Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Aruntraveller]

TV

I would have to (kind of) disagree with your late statement above.

Even the most intelligent can demonstrate 'stupidity' in one form or another at some time or another. People, even on this forum, who demonstrate extremely high levels of intelligence come out, sometimes, with the most stupid comments. Stupid as defined by members of the audience.

On the subject under discussion there are extremely intelligent Christians and non-Christians who are making 'stupid' statements with regard to the accepted status of both homosexuality and homosexuals within modern society.

When I lived in Kings Cross (Sydney - their equivalent of London's Soho) one of the first questions a newcomer would be asked was 'do you shake hands. hug or kiss' when introduced to someone of the same sex. It did not take long for your answer to percolate around the denizens of the cross of both sexes and would be accepted and practised by denizens of both sexes. That is, if you answer was 'kiss', you would be greeted with a kiss each time you met someone for the first or the umpteenth time.

Walk a hundred yards outside the Cross and you would expect a thumping if you repeated the process with a non-Crossy.

The mix of the intelligent and the not-so was roughly the same for both areas but the level of stupidity, regrettably, could also be the same, though not necessarily on the same subjects.

It sometimes seems to me that the same applies here.

I'm not sure you are disagreeing with me here. But no worries.

I'm waiting for the day when somebody tells me I'm abnormal for being left handed - it would make a change.

Strange how the pejorative is only used with reference to my being gay and not to other variations I possess.

[Bubbles]

Blue eyes were abnormal once, apparently they are a newer feature to the human race.

New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

You get one abnormal person, and see where that leads 

[Nearly Sane]

Blue eyes were abnormal once, apparently they are a newer feature to the human race.

The point is that abnormal has a pejorative connotation. 

[Bubbles]

The point is that abnormal has a pejorative connotation.

Yes it does if you use it that way, but there are lots of things considered abnormal, but not in a pejorative way.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm

In that one it talks about abnormal sex chromosomes and that it might even be possible to be "abnormal " and not even be aware of it.

If you looked very closely at an individual, we are probably all a bit abnormal somewhere....... It's normal ....

They don't know why one person is gay and another isn't yet.

( or at least I don't think the do, but correct me if I'm wrong)

Perhaps it would be easier if it was something obvious.

[Aruntraveller]

Yes it does if you use it that way, but there are lots of things considered abnormal, but not in a pejorative way.

Dictionary Definition:

1.deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying:

This would indicate that usually there is a pejorative element to the description. Certainly that is the way it has always been used when others have referred to my sexuality. But never to my left handedness. So there is imo an element of judgement when the term is used.

[floo]

Blue eyes were abnormal once, apparently they are a newer feature to the human race.



You get one abnormal person, and see where that leads 

Some people have eyes of different colours, one blue, one green, for instance. I bet that would be regarded by some with suspicion even now, and maybe even fear in the bad old days.

With the help of science we should have moved on from automatically branding people as 'sinful' because they stand out from the crowd.

[Bubbles]

Dictionary Definition:

1.deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying:

This would indicate that usually there is a pejorative element to the description. Certainly that is the way it has always been used when others have referred to my sexuality. But never to my left handedness. So there is imo an element of judgement when the term is used.

I remember at primary school being told we all had to write with our right hand. Any one caught trying to write left handed, felt the ruler come down on it.

It was considered abnormal then. Something unwanted. Something undesired in a person, being left handed was looked on as a handicap, most things were designed for right handed people.

I take your point though, no one likes to think of themselves as abnormal.

But we still need a model of what's normal and what isn't, it's just left handedness and gay is just being redefined as normal, as in the past it wasn't.

However most people think of "the elephant man" as being abnormal, because that isn't how most people are.

Medical science has to have a model of what is considered normal, to differentiate it from what isn't.

Although it's probably better to describe a condition as abnormal rather than an individual person.

I suppose we all have our ideas on what is normal and what isn't, based on our own experiences.

If someone strikes us as abnormal ( which is often seen though behaviour ), then it makes us uncomfortable.

There are people (not homosexuals) who make me very uncomfortable, and finding them worrying is a good term to use.

[Owlswing]

I remember at primary school being told we all had to write with our right hand. Any one caught trying to write left handed, felt the ruler come down on it.

It was considered abnormal then. Something unwanted. Something undesired in a person, being left handed was looked on as a handicap, most things were designed for right handed people.

I take your point though, no one likes to think of themselves as abnormal.

But we still need a model of what's normal and what isn't, it's just left handedness and gay is just being redefined as normal, as in the past it wasn't.

However most people think of "the elephant man" as being abnormal, because that isn't how most people are.

Medical science has to have a model of what is considered normal, to differentiate it from what isn't.

Although it's probably better to describe a condition as abnormal rather than an individual person.

I suppose we all have our ideas on what is normal and what isn't, based on our own experiences.

If someone strikes us as abnormal ( which is often seen though behaviour ), then it makes us uncomfortable.

There are people (not homosexuals) who make me very uncomfortable, and finding them worrying is a good term to use.

The "left-handed" thing was/is another hang-over from Christian belief that the left-side was the Devil's side and left-handedness was a sign of the Devil's influence.

[Brownie]

I have seen some evil and disgusting anti-gay comments over the years. One 'Christian' poster, now banned, said he would turn a blind eye if a gay was being beaten up.

That was wrong.  I didn't see it but take your word for it, the poster is no longer here.
Sass is also suspended for a while.  I have no idea what she said (abuse of the PM system or something like that), but she is very ''robust'' in her comments and difficult to understand sometimes.  It wouldn't hurt any of us to exercise some compassion, or ignore!
 
It's my view, and I have no authority here, neither do I want any, that this thread has run its course.   We could get back to proper discussions.  The thread has brought up some interesting stuff which we could all post and read on a less confrontational thread.
The poll shows that most contributors have seen vile homophobic comments on here, I doubt anyone else will vote.

[Leonard James]

As far as natural laws are concerned, everything is a product of nature and "normal".

"Abnormal" is  nothing more than a human conceit to describe something that doesn't fit into our desired pattern

[Spud]

Spud

What's the normal function of a spoon?

For instance you can measure out flour with a spoon for a cake or bread. At that point it is pretty inedible - but the spoon is serving its normal function.

You can then mix the flour with butter and sugar or maybe water and yeast with the spoon and produce something edible - still serving its normal function.

Then you can eat the cake with the spoon and take pleasure from the food - still serving its normal function.

Finally you can lick it clean and I hear that some people stick it up their arse and derive further pleasure from it - still serving its normal fuction.

Plurality of purpose.

So the normal function of a spoon is to aid in nutrition, right?

[Nearly Sane]

That was wrong.  I didn't see it but take your word for it, the poster is no longer here.
Sass is also suspended for a while.  I have no idea what she said (abuse of the PM system or something like that), but she is very ''robust'' in her comments and difficult to understand sometimes.  It wouldn't hurt any of us to exercise some compassion, or ignore!
 
It's my view, and I have no authority here, neither do I want any, that this thread has run its course.   We could get back to proper discussions.  The thread has brought up some interesting stuff which we could all post and read on a less confrontational thread.
The poll shows that most contributors have seen vile homophobic comments on here, I doubt anyone else will vote.

The tone of this as I read it, implies that anything Sassy said should not result in a suspension?

[Bubbles]

Quote from: Trentvoyager on April 17, 2016, 11:21:04 PM


Spud

What's the normal function of a spoon?

For instance you can measure out flour with a spoon for a cake or bread. At that point it is pretty inedible - but the spoon is serving its normal function.

You can then mix the flour with butter and sugar or maybe water and yeast with the spoon and produce something edible - still serving its normal function.

Then you can eat the cake with the spoon and take pleasure from the food - still serving its normal function.

Finally you can lick it clean and I hear that some people stick it up their arse and derive further pleasure from it - still serving its normal fuction.

Plurality of purpose.

So the normal function of a spoon is to aid in nutrition, right?

If I thought someone else thought,  the normal function of a spoon was to be stuck up their arse, I wouldn't be accepting dinner invitations from them in the future where we were going to be using their cutlery.

 

[Brownie]

Dishwashers, on full cycle, work wonders Rose :-).

[Rhiannon]

This reminds me of the Mumnet penis beaker thread.

[Bubbles]

This reminds me of the Mumnet penis beaker thread.

 

?

[Rhiannon]

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/a1875847-Do-you-dunk-your-penis

[Rhiannon]

It was the bit about sticking it in the dishwasher...

[Aruntraveller]

So the normal function of a spoon is to aid in nutrition, right?

Good grief man of course not.

It is a percussion instrument.

[Bubbles]

It was the bit about sticking it in the dishwasher...

ROTFL

Ah!

[Brownie]

I hasten to say I've never tried it (I don't mean putting spoons in dishwasher but what was said before), imagine it to be painful as well as unaesthetic - but each to their own.  Gives a whole new interpretation of the word, ''Spooning''.

[Enki]

Well, I've got one particular large spoon which is used solely as a back scratcher. It's a bit like a Heineken really. It reaches parts of my anatomy which no other spoon can reach. As far as I am concerned, that's its normal function. 

[wigginhall]

However, I have strong evidence that God is a boob man.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDDAa1If-u4

NSFW.

[Spud]

Forbidding homosexual behavior is quite obviously meant to safe guard the local population and its perpetuation.  If for whatever reason at that point of time, people found homosexuality growing or people getting influenced by local youths into homosexual behavior,  it would be quite understandable that they would want these people to be out of their society. 

In today's world it is quite different. For one thing, we are globalized and local populations do not feel threatened about the extinction of their population, their culture and way of life. Secondly, the huge population  explosion is in itself becoming a threat to social order and cohesion. People are refusing to have children (maybe just one) in many societies. In this changed climate, homosexuality may not be perceived as a threat to human perpetuation.

So...the situations under which homosexuals were persecuted in ancient times... and today when they are not seen as a threat are quite different. What is the point in arguing about these  two completely different scenarios?! 

Cheers.

Sriram

You could argue that if you have children they can help plant and harvest the crops, and look after you when you get old. Even now with high population density this would make sense. There is plenty of room in the world, if people don't have too many children.

[Spud]

In what way do you judge 'normal'? As has been pointed out before; a great deal of heterosexual sex involves using sex organs in ways that don't accord to your narrow and restrictive view of 'normal'.

I'm going by what Wiki says:

Male reproductive system

The male reproductive system consists of a number of sex organs that play a role in the process of human reproduction . These organs are located on the outside of the body and within the pelvis.

The main male sex organs are the penis and the testicles which produce semen and sperm, which, as part of sexual intercourse, fertilize an ovum in the female's body; the fertilized ovum (zygote) develops into a fetus, which is later born as an infant.