those are exceptions to what is a general moral problem with promiscuity.

[jimbms]

So Rog because of your religion you are forbidden to eat a bacon butty or a pork pie, but the majority of people can do this and is considered normal, thus because of your religious beliefs we can consider you abnormal and devient as in reality you are in a minority and there is nothing wrong with pork as a meat. As you said "Socially acceptable, even socially immaterial, but still abnormal."

[motormouth mabel]

I think you should all stop being so polite to this t***, he is a prejudiced bigot and his views should be reported to the moderator. end off!

[Rog]

Rog, you deliberately use the most derogatory words (abnormal, perverted), but then imply that these words are simply synonyms for rare and that you are fine with society accepting homosexuality and say people shouldn't be discrimated against.

 

I have never implied that abnormality, perversion, of homosexuality are synonyms for rare. They are not. They are what they are and that is precisely what I intended in their use.

 

But then you add in things like this:

 

homosexual behaviour ... is not right and proper from a moral or ethical ... perspective.

 

Your use of this derogoratory language and moralist attitude make it very difficult to reconcile your claims to be fine with homosexuals position within society.

 

I strongly get the impression that you are morally and ethically repulsed by homosexuality - you'd reject a child who behaved in such a way - but you seem unable to articulate any reason for this.

 

I am, and I probably would.

 

You are stuck on a rut that it is "against the natural order" even though anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the natural world would know homosexuality is a widespread natural behaviour.

 

No it is not. In nature it is unusual behaviour in most creatures.

 

You then go "we are better than animals" - true - but therefore what is the moral issue here - that moral issue is NOT that it is 1) rare, or 2) not a part of nature - neither of those make a moral point - and the second one is factually wrong.

 

If you were to say homosexuals spread disease, or are promiscuous* at least you could develop a rational discussion rather than your blind insistence, with no argument to back it up, that "homosexual behaviour is not right and proper from a moral or ethical perspective".

 

Of course the fact that any such statement is too sweeping - some homosexual activities can spread disease (but guess what, so to can some heterosexual ones) and some homosexuals are promiscuous (ditto re: the straight community) - and it is those behaviours which are ethically problematic, not the homosexuality per say (and hence homosexuality without those behaviours has no moral issues), but at the moment you won't even do that. All we are getting from you is that homosexuality is abnormal and hence it is wrong.

 

That is not a logical statement. Homosexuality is rare and therefore it is rare - whether it is "right and proper from an ethical perspective" is an entirely different issue, one you still seem unable to articulate for all you have written about perversions and abnormality.

 

Modern life - clothes, medicines, glasses - are all distinctly unnatural, and there are myriad examples of rare behaviour and manifestations - Rog's already said Albinos are abnormal - is he also going to say Albinos are perverted and "not right and proper from a moral or ethical perspective"? If not why not?

 

What is the moral issue here Rog - if you can't articulate it all you are left with is prejudice.

 

Most people on here think you are a homosphobic, reactionary bigot - you claim you are not. You have to back up that claim with more than just statements that homosexuality is abnormal.

 

*I think it is an interesting question if promiscuity is morally problematic - I think I would define promiscuity as sexual activity at a level that it causes ethical dilemmas due to jealousies, deciet, and selfishness. Sex on its own doesn't necessarily create these problems but the more sexual partners the more likely the problems and so at a general level I would say promiscuity is morally problematic, some people would claim there are individual circumstances where this isn't so - maybe, but I think those are exceptions to what is a general moral problem with promiscuity.

 

Promiscuity is promiscuity. Casual sex for its own sake. The morality of the slum. End of.

 

As for the rest, I guess it comes down to me being of an age and an upbringing that results in my being comfortable with condemning that which is unhealthy, immoral, and wrong.

 

It’s not a matter of being bigoted, it’s simply having higher standards that those of the gutter, the bordello, or the poufs parlour.

 

I don’t ‘do’ political correctness, I don’t believe that all races are equal, I do believe in the class system, and I do believe there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong.

 

If that makes me wrong then I don’t want to be right.

[Rog]

So Rog because of your religion you are forbidden to eat a bacon butty or a pork pie, but the majority of people can do this and is considered normal, thus because of your religious beliefs we can consider you abnormal and devient as in reality you are in a minority and there is nothing wrong with pork as a meat. As you said "Socially acceptable, even socially immaterial, but still abnormal."

 

Nothing whasoever to do with religion. Nothing at all.