Another example of an activist judge

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » April 13, 2004, 3:28 pm

kyoukan wrote:way to break the tables. I would say that being born stupid is a lot more abnormal than being born gay.

Well now that just makes you "special" doesn't it my little Kooky bear.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 13, 2004, 3:30 pm

no way pavlov; I'm not falling for your clever intellectual mind traps anymore.

Post by **Sylvus** » April 13, 2004, 3:44 pm

Midnyte wrote:LOL, well whatever man. It's a fucking simple analogy. If you can't grasp it or refuse to understand it, I'm sorry for you. You obviously need to believe that people were intended to be born gay.

What analogy? Jesus Christ you're fucking retarded. I don't need to believe that people were "intended to be born" anything. They weren't intended for anything, as we evolved from fucking dust and if someone wants to stick their cock in a light socket far be it from me to tell him it's the wrong way to go.

Both can live together, but I prefer not being told that being born gay is totally normal, when it obviously is not normal.

See you people lose us when you refuse to recognize the simple truths. If you would just use reason you would get a lot less resistance.

HELLO I'M FUCKING NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER ITS NORMAL OR NOT. You said the word defect, that implies that there is something wrong with it. So please address that one line that I'm totally not going to let you ignore as you have been for the past several replies you've made to me. That's all I brought up in the first place. How can you say that something is negative in one breath and in the next say that you aren't intolerant of it?

What is defective about being gay? How does that limit any aspect of a gay person's life. The only thing that is different between a gay person and you is that a gay person prefers to put his penis somewhere that won't make babies, as most of this message board wishes that you had done.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 13, 2004, 4:02 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte wrote:LOL, well whatever man. It's a fucking simple analogy. If you can't grasp it or refuse to understand it, I'm sorry for you. You obviously need to believe that people were intended to be born gay.
What analogy? Jesus Christ you're fucking retarded. I don't need to believe that people were "intended to be born" anything. They weren't intended for anything, as we evolved from fucking dust and if someone wants to stick their cock in a light socket far be it from me to tell him it's the wrong way to go.

Both can live together, but I prefer not being told that being born gay is totally normal, when it obviously is not normal.

See you people lose us when you refuse to recognize the simple truths. If you would just use reason you would get a lot less resistance.
HELLO I'M FUCKING NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER ITS NORMAL OR NOT. You said the word defect, that implies that there is something wrong with it. So please address that one line that I'm totally not going to let you ignore as you have been for the past several replies you've made to me. That's all I brought up in the first place. How can you say that something is negative in one breath and in the next say that you aren't intolerant of it?

What is defective about being gay? How does that limit any aspect of a gay person's life. The only thing that is different between a gay person and you is that a gay person prefers to put his penis somewhere that won't make babies, as most of this message board wishes that you had done.

Damn you are dense. A defect can be defined as 3: an imperfection in a device or machine. People were intended to be born normal. Penis goes into vagina. But, as we all know there are defects in everything in life. Some are born gay, some are born albino, some are born retarded, some are born crippled, etc. I haven't said a fucking peep about there rights. I am just sick and tired of overbearing assholes saying it's perfectly normal. Sell your bullshit elsewhere cause I ain't fucking buying it.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 13, 2004, 4:16 pm

there is no data to suggest that the regions of the brain that appear to be different in homosexuals vs. same-gender heterosexuals function improperly.

the only data on cause of homosexuality that has been published suggests that there are genetic influences as well as pre-natal experience (higher stress levels - serum cortisol - in women with male fetuses are more likely to be born homosexual). This could be an endogenous population control mechanism as Karae suggested earlier. Thus homosexuals who are born from this circumstance are working EXACTLY as nature "intended", and it would be erroneous to describe the function of their hypothalamus as defective.

disclaimer: i did 3 PubMed searches on brain morphology and homosexuality and gender (mixed queries around and shit).

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 13, 2004, 4:19 pm

Voronwë wrote:there is no data to suggest that the regions of the brain that appear to be different in homosexuals vs. same-gender heterosexuals function improperly.

the only data on cause of homosexuality that has been published suggests that there are genetic influences as well as pre-natal experience (higher stress levels - serum cortisol - in women with male fetuses are more likely to be born homosexual). This could be an endogenous population control mechanism as Karae suggested earlier. Thus homosexuals who are born from this circumstance are working EXACTLY as nature "intended", and it would be erroneous to describe the function of their hypothalamus as defective.

disclaimer: i did 3 PubMed searches on brain morphology and homosexuality and gender (mixed queries around and shit).

Could very well be Voro. An intended defect then.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » April 13, 2004, 4:23 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Once again. This happens mulitple times (probably in the hundreds nationwide) every day and has happened just like that in teh US and aboad for a very very very long time. Jesus Crispies protests to the contrary, there is nothing at all remarkable about this decision.

On top of what Sueven quoted, I'm going to quote this. For an example, it's one of the issues being heard by the Supreme Court in the Pledge of Allegiance case.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 13, 2004, 4:25 pm

intention isnt the right word, but it makes the conversation easier - and hell i introduced it.

defect is also a relative term. I would suggest that if the biomolecular events produced the population control mechanism in response to environmental factors - in this case, a homosexual boy to a stressed mother - then the brain was not defective.

The mechanism would have been defective if the population control mechanism failed (ie the boy was born heterosexual), in our simplified hypothetical case.

the same structure does not have to function the same in all circumstances for it to , with apologies to Abashi, "work as intended".

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 13, 2004, 4:35 pm

Midnyte wrote:Damn you are dense. A defect can be defined as 3: an imperfection in a device or machine. People were intended to be born normal. Penis goes into vagina. But, as we all know there are defects in everything in life. Some are born gay, some are born albino, some are born retarded, some are born crippled, etc. I haven't said a fucking peep about there rights. I am just sick and tired of overbearing assholes saying it's perfectly normal. Sell your bullshit elsewhere cause I ain't fucking buying it.

So you are saying any guy who likes receiving oral sex is defective?

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » April 13, 2004, 4:38 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:People were intended to be born normal. Penis goes into vagina. But, as we all know there are defects in everything in life. Some are born gay, some are born albino, some are born retarded, some are born crippled, etc. I haven't said a fucking peep about there rights. I am just sick and tired of overbearing assholes saying it's perfectly normal. Sell your bullshit elsewhere cause I ain't fucking buying it.

This is where you keep loosing those of us who prefer to stay out of these fights. I don't remember being born with a technical manual that states how exactly a human body is suppose to work.

Who is to say that the norm wasn't meant to be a homosexual lifestyle with just enough hetersexuals to keep the race going? But through some breeding accident the hetersexuals outnumbered the homosexuals.

Homosexuals are not "defective" or "abnormal", they just are. Just like every other human being on this planet.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 13, 2004, 4:38 pm

Thess wrote:
Midnyte wrote:Damn you are dense. A defect can be defined as 3: an imperfection in a device or machine. People were intended to be born normal. Penis goes into vagina. But, as we all know there are defects in everything in life. Some are born gay, some are born albino, some are born retarded, some are born crippled, etc. I haven't said a fucking peep about there rights. I am just sick and tired of overbearing assholes saying it's perfectly normal. Sell your bullshit elsewhere cause I ain't fucking buying it.
So you are saying any guy who likes receiving oral sex is defective?

You're just being silly now Thess. Stick to the "meat" of the argument.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 13, 2004, 4:41 pm

Fredonia Coldheart wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:People were intended to be born normal. Penis goes into vagina. But, as we all know there are defects in everything in life. Some are born gay, some are born albino, some are born retarded, some are born crippled, etc. I haven't said a fucking peep about there rights. I am just sick and tired of overbearing assholes saying it's perfectly normal. Sell your bullshit elsewhere cause I ain't fucking buying it.
This is where you keep loosing those of us who prefer to stay out of these fights. I don't remember being born with a technical manual that states how exactly a human body is suppose to work.

Who is to say that the norm wasn't meant to be a homosexual lifestyle with just enough hetersexuals to keep the race going? But through some breeding accident the hetersexuals outnumbered the homosexuals.

Homosexuals are not "defective" or "abnormal", they just are. Just like every other human being on this planet.

You stay out of these things because you are afriad to see things as they are. You're afraid to recognize life in a common sense way. Afraid to speak it aloud and have your "friends" come crashing down on you. I'm not.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 13, 2004, 4:42 pm

I'd like you stick the meat of this argument up y

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 13, 2004, 4:43 pm

Your definition of "abnormal" seems to be "minority."

As previously stated: Blue-eyed people are a minority. People above 6 feet tall are a minority. That doesn't seem to be a valid reason to advocate hate against them, and I'd imagine that if a mother was teaching her child that her 6 foot 2, blue eyed father was evil because of it, a judge would have the right to step in and put a stop to it.

Also keep in mind that having blue eyes or being more than 6 feet tall, while not necessarily a "defect," is more than just an aesthetic difference. Blue eyes pick up more light than brown eyes. People who are more than 6 feet tall have an exponentially better chance of being professional athletes. They also tend to hit their heads more often.

So, with this in mind, to defend your position, you must reach one of two conclusions:

1. We can discriminate against anyone that displays a minority characteristic
2. There is a fundamental difference between these examples and homosexuality. This difference is deeper than a simple minority/majority distinction.

Obviously, I assume you prefer the second conclusion. If so, would you please clarify what specifically that distinction is?

Further, I've read the whole thread, and haven't noticed anyone answering Aaeemdar's question. If you could point me to somewhere where a conservative has stated a preference for a different judicial standard, or explained how the judge's decision was flawed under the existing standard, I'd be happy to read it.

And to point out one example of intolerance:

Now you and Karae can form a coalition of the fags, catch AIDS, and die. Oops, that might have been just a bit intolerant.

Why yes, it was.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » April 13, 2004, 4:45 pm

What if you use a condom/pill/pull out/vasectomy/etc? Is that a defect? It doesn't contribute toward the reproduction of the species.

The meat of the argument? It's that you don't think it's a defect because it doesn't contribute to reproduction, you think it's a defect because it's two guys and that offends your sense of morality - this is why you're a bigot.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 13, 2004, 4:47 pm

another hypothetical: If my auditory cortex processes high sound frequencies more in line with a woman (they can hear baby sounds better than men), that does not mean my auditory cortex is defective. It may mean that certain androgens were ignored by cells in that part of the brain during my fetal development though - for whatever reason. Regardless, my auditory cortex functions more like a woman's, which perhaps could have some behavioral consequences that would typically be associated with female behavior.

i honestly don't see how that is different - based on what is known from areas of hypothalamus or other preoptic nuclei in the brains of homosexual males sharing morphological similarities with females. The only difference is these areas control sexual preference and corresponding behavior instead of what frequencies of sound my brain is particularly attuned to.

it is plausible that homosexuality is a "defect", but it is not certain that it is so.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 13, 2004, 4:48 pm

Midnyte wrote:You're just being silly now Thess. Stick to the "meat" of the argument.

How am I being silly? You clearly stated:

People were intended to be born normal. Penis goes into vagina.

With that definition, any guy who likes to put their penis into anything other then the vagina would be abnormal.

Are you kidding me about the "meat" comment, did you suddenly become an admin of veeshanvault to be telling me what I should and shouldn't be sticking to?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 13, 2004, 4:51 pm

Thess wrote:
Midnyte wrote:You're just being silly now Thess. Stick to the "meat" of the argument.
How am I being silly? You clearly stated:

People were intended to be born normal. Penis goes into vagina.
With that definition, any guy who likes to put their penis into anything other then the vagina would be abnormal.

Are you kidding me about the "meat" comment, did you suddenly become an admin of veeshanvault to be telling me what I should and shouldn't be sticking to?

Nope. I just wanted to put meat in quotes. I was exploring my feminine side.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 13, 2004, 4:52 pm

You are still failing to answer my simple question.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » April 13, 2004, 4:52 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I was exploring my feminine side.

defectual faggot

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 13, 2004, 5:04 pm

Thess wrote:You are still failing to answer my simple question.

Thess, you're question is monumentaly stupid. If you don't know general idea I was trying to get at, I feel for you. But, I will assume you are more intelligent than that and you are just trying to cloud the issue with non-sensical questions.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 13, 2004, 5:06 pm

You call people on name calling and then when I ask a simple question, you call me 'stupid.'

I don't get it, that's why I asked the question. You can view my intelligence any way you would like, but I'd still appreciate an answer.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » April 13, 2004, 5:06 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Thess, you're question is monumentaly stupid. If you don't know general idea I was trying to get at, I feel for you. But, I will assume you are more intelligent than that and you are just trying to cloud the issue with non-sensical questions.

Another non-answer from the fucktard that's starting to realize he's wrong. Keep skirting the issue bigot.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 13, 2004, 5:13 pm

Karae wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Thess, you're question is monumentaly stupid. If you don't know general idea I was trying to get at, I feel for you. But, I will assume you are more intelligent than that and you are just trying to cloud the issue with non-sensical questions.
Another non-answer from the fucktard that's starting to realize he's wrong. Keep skirting the issue bigot.

Nope. I just refuse to play you're games of distraction.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 13, 2004, 5:17 pm

Ok to all idiots who continue to use statistical terms as a basis of bias...

Abnormality is normal in a population distribution...otherwise the curve would not be a normal curve...Everyone is not expected to fall within one standard deviation of the mean...

Abnormal does not imply defective in any way shape or form...so don't feel free to add homosexuality to the March of Dimes agenda...It is certainly part of the normal range of human sexual behaviour...please attempt to learn the difference between "normal" which is a statistical ideal which no one is...and "normal range"...which is the naturally occurring variance expected in a population...

Post by **Sylvus** » April 13, 2004, 5:22 pm

Stop it with you're[sic] games of distraction, Arb. Don't you listen to common sense?!?

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 13, 2004, 5:25 pm

So if I want to know the answer to my question, I should start a new thread titled "Midnytes view on homosexuals"

I am not playing any games, I don't post on this board often, but I do read it. I failed to see how you could say penis goes into vagina, when a good majority of men enjoy oral sex. I'd be willing to say a majority of men like anal sex as well, whether they prefer females or males.

For the most part in the year 2004, sex by humans is done primarily for 'fun' or 'pleasure.' Everyone has different likes and dislikes that could be considered a 'defect' by your wording. I made an example about oral sex because it was the most blatantly obvious sexual activity that went against your wording.

I'd still like an answer to the question.

Apostate · Post by **Apostate** » April 13, 2004, 5:31 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Karae wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Thess, you're question is monumentaly stupid. If you don't know general idea I was trying to get at, I feel for you. But, I will assume you are more intelligent than that and you are just trying to cloud the issue with non-sensical questions.
Another non-answer from the fucktard that's starting to realize he's wrong. Keep skirting the issue bigot.
Nope. I just refuse to play you're games of distraction.

Someone calls your fundamental argument flawed by pointing out a counter-example, and your best response is to say it is non-sensical without giving a single reason why?

I don't even care about the issue at all, but that kind of poorly conceived argument style is just... depressing. I mean, have you ever had a rational argument with anyone?

Let me draw you a flowchart of how this should work. You give a premise, like oh say, 'Homosexual sodomy is immoral and the people that practice it are defective, because sex is intended for reproduction'. Someone replies with, 'Hetereosexual sodomy is also not for reproduction, is it immoral and defective as well'. Your reply should NOT be that it is off-topic, when it demonstrably, fundamentally, is not. It makes your argument look extremely weak (besides what it makes you look like). At least make a half-assed attempt at talking about sex drives or something. Hell, if you want actual scholarly works, do a google search on Saint Thomas Aquinas and his writings on the subject, or pre-vatican 2 material. It might at least make you look like you aren't just floundering for a response to a very fair objection.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » April 13, 2004, 5:31 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Nope. I just refuse to play you're games of distraction.

You've done nothing but distract since this threat started and use it as a pulpit to spout your misinformed opinions about the viability of the homosexual lifestyle (emboldened to emphasize the fact that it is a lifestyle, not a birth defect). Every post you've made has, in one way or another, only served your insecure homophobic overcompensation and contributed nothing to the discussion at hand other than to derail the thread and turn it into a attempt to badmouth a viable lifestyle and a normal group of people. I only posted because I simply will not sit idly by while you spout your ignorant, uninformed bigotry.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 13, 2004, 5:40 pm

Karae wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Nope. I just refuse to play you're games of distraction.
You've done nothing but distract since this threat started and use it as a pulpit to spout your misinformed opinions about the viability of the homosexual lifestyle (emboldened to emphasize the fact that it is a lifestyle, not a birth defect). Every post you've made has, in one way or another, only served your insecure homophobic overcompensation and contributed nothing to the discussion at hand other than to derail the thread and turn it into a attempt to badmouth a viable lifestyle and a normal group of people. I only posted because I simply will not sit idly by while you spout your ignorant, uninformed bigotry.

Oh really? So, by lifestyle, you mean that gay people have a choice? Very interesting. So you are saying that gay people chose to be that way. Hmmm

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 13, 2004, 5:43 pm

Thess wrote:So if I want to know the answer to my question, I should start a new thread titled "Midnytes view on homosexuals"

I am not playing any games, I don't post on this board often, but I do read it. I failed to see how you could say penis goes into vagina, when a good majority of men enjoy oral sex. I'd be willing to say a majority of men like anal sex as well, whether they prefer females or males.

For the most part in the year 2004, sex by humans is done primarily for 'fun' or 'pleasure.' Everyone has different likes and dislikes that could be considered a 'defect' by your wording. I made an example about oral sex because it was the most blatantly obvious sexual activity that went against your wording.

I'd still like an answer to the question.

Look Thess, I was talking in general terms. Even the cavemen could figure out that they have a peg and the women have a hole for the peg. It's very simple shit here. You asking if blowjobs are ok is fucking stupid. (I'm calling names, but explaining myself too, there is a difference.)

Post by **Sylvus** » April 13, 2004, 5:46 pm

Well actually, a cavewoman has at least 3 holes to use the peg on, as well as hands and feet and probably all kinds of other shit I haven't thought of. Other cavemen have ((# of CAVEWOMAN HOLES) - 1).

Karae · Post by **Karae** » April 13, 2004, 5:48 pm

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I am only saying that they are living as homesexuals and that would make it their lifestyle.

Many people hide their homosexuality - I was distiguishing between those who accept their homosexuality and those who live in denial. Denial is never a viable way of living.

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » April 13, 2004, 5:51 pm

Sylvus wrote:Stop it with you're[sic] games of distraction, Arb. Don't you listen to common sense?!?

Glad to see I'm not the only one, haha...

Dear retards,

There is a difference between:

"your" and "you're"

"their" and "there" and "they're"

And anyone who does not correctly use these words has a defective comprehension of the written word. This is more than just a simple typo / mis-type. It is an obvious defect in intellectual capacity.

Thanks!

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 13, 2004, 5:51 pm

Thanks Midnyte for answering it in terms of your logic.

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » April 13, 2004, 6:12 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Fredonia Coldheart wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:People were intended to be born normal. Penis goes into vagina. But, as we all know there are defects in everything in life. Some are born gay, some are born albino, some are born retarded, some are born crippled, etc. I haven't said a fucking peep about there rights. I am just sick and tired of overbearing assholes saying it's perfectly normal. Sell your bullshit elsewhere cause I ain't fucking buying it.
This is where you keep loosing those of us who prefer to stay out of these fights. I don't remember being born with a technical manual that states how exactly a human body is suppose to work.

Who is to say that the norm wasn't meant to be a homosexual lifestyle with just enough hetersexuals to keep the race going? But through some breeding accident the hetersexuals outnumbered the homosexuals.

Homosexuals are not "defective" or "abnormal", they just are. Just like every other human being on this planet.
You stay out of these things because you are afriad to see things as they are. You're afraid to recognize life in a common sense way. Afraid to speak it aloud and have your "friends" come crashing down on you. I'm not.

Well, that would be news to all my coworkers! Hubby keeps telling me I need to keep my mouth shut when the subjects of religion and politics come up or everyone would be mad at me.

I stay out of these things because all the other level headed people here give argument after argument after agrument and you are so closed minded that you just tune them out. The fact that you once, sorta, kinda, maybe changed your mind after pages of information does not make you open minded!

I'm the one living life in a common sense way. It is just common sense that people derive pleasure from different experiences. Nothing in that makes them defective, abnormal, etc. as long as it is between consenting adults. Get out of their bedroom - you don't belong there!

Truant · Post by **Truant** » April 13, 2004, 6:51 pm

I just want to point out, that calling me close minded is hilarious.

I don't skip over your posts with preassumptions. I read them everytime, banging my head, because you are so predictable and well...wrong to be frank. It really frustrates me to see someone deny all attempts to understand anything other than their own thoughts.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » April 13, 2004, 7:04 pm

forgive me as i stepped away for a few days (not that you missed me kyo

) but i thought the topic was not whether homosexuality is right or wrong but whether a parent had the right to teach whether it is right or wrong. (not to be mistaken with whether it is right to teach hatred of homosexuals, which is obviously wrong.) even if homosexuality is wrong or abnormal (and i am certainly not arguing that) Midnyte is simply saying that they have the same rights as hetero's and that a parent has a right to teach that homosexuality is against the ways of their percieved god. (correct me if i'm wrong Mid) that is how i was raised yet i have absolutly no hatred towards homosexuals and i dont believe it will lead them straight to hell. i do not let it affect the way i interect with gays. my parents believed that if being gay is a sin to God then so is hating or discriminating or looking down on against gays. i know somehow kyoukan will take offense to what i have said so i apologize in advance but i'm not going to bend my beliefs just because you spout off a few hatefilled swear words at me for it.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » April 13, 2004, 7:54 pm

Actually the topic is whether or not a judge has the lawful right to tell a parent not to teach their child homosexuality is wrong when the other parent is is homosexual themselves. Not whether or not parents can teach their child any stupid or bigoted idealogy they feel like. One parent was teaching the child to hate the other, that is the issue. The fact that homosexuality has anything to do with it is mere coincidence.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 14, 2004, 12:22 am

nobody wrote: Midnyte is simply saying that they have the same rights as hetero's and that a parent has a right to teach that homosexuality is against the ways of their percieved god. (correct me if i'm wrong Mid)

Actually I don't believe in any God. All I have been saying from the beginning is being gay is abnormal. I reject people attempts to shove it down my throat that being gay is perfectly normal. I also reject a court telling a parent they can't teach there children the simple truths in life. One being that gay is not normal, but people are gay and we should treat them no differently than anyone else.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 14, 2004, 12:49 am

Being gay is normal for the minority of people who are gay. Just like being black is normal for the minority of people who are black and being left handed is normal for the minority of people who are left handed. I am completely convinced that you are equating minority with abnormality. Just because something occurs in nature rarely, does not make it abnormal.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 14, 2004, 12:52 am

Jice Virago wrote:Being gay is normal for the minority of people who are gay. Just like being black is normal for the minority of people who are black and being left handed is normal for the minority of people who are left handed. I am completely convinced that you are equating minority with abnormality. Just because something occurs in nature rarely, does not make it abnormal.

Take out the race issue and you have what I am talking about.

Being left handed is the exact same thing. It transcends all races, sexes, etc. But is a rare occurance. Therefore, abnormal.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 14, 2004, 1:48 am

On an somewhat unrelated note, i found this to be pretty godamn funny

12 reasons why gay marriage should be illigal

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 14, 2004, 1:51 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Jice Virago wrote:Being gay is normal for the minority of people who are gay. Just like being black is normal for the minority of people who are black and being left handed is normal for the minority of people who are left handed. I am completely convinced that you are equating minority with abnormality. Just because something occurs in nature rarely, does not make it abnormal.
Take out the race issue and you have what I am talking about.

Being left handed is the exact same thing. It transcends all races, sexes, etc. But is a rare occurance. Therefore, abnormal.

Im assuming your not predjutice against left handed people, or veiw them as "lesser" being so what the fuck were you originally trying to proove by labeling gay people as "abnormal"

By that logic, enjoying oral sex is as abnormal as enjoying anal sex because it is techincally "normal" to only have missionary sex for the soul purpose of reproducing

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 14, 2004, 2:00 am

Xzion wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Jice Virago wrote:Being gay is normal for the minority of people who are gay. Just like being black is normal for the minority of people who are black and being left handed is normal for the minority of people who are left handed. I am completely convinced that you are equating minority with abnormality. Just because something occurs in nature rarely, does not make it abnormal.
Take out the race issue and you have what I am talking about.

Being left handed is the exact same thing. It transcends all races, sexes, etc. But is a rare occurance. Therefore, abnormal.

Im assuming your not predjutice against left handed people, or veiw them as "lesser" being so what the fuck were you originally trying to proove by labeling gay people as "abnormal"?

By that logic, enjoying oral sex is as abnormal as enjoying anal sex because it is techincally "normal" to only have missionary sex for the soul purpose of reproducing, specially if you include bysexuals who are presumably straight or gay but just happen to enjoy different types of sex, is that an abnormality as well?

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 14, 2004, 3:09 am

Sexual orientation debates seem such a waste of time and energy. There are a lot more important issues facing the world. Gay rights is one of those manufactured issues which merely distract us from the real perversions; like John Kerry's and Ted Kennedy's ideas and ideals; or the lack thereof.

Wake up America!

(I stole that last line from Earl Pitts, a great Uhmerican! http://www.earlpitts.com/ )

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 14, 2004, 5:45 am

So why does abnormal equate with "wrong" when pertaining to homosexuality and not equate when referring to left-handedness?

Because that's what I'm reading here.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » April 14, 2004, 5:51 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Being left handed is the exact same thing. It transcends all races, sexes, etc. But is a rare occurance. Therefore, abnormal.

So you're now falling back to a semantical distinction between "abnormal" and "defective"?

If your argument had been that the occurrence of homosexuality falls outside of the statistical average, then you'd be correct in your use of "abnormal". However, in this thread you have equated abnormal with defective- that is just not true.

If homosexuality had never existed until a bunch of kids born near 3-Mile Island suddenly happened to be gay, your case might be correct. However, as homosexuality has existed for as long as there is written record, it becomes "normal" by it's very consistency, regardless of how rare it may be.

By the way, I'm left-handed, blue-eyed, over 6 feet tall, and I run water over my toothbrush both before AND after adding toothpaste- apparently I'm so abnormal even Chmee couldn't google up the statistical odds of that occurring. Mid, does that make me bad or evil or worthy of your judgement and scorn?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » April 14, 2004, 11:07 am

wtf, I hate before-and-after-the-toothpaste-toothbrush-wetters!

Freak!

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 14, 2004, 11:20 am

I am abnormal, I am left handed!

VeeshanVault

Another example of an activist judge

..

Re: ..

Re: ..

Re: ..

...

Re: ..

Re: ...

...

Re: ...

Re: ...

...

Re: ...

Re: ...

Re: ...

Re: ...

..

..