Defending the Truth

again, fxashun exhibits his drive to achieve the ordinary, the mundane, the run-of-the-mill, the average ... the "normal."

When will he grasp that there is no value judgement placed on "normal."

People who are left-handed, people who have red hair, people have the ability to run very very fast or jump very very high, people who have genius IQ's, people who are possessed of glorious singing voices, etc, are not NORMAL. Yet, they're hardly considered 'f'ed up.'

Perhaps he strives to achieve average status - most of us set our sights a little higher.

How about people who cut enormously rancid farts? Are they normal?

In order to properly define "normal", you must have a benchmark from which to measure it from. The easiest way to accomplish this is to designate one person as perfectly "normal." That way, any deviations from that person's behavior can be used as a yardstick toward determing just how "abnormal" you are.

I appoint Gary to be this person. All standards of conduct must be measured to what he deems normal. Sound fair enough?

What is "determing"?

It was a test designed just for you. I did that on purpose to see if you would catch the typo.

What specifically is abnormal about red hair or left handed? Statistically not ordinary doesn't necessarily mean abnormal, just rare. But having a toe growing out of your forehead is.

Running fast isn't abnormal. Having to run fast to live would be. As in the fact that sharks HAVE to keep moving to live.

You seem to have a problem telling the difference between having blonde or brown hair as a variation vs a person with green hair which is a physical impossibility for normal humans. When you learn the difference between humans deriving hatred from anything from nose size to hair length from a person who opposes natural law, let me know.

great rebuttal! said nothing - meant nothing - achieved nothing

good going

AS if your "buttal" said anything. Your "abnormal" was worthless and wrong. And referenced nothing in my post.

well, maybe not to you - but for anybody who is actually looking at the issue, they are perfectly valid and pertinent analogies.

Okay nobody is debating whether or not heterosexual behavior is linked to biology. Duh.

My gosh, dude, I've said more than once in these threads (now perk up your ears) that HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL. Being that 94-97% of the population is heterosexual, homosexuality is, by definition (i.e., "deviating from what is normal"), abnormal. Does that make it wrong? No. Does that make it disgusting? No. Does that make it a dysfunction? No. Does that make it something that needs to be fixed or changed? No.

The human species has a lot of variations (including behavioral variations), and many of them are abnormal by definition. That doesn't preclude these people from being allowed to marry. If you want to argue for traditional marriage, argue for it, but saying that homosexuals are abnormal doesn't support your argument.

And stop comparing homosexual behavior to pedophilia and zoophilia. The difference between them is that adult homosexual couples engage in sexual behavior consensually. Minors are not able to consent legally, and animals cannot consent in any verifiable way. Both pedophilia and zoophilia are thought to be coercive; homosexual behavior between consenting adults is not. You cannot compare the two legitimately.