[Marc]

JMeister234, on Feb 15 2007, 02:25 PM, said:

Actually I think Marc would agree with this. He's stated he's had a vasectomy so he's not normal either. Yet everyone continues to object to that passage (as do I).

I object on the grounds that it infuriates so many people without furthering any objectives. It just isolates gays as abnormal when they've dealt enough with condescending intolerance from the older, more established religions.

Calling Marc a closet homosexual is retarded. Not because I know him (I don't) but because it'll just cause this discussion to further fall from its academic perch. But at least its generating discussion and a method of dealing with disagreement... for when something *important* comes up.

I think you're missing the point. I'm not calling homosexuals abnormal to isolate them. I'm calling them abnormal so that they can accept themselves as abnormal and get over it. Everyone is abnormal in some way. But if you insist something is normal when it isn't then it is you who are not accepting your abnormality and you are isolating yourself.

Most of the problem with gays are that gays aren't ok with being gay and think that if external source convince them they are ok then they will feel ok about themselves. But that's not going to happen. So what needs to happen is that gays accept themselves for being abnormal and not make a big deal over it.

[RareBear]

frostbyte, on Feb 15 2007, 09:25 PM, said:

If everyone is abnormal in some way, why single out homosexuals? For that matter, if everyone is abnormal, than abnormality is normal.

"Normal" means two eyes a nose and a mouth, ten fingers, ten toes et al. Beyond that it's all a big toss up. Nay?

[Ocelot]

JMeister234, on Feb 15 2007, 10:25 PM, said:

Calling Marc a closet homosexual is retarded. Not because I know him (I don't) but because it'll just cause this discussion to further fall from its academic perch. But at least its generating discussion and a method of dealing with disagreement... for when something *important* comes up.

As for causing a discussion to fall from it's academic perch what does implying I'm "retarded" do?

For clarification I don't really think Marc is in the closet. From what little I know about him, if he were gay then he wouldn't be in the closet. There wouldn't be a closet - he'd have smashed it to pieces along with any other irrational obstacle in the way of him getting the sexual gratification that he chose to pursue.

Neither do I think that Marc is truly homophobic in any of the worst senses of the word. However I think that as a semi-public figure he might want to be careful about using language that could be easily contrued as being homophobic. I dispute the accuracy of this choice of language in describing homosexuality as a birth defect. I think his usage of the term "normal" begs for clairifaction. As so amny have said before me - there's nothing normal about being normal.

At this moment in time I'm unable to go into greater detail but do have a lengthy response on the matter in draft form.

[Marc]

I'm not in the closet. If I had any tendancies I would talk about it. It's just not there. Closest homosexual thoughts were maybe when I was about 10 I had some attraction to the character Will Robinson on Lost in Space. I don't even do some of the fancy stuff heterosexuals do.

As to not saying things that will be construed as homophobic, I can't do that. The rule about such subjects is that unless you are 100% in agreement with their position that homosexuality is 100% equivelent in every way to heterosexual relationship then you're a gay basher, homophobic, unenlighted, unsophicticated, and a closet homosexual who hates himself. Just like what I'm being accused of in these threads.

If you're going to be a realist you're going to piss people off. People are too politically correct in society. I think it would be better if people became a little more thick skinned and allow people with different ideas to express themselves, even if they are dead wrong in their views.

[dil]

So an asthmatic person who can't run as well as a normal person is labelled abnormal?

We just don't like your terms.

[Darabe]

frostbyte, on Feb 15 2007, 06:25 PM, said:

If everyone is abnormal in some way, why single out homosexuals? For that matter, if everyone is abnormal, than abnormality is normal.

There is no one who is normal.

The quantity of variables that equates what normal is are to great for any one being to have them..


Ok so I "Might" be wrong. LOL

Eat an Onion

[Lowside]

Haven't read through all of the posts (and probably won't as I hate to wast time arguing), But this conflict reminded me of something I learned in a class on logic back in the 60s...

If you want to find out if something you said (or wrote) is biased (or bigoted) just place yourself in the place of who you are talking about. So here I go...

* About Mark - Being Mark, or acting like Mark is not considered to be either immoral or sinful in the Church of Reality. At worst Mark has a minor birth defect similar to being born nearsighted. (In spite of this defect) Mark is allowed to be a full participant in the Church of Reality. Mark's sexual orientation is not considered to be an issue in our religion (So why mention it???)

I don't know about you, but that seems a bit hurtful to me..

Peace

[dgandhi]

Marc, on Feb 16 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

The rule about such subjects is that unless you are 100% in agreement with their position that homosexuality is 100% equivelent in every way to heterosexual relationship then you're a gay basher, homophobic, unenlighted, unsophicticated, and a closet homosexual who hates himself.

Honestly Marc, this is a straw man.

The argument for equivalence has not been made here, and I dare say is not generally made at all. While there are political movements working for equal protection under the law, that is not the same thing as claiming that every, or even any, relationship is the same.

Since Reality should be the arbitrator in all CoR disputes, I submit that the data suggests that homosexuality is a population control adaptation of mammalian species, and so has Real™ evolutionary benefit. Homosexuality is a progressive evolutionary adaptation, since it redirects sex drive in situations where population is getting out of hand.

The observable facts about mammalian sexuality are distinct from any critique you may personally have of "gay culture" as it exists in your society. Your critique should be targeted at those social/political movements, not at the fact that our species has adapted to have homosexual members.

Claiming that GLAAD, for instance, makes absurd claims is completely different from calling the people GLAAD advocates for flawed, or defective.

[Jim]

Marc, on Feb 13 2007, 09:14 PM, said:

God doesn't exist. Therefore Athiesm is normal and theism is not.

You need to get your weed from me

[Poor Richard]

Jim, on Aug 26 2009, 09:21 PM, said:

You need to get your weed from me

Jim, you need to stop shooting up that weed, dude.

I'm not queer myself but Marc does seem a bit homophobic since it is observed in many species besides humans.

Marc can't be right about everything, right? What's the big deal?

Richard