"Like any other normal couple"?

Post #350,565 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 1:46:13 PM Reply	"Like any other normal couple"? Really? Normal? "We want to make it clear we were not making out or creating any kind of spectacle of ourselves, it was one, modest kiss ...," the women said in the statement. "We were simply being affectionate like any normal couple." http://latimesblogs....g-the-l-word.html BOGGLE
Post #350,569 by drook 11/14/11 2:05:09 PM Reply	Yeah, why not? -- Drew
Post #350,574 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 3:00:50 PM Reply	Normal Couple? A "Normal Couple" would be a male and a female, right? Now we can't even say "Homo Sapiens are not normally homosexual." That's wrong now, too? The numbers don't support that? To borrow a phrase from Ashton, that's language murder.
Post #350,577 by pwhysall 11/14/11 3:04:57 PM Reply	Re: Normal Couple? Don't give me that crap. Normal animals don't go on the internet that they invented to argue about the definition of normal. As a species, we left "normal" behind about 10,000 years ago. A "normal" couple is one that's together because they love each other and (optionally) like playing with each others' wedding vegetables, and that's about it.
Post #350,579 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 3:25:33 PM Reply	"Normal" couple != "Normal couple". We've bent over so far now in our acceptance of deviant behavior (and yes, Alice, homosexual behavior among human beings deviates from the normal sexual behavior of human beings and can rightly then be called "deviant") we can't even use common language. Don't give me any crap about homosexuality being normal for human beings. Human beings are normally heterosexual. Hence, "normal couples" consist of a male + female. I'm not opposed to gay couples, but for Christ's sake don't try to tell me that a gay couple is a normal couple.
Post #350,583 by pwhysall 11/14/11 3:42:21 PM Reply	Gay is perfectly natural. Animals do it., look (caution, facts ahead!): http://en.wikipedia....mal_homosexuality It's not "deviant" or "abnormal", any more than being black or white or short or tall. It's just part of the human scenery.
Post #350,601 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 4:51:09 PM Reply	Being Black or White is not behavior. Therein lies the difference. Homosexual behavior deviates from the norm. That's not opinion. It's not even judgment, it's a fact. The plain fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of human beings are heterosexual. Hence, a "normal couple" are male and female. There's also no judgment there. I don't object to the gay couple (hell, they could mate - er, sorry - they could do whatever they want on the airplane for all I care). I object to the classification of a gay couple as a normal couple. Because they aren't. It's an abuse of the word normal.
Post #350,604 by drook 11/14/11 4:57:11 PM Reply	Two things First, using your left hand is a behavior. Does that make left-handed people deviants? Would you express surprise when leftys take offense at that characterization? Second, saying that homosexuality is "just behavior" has always been part of an argument saying that it's something people shouldn't do. -- Drew
Post #350,618 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 5:11:09 PM Reply	That's an argument I'm not making. What "causes" homosexuality is way off topic. It's an interesting debate, but not here. What do you think the percentage of gay, lesbian and bisexual people is in the general population? 30%? 40%? You've gotta hit 50.x% at least to call homosexual behavior "normal." I don't think you can make the numbers fit defining homosexual behavior as "normal". So, I'm supposed to be sensitive to the projection of negativity that some have for the word "deviates". Swell, how about this then? "Homosexual behavior in human beings differs from the majority's sexual behavior sufficiently to define a normal couple as a man and a woman." Better?
Post #350,661 by rcareaga 11/15/11 1:25:58 AM Reply	So, mmoffitt... The majority of married couples in this country consist of partners of the same racial group. I"m sure that the percentage of "mixed race" marriages is substantially greater than it was a couple of generations ago, but I'm also sure that it's nowhere near 50%. Would you accordingly regard a mixed-race marriage as "abnormal" or "deviant?" If not, be good enough to parse your reasoning, if your thought processes may be so dignified. cordially,
Post #350,668 by mmoffitt 11/15/11 8:23:08 AM Reply	Assuming your facts. If it is true that the majority of married couples are of the same race, then, yes, mixed race married couples deviate from the norm as the norm for married couples remains a heterosexual couple of the same race. Let me ask you a question, would you call a gay married couple in this country a "normal married couple"? This is fun, but it really is a matter of semantics. Assuming you're correct, I cannot see how anyone in this country (the US) could be correct in saying, "Normally, a married couple is not of the same race." Throughout this discussion, for me at least, normal = usual. That's what I was objecting to in my first post. "Like a normal couple" to me implied that, "Normally, couples are gay" instead of the vastly more accurate, "Normally, couples are heterosexual. However, there are many couples that deviate from this norm." Although uncommon, there's nothing inaccurate or inappropriate in referring to these types of couples as deviant because that's what they are: couples that deviate from the norm.
Post #350,678 by rcareaga 11/15/11 10:13:35 AM Reply	and yet, there seems something else at work here So had it been an interracial heterosexual pair in the news account speaking of public kissing in terms of "We were simply being affectionate like any normal couple," you would have boggled equally and launched this thread, am I right? Incidentally, you titled that first post "Like any other normal couple," whereas the actual quote was "like any normal couple." Your amended formulation (unconsciously, I trust) bolsters the point you wish to make. To my inner ear, "like any normal couple" lends itself to an implied distinction between the speaker and "normal," as in "We were simply being affectionate like any normal couple." But we're all entitled to a hobby, mmoffitt, and if this kind of usage crusade makes your extremities tingle, then by all means go for it. I can't help thinking as I read your posts, though, that there's a bit of rhetorical cross-dressing going on here, and that notwithstanding your proclamations of tolerance* I hear the rustle—the swish?—of some serious gender unease beneath the fabric of your arguments. cordially, *"I don't object to the gay couple (hell, they could mate - er, sorry - they could do whatever they want on the airplane for all I care)" —Now where have I heard that sort of thing before? Oh yes: "I don't care whether he's black, white, purple or green!" as a rule spoken by persons to whom the "deviations" from white matter a great deal indeed, although they are uneasy about saying so.
Post #350,686 by mmoffitt 11/15/11 11:25:46 AM Reply	There may be something else, I'll grant. When I first typed the line you cite, I almost edited it because I had unconsciously written "mate". I decided to leave it only because, in my mind, I hadn't distinguished between sexual practices of homo and heterosexuals as I wrote it. While I do not care about anyone's sexual proclivities, and I am old enough, Southern enough, to believe that's it's no one's business and should not be openly discussed, let alone displayed, there is something about what has been called "the GLB movement" that disturbs me. When I was a very young man (18 and 19) living in Long Beach and working in San Pedro, my dearest friend was a bisexual man about the size of a house. He was originally from the same region of the South where I was born. This was a very different time - even in Southern California and AB (his initials) was sometimes openly persecuted for his orientation. I could not abide that. All that said, I'm uncomfortable with comparisons between what the GLB community has suffered in the way of persecution with what Blacks and other minorities have suffered - and continue to suffer today. Moreover, I'm not at all comfortable with the establishment of "protected class" status for anyone based upon their sexual orientation. There may be a hint of that underlying my posts here. But my original point stands. At least for now, it is not normal to be gay. Saying otherwise is just silly. Your all too typical, "Well you don't like it because you are confused about your own sexuality" is beyond ridiculous. Am I supposed to be offended by that? If so, you failed. And if that was your intention, who is the real homophobe?
Post #350,713 by rcareaga 11/15/11 3:37:57 PM Reply	Nah. Wasn't really suggesting that "you are confused about your own sexuality," although I was aware that it could be taken that way. I'm sure your hetero credentials are impeccable, but I also carry away the impression that you are seriously queasy—or, if you prefer, old enough and Southern enough—on the subject of same-sex couples and coupling. With your formative influences I might feel the same way; after working in San Francisco for a third of a century your attitudes seem merely droll. When you say that you "do not care about anyone's sexual proclivities, and...believe that's it's no one's business and should not be openly discussed, let alone displayed," am I to understand that you find all public romantic displays—kissing, hand-holding, embracing— or discussions of such attachments offensive? You must not get asked to many weddings. But stay! Perhaps you are not scandalized at boys and girls together and would prefer merely that boy-boy or girl-girl couples keep their goddamn hands off one another so that decent people don't have to look at them? In which case, there certainly appears to be a "protected class" here, and it ain't the fags. cordially,
Post #350,714 by mmoffitt 11/15/11 3:53:03 PM Reply	In general, I do find public displays inappropriate. Not all of them, certainly not holding hands, hugging, etc. but slobbering all over each other tongue-down-the-throat whilst engaged in heavy petting or more, yes, that is inappropriate in public. Even when I was younger ("Get a room" I often muttered). And that attitude was and is definitely NOT restricted to homosexuals, whom I might add, in my limited experience, are far LESS likely to grope one another in public than are heteros. In simpler words, "Why is one's sexuality such a big goddamned deal?" I seriously don't get it. But I will admit that I am of the strong opinion that anyone claiming the need for "special consideration" on account of it is a loon.
Post #350,674 by boxley 11/15/11 9:34:53 AM Reply	you have to get to 50% to be normal. I dont think interracial marriage is at 50% so my wife and I who have been married 22 years ared not "normal" gee thanks Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #350,677 by mmoffitt 11/15/11 10:05:24 AM Reply	Not what I said. And you know it.
Post #350,681 by drook 11/15/11 10:28:40 AM Reply	No, that's exactly what you said -- Drew
Post #350,694 by crazy 11/15/11 12:09:28 PM Reply	You deviate you
Post #350,641 by scoenye 11/14/11 7:13:56 PM Reply	It used to be Being left handed == deviant, that is. And not all that long ago. Up 'til ~1960, you'd better not be seen using that hand in school, or else...
Post #350,666 by drook 11/15/11 8:02:13 AM Reply	Yup, my mother went to Catholic school Amazing how widely the urge to force others to conform to your own preferences spreads once you let it take root. -- Drew
Post #350,609 by crazy 11/14/11 5:00:49 PM Reply	No, it's an insult when claimed something isn't normal Behaviorally, that is. Especially in this case. "Normal" is a societal label applied to put a laser like focus on something it doesn't like, so others can "tsk tsk" and apply the appropriate amount of peer pressure. Which then allows the violent suppression to kick in. I was hanging out at the RHPS 35 years ago. Lots of guys and girls kissing. It was PERFECTLY normal then and there, and a LOT of people are quite happy to continue with it on the "outside". 35 years of progression in that area must have annoyed you. The problem is, YOUR society and MY societies aren't the same, and mine is slowly overwhelming yours. At least it's a problem to you.
Post #350,613 by beepster 11/14/11 5:07:26 PM Reply	Re: No, it's an insult when claimed something isn't normal Have to disagree with you here too. You don't get to decide "society". His and yours are essentially the same. The line from MIB is appropriate here... " A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Everything they've ever "known" has been proven to be wrong. A thousand years ago everybody knew as a fact, that the earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." You are smart. Its going to take the "people" a while...that is if they ever... Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #350,623 by crazy 11/14/11 5:15:53 PM Reply	Time and demographics As long as the lies are exposed, that's all it will take.
Post #350,655 by folkert 11/14/11 10:51:05 PM Reply	So... When did you choose to be straight/heterosexual? Come on... obviously YOU KNOW the answer.
Post #350,739 by altmann 11/16/11 2:55:49 AM Reply	re: It's an abuse of the word normal You could even say it's a perversion of the word normal. You pervert.
Post #350,745 by mmoffitt 11/16/11 8:03:29 AM Reply	:0)
Post #350,584 by beepster 11/14/11 3:47:14 PM Reply	gasp you must be completely homophobic! Why, views like that are positively last century. (and yes, I'm joking with you). You cannot use the word "normal" in that context any longer. Faux Pas. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #350,586 by drook 11/14/11 3:58:52 PM Reply	Are American Indians "deviant"? After all, there are fewer of them than there are gay people, so by your definition they're "deviants". Or left-handed people. Their numbers are right about even with homosexuality. Is left-handedness now "deviant"? And by the way ... calling two specific people "deviants", then claiming you meant it in a neutral, clinical sense, is a flaming pile of horse shit. -- Drew
Post #350,599 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 4:40:51 PM Reply	It's called English. And I know how to use it.
Post #350,600 by crazy 11/14/11 4:48:13 PM Reply	Yup. Inflammatorily You sure do. Beep's right, even when he's sarcastic. *BOGGLE* What boggled you? Oh, them deviants are on the lose, best we lock down the wimmen and chillun before they infect them! There is no sexual "norm", only a spectrum, and you fall somewhere in it. So do they. Sexual norms are enforced by those not getting enough. And they want everyone else to suffer with them.
Post #350,602 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 4:53:19 PM Reply	Um, no. Is there some dispute that the overwhelming number of humans is heterosexual that I am unaware of? I don't give a flip what anyone does, but calling homosexual behavior normal behavior in humans is insane.
Post #350,606 by beepster 11/14/11 4:59:17 PM Reply	Re: Um, no. Its not the use of "normal" getting you in trouble. Its the use of "deviant" that is getting you in trouble. And not necessarily because its textbook incorrect...its the negative connotation it brings..as much as it would be if you used "abnormal" to counter "normal". Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #350,611 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 5:02:30 PM Reply	Forgive for being "textbook correct". :0)
Post #350,607 by drook 11/14/11 5:00:00 PM Reply	Yes, there is a dispute Sexual preference, as has already been stated in this thread, is a spectrum, not a binary setting. To say that "the overwhelming number of humans is heterosexual" requires that "is heterosexual" is binary: you are or you aren't. You're going to have to prove that premise before you can argue from it. -- Drew
Post #350,612 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 5:04:38 PM Reply	So, your conjecture is... That it is a minority of human beings who are "purely heterosexual" and have no proclivities for members of their own sex, barn animals, what have you. Is that it? That's a two-boggle for the price of one.
Post #350,616 by crazy 11/14/11 5:09:33 PM Reply	Enjoy http://books.google....rosexuals&f=false
Post #350,617 by drook 11/14/11 5:10:23 PM Reply	DING! You just put gender preference on the same plane as bestiality. Want to throw in pedophilia and go for the trifecta? -- Drew
Post #350,619 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 5:12:53 PM Reply	Consequence of the argument you made. YOUR claim was that I was wrong to submit that heterosexual behavior was the norm. The point I was making to YOU was that you could throw in every single other type of sexual behavior known among humans and heterosexual behavior WOULD STILL be present in greater numbers than all the rest. Making it the norm. HTH.
Post #350,621 by crazy 11/14/11 5:14:20 PM Reply	Here, a quiz for you http://absolutewrite...php/t-141929.html
Post #350,622 by drook 11/14/11 5:14:41 PM Reply	Still framing it as "behavior" ... still wrong -- Drew
Post #350,624 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 5:16:38 PM Reply	The existence of the species tells me I'm right.
Post #350,626 by crazy 11/14/11 5:20:06 PM Reply	Go read my book quote and you know you'd be wrong since heterosexuality has nothing to do with the furthering of the species.
Post #350,632 by beepster 11/14/11 5:39:41 PM Reply	Re: Go read my book quote Now you're "over-smarting"..same as that piece. At is most basic, sex is all about procreation. The problem is, it feels good ;-) Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #350,634 by crazy 11/14/11 5:58:52 PM Reply	Easy googleable targets get knocked down
Post #350,605 by beepster 11/14/11 4:57:20 PM Reply	Re: Yup. Inflammatorily Deviant is the wrong word, most definitely. However, in its most basic sense, "normal" is in play. However, mind you, seeing girls kiss, for me, is "normal". Hang out in Europe. Its not a gay thing, or a hetero thing...it just is. Not so much for guys, where its the handshake. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #350,608 by mmoffitt 11/14/11 5:00:45 PM Reply	B.S. How is "deviant" not appropriate? m.w.com: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>
Post #350,610 by beepster 11/14/11 5:02:07 PM Reply	see my other post. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #350,620 by drook 11/14/11 5:13:40 PM Reply	"accepted" You want "heterosexual" to be an absolute so that you can say the opposite is "deviant", yet your own chosen definition depends on "accepted". Accepted by whom? -- Drew
Post #350,670 by mmoffitt 11/15/11 8:31:18 AM Reply	The species. HTH.
Post #350,672 by drook 11/15/11 8:34:40 AM Reply	You asked it? -- Drew
Post #350,638 by static 11/14/11 6:59:08 PM Reply	You're applying statistical definitions... ... to an inflammatory subject. I should have wished you luck. Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #350,650 by boxley 11/14/11 9:08:38 PM Reply	yes normal unless you think that white male and female couples are normal and everything else isnt then perhaps you can make a claim Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #350,660 by Andrew Grygus 11/15/11 1:24:25 AM Reply	Human sexuality is powerful and erratic. There is no "normal", and calling someone else "deviant" is a dangerous tactic. It can cause you to repress your own "deviant" impulses - with resulting psychological and social damage. You have no such "deviant" impulses? You're pure as the driven snow? Bullshit. They may not involve other guys (unless that's something you've very deeply repressed), but whatever - just relax and let them bubble up. They're perfectly normal.
Post #350,663 by static 11/15/11 4:51:15 AM Reply	There's a reason they call it "vanilla". And not "normal". ;-) Wade. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #350,646 by Another Scott 11/14/11 8:03:54 PM Reply	It really depends on how you read that, doesn't it? One could easily read the quote as saying: "we're simply being affectionate *like* any normal couple" - that is, they're not claiming to be normal, they're simply showing affection like any normal couple. Their full statement - http://www.msopr.com...irlines-incident/ - doesn't sound like they're claiming to be "normal" either: We have always promoted tolerance, openness and equality both as a band and as individuals. We both come from loving homes where our parents not only love and accept us, but are also proud of who we are. We believe everyone has the right to live openly in this society as equals. In no way were our actions on Southwest Airlines excessive, inappropriate or vulgar. We want to make it clear we were not making out or creating any kind of spectacle of ourselves, it was one, modest kiss. We are responsible adult women who walk through the world with dignity. We were simply being affectionate like any normal couple. We were on the airplane less than 5 minutes when all was said and done. We take full responsibility for getting verbally upset with the flight attendant after being told it was a Âfamily airline.Â We were never told the reason the flight attendant approached us, we were only scolded that we Âneeded to be aware that Southwest Airlines was a family oriented airline.Â No matter how quietly homophobia is whispered, it doesnÂt make it any less loud. You canÂt whisper hate. We ask this airline to teach their employees to not discriminate against any couple, ever, regardless of their own beliefs. We want to live in a society where if your loved one leans over to give you an innocent kiss on an airplane itÂs not labeled as Âexcessive or not family orientedÂ by a corporation and its employees. We find it very disturbing that the same airline who lauds itself as being LGBT friendly has twisted an upsetting incident that happened into our behavior being Âtoo excessive.Â The above is not an apology and we are in the process of filing a formal complaint with the airline. We hope that when all is said and done a greater tolerance without prejudice will evolve. Emphasis added. As someone upthread said, women commonly kiss. Even in the USA. I've seen the man in a family kiss each family member, male and female, on the lips, as they were leaving an airport gate. Was he not "normal"? Should he and the family be accused to being "deviant"? You're taking a word out of context and using inflammatory words in your elaboration. I could easily accuse you of being bigoted about it, too. http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/bigoted But I won't do that. ;-) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #350,669 by mmoffitt 11/15/11 8:29:57 AM Reply	It's much more fun to use technically accurate, loaded words It would have been better if she'd said, "we're simply being affectionate like any couple." Although, I concur, it does depend on how you read that. (Aside: I think your interpretation is not the one intended - but still.) As far as family members kissing, No, that would not be deviant behavior since normally family members kiss. Same would hold true in other cultures where it is quite common for same sex kissing. It is normal in those cultures.
Post #350,673 by drook 11/15/11 8:35:18 AM Reply	Project much? -- Drew
Post #350,723 by drook 11/15/11 9:17:18 PM Reply	Took a day, but I figured out the problem The gender arrangement of this couple is not the most common. You expressed shock at that. (Or at least bogglement.) I'll bet if we looked at the racial arrangement we'd find that that is also not the most common, but you didn't comment on that. We don't know if either of them is left handed, which would automatically make their arrangement uncommon, but again, you didn't comment on that. We could examine their relative (and absolute) incomes ... the number of siblings each has ... their shoe sizes ... their bra sizes ... their favorite colors ... The point is, you chose to compare and comment on this one aspect of who they are. All you proved is that you think it matters. Everyone here has been telling you that it doesn't. You're wrong as soon as you say it's worth discussing. Classic "conservative" framing. Pick something that is completely irrelevant, make inflammatory statements about it, then get everyone tied up debating the details. I'm done playing that game. It doesn't matter if what they're doing is "deviant" or "normal" or "common" or whatever. What matters is it's none of your business, and none of Southwest's business, and none of the business of the busybody who complained. -- Drew
Post #350,724 by boxley 11/15/11 9:25:05 PM Reply	no boggle zone? cmon, mikey can boggle and we can educate If after having this debate would he still boggle or go hmmm? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #350,746 by mmoffitt 11/16/11 8:05:20 AM Reply	Hmmmmm.
Post #350,726 by static 11/15/11 9:45:59 PM Reply	I thought it was just a boring problem of definition. Static Scribblings http://staticsan.blogspot.com/
Post #350,733 by beepster 11/15/11 11:13:39 PM Reply	wrong on one count It is southwests business if it happens on their plane Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #350,742 by crazy 11/16/11 5:29:24 AM Reply	Which SW has already admitted to being wrong about It is an incident of a poorly trained and/or biased rep opening her mouth when she shouldn't have. "This is a family airline" is code for "DO WHAT I TELL YOU BASED ON MY RELIGIOUS VIEWS OR GET THE FUCK OFF THE PLANE, YOU F'ING DEVIANTS". So the only thing left is the mop up action, dealing with people like the top poster here.
Post #350,743 by beepster 11/16/11 5:57:54 AM Reply	right, wrong dont matter If the pilot working that flight doesnt like your shirt...you dont fly. You dont have an inaliable right to fly on their plane. The apology is business cover. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #350,817 by mmoffitt 11/17/11 9:54:20 AM 11/17/11 10:40:20 AM Reply	I took a few days, too. Your first sentence is incorrect. Gay couples hardly shock me. My shock was (and thanks to Scott, I freely admit I may have misread the quote) that anyone would consider a gay couple a normal couple. Normal in the sense that homosexuality is the logical outcome of the evolutionary processes that lead to sexual dimorphism. I wonder if it would still shock the senses around here if instead of saying a gay couple was "a couple that deviates from the norm" or the shortened version "deviant couple", I had instead referred to the gay couple as an atypical couple. I honestly still do not personally distinguish meaning between the phrases "deviant behavior" and "atypical behavior" but I know I am in the minority (especially now). If "atypical" is acceptable, I fail to see the controversy in claiming an atypical couple is not a normal (read: typical) couple. YMMV. Box (with some help from Rand) made me realize something that had eluded my notice. I actually do ascribe some negative connotation to the word "abnormal." I realized this in thinking about how I had inadvertently offended box. I would not personally ever refer to a mixed race couple as an "abnormal" couple (perhaps at least partly because you don't have to go back more than a handful of generations in my own family tree to find a mixed race marriage). Assuming Rand's conjecture that most married couples are of the same race, I might say (with no malice) that the races of the couple deviate from the norm. But I would never say they are an abnormal couple. Technically that might be accurate but I discovered that in my mind "abnormal" somehow contains a tinge of "defective" that I view as wholly inappropriate when describing mixed race couples. So, thanks for that. Edit: I actually typed since instead of sense. Sheesh. Edited by mmoffitt Nov. 17, 2011, 10:40:20 AM EST Expand All History
Post #350,818 by drook 11/17/11 10:03:13 AM Reply	This is why scientists can't do politics That negative connotation you have for "abnormal"? Virtually all of the rest of us who responded here have that connotation for "deviant". Doesn't matter what it means in a laboratory setting. -- Drew
Post #350,819 by mmoffitt 11/17/11 10:15:14 AM Reply	Right - that's the real problem. For me, I have assigned meaning to the word "abnormal" inappropriately and everybody else has assigned meaning to the word "deviate" and its derivatives inappropriately. ;0)
Post #350,820 by pwhysall 11/17/11 10:22:08 AM Reply	Re: This is why scientists can't do politics It is entirely normal and natural for species to have, amongst their populations, homosexual individuals. This is why homosexuality is normal. Different, true. Minority, no question. Abnormal? No way.

Welcome to IWETHEY!