"Normal" couple != "Normal couple".

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!