Same Sex Marriage Re-Visited.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Wrong - virtually any definition of abnormal you choose includes a pejorative, and negative slant. So for example:

'different from what is usual or average, especially in a way that is bad: (Cambridge Dictionary)
'Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying' (Oxford English Dictionary)

The neutral, non-pejorative term is uncommon, which doesn't carry any negative, pejorative connotations.

So, sorry I'm right, Steve and you are wrong.

By the way, by Steve's view being an Orthodox Christian is abnormal (I think that's what you are Humph - please correct me if I'm wrong), with only perhaps a few % of the world population being so. Would you feel comfortable with being described as abnormal Humph on that basis - I suspect you might.

Your argument is like a member of "the tribe" being offended at being described as a "Jew", but  considering being described as "Jewish" to be acceptable!

I appreciate that membership of the Orthodox Church is "abnormal" in western Europe, but it that term does not bother me unduly.

[Roses]

No.

Abnormal behaviour simply means that it is a behaviour practised by a minority.

Steve H is correct, you are wrong.

It is you who is WRONG. Are you saying that people who are left handed are abnormal?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

It is you who is WRONG. Are you saying that people who are left handed are abnormal?

Oh dear.

Please see above.

[Roses]

Oh dear.

Please see above.

Abnormal usually means deviant and undesirable.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Abnormal usually means deviant and undesirable.

I think that you will find that "abnormal" means out of the usual/majority.

[Roses]

I think that you will find that "abnormal" means out of the usual/majority.

I think most would not agree with your definition.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think most would not agree with your definition.

Certainly not the Oxford Dictionary, nor the Cambridge Dictionary.

Nor Collins:
Someone or something that is abnormal is unusual, especially in a way that is worrying.

Nor Websters:
deviating from the normal or average; unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that you will find that "abnormal" means out of the usual/majority.

Not according to standard dictionary definitions, which indicate that to be abnormal isn't just unusual, but bad, unwelcoming, worrying, undesirable.

Abnormal carries negative connotations in the way that uncommon or rare do not, although both of those also mean unusual.

[Roses]

Thanks PD.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Not according to standard dictionary definitions, which indicate that to be abnormal isn't just unusual, but bad, unwelcoming, worrying, undesirable.

Abnormal carries negative connotations in the way that uncommon or rare do not, although both of those also mean unusual.

I do not worry about being considered to be "abnormal"

I doubt if Ad O worries about being "abnormal "either.

[ProfessorDavey]

I do not worry about being considered to be "abnormal"

I doubt if Ad O worries about being "abnormal "either.

So you don't worry about you being considered:

'bad'
'unwelcome'
'undesirable'
'problematic'

due to your belief, as per standard dictionary definitions of abnormal.

[Spud]

"Abnormal" can have different meanings - "undesirable" is one meaning, eg a scoliotic spine; "different" is another, eg a person who swims across the Hudson river to work.

The real issue is that "Same-sex marriage legalised the idea that things which are demonstrably different are the same," see link in #19

[Gordon]

The real issue is that "Same-sex marriage legalised the idea that things which are demonstrably different are the same," see link in #19

Or not all that different: you know, people deciding who they wish to have a formally recognised relationship with without undue interference.

Have to say, Spud, that you are clearly having a laugh here: earlier on you bemoaned that the views of the CofE weren't regarded as authoritative (which they aren't, for various reasons) and now you cite UKIP as an authority - just no, Spud.

[Sebastian Toe]

"Abnormal" can have different meanings - "undesirable" is one meaning, eg a scoliotic spine; "different" is another, eg a person who swims across the Hudson river to work.

The real issue is that "Same-sex marriage legalised the idea that things which are demonstrably different are the same," see link in #19

Do people marry because they love each other or solely because they are of different gender?

[ProfessorDavey]

Do people marry because they love each other or solely because they are of different gender?

The former

[ProfessorDavey]

"Abnormal" can have different meanings - "undesirable" is one meaning, eg a scoliotic spine; "different" is another, eg a person who swims across the Hudson river to work.

Not according to the most reputable dictionaries:

Collins:
Someone or something that is abnormal is unusual, especially in a way that is worrying.

Websters:
deviating from the normal or average; unusual in an unwelcome or problematic way

Cambridge:
different from what is usual or average, especially in a way that is bad

Oxford
Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying

The real issue is that "Same-sex marriage legalised the idea that things which are demonstrably different are the same," see link in #19

Nope - they key point about marriage is that it is a consensual commitment between two people who love each other.

[jeremyp]

Even if there are less gay people than straight, it doesn't mean homosexuality is an abnormality. Would you say people who are left handed are abnormal because they are in the minority?

In a sense they are (and I speak as a leftie). But being not the same as most people is no justification for discrimination.

One of the problems is that "abnormal" is often associated with negative connotations. Although it is technically right to say left handers, gay people, Christians, participants in the Great British Bake Off and Andy Murray are abnormal (because they all are different from most of us in some significant way), it's a bad idea to use that word in those contexts.

[jeremyp]

No.

Abnormal behaviour simply means that it is a behaviour practised by a minority.

How do Christians feel about being labelled abnormal?

[jeremyp]

I think that you will find that "abnormal" means out of the usual/majority.

Here's a tip. Don't use the word abnormal unless you mean it in a bad way. OK?

[SteveH]

OK, I'll concede the "small minority equals abnormal", but what about "abnormal equals imperfect, not according to intended use"? Riding a bike backwards, sitting on the handlebars, is abnormal, because it's not what bikes were designed for; having anal sex is abnormal, because it's not what bottoms and penises were evolved for. That's not to say that either activity is wrong (though riding a bike backwards is not a good idea in traffic). I agree that "abnormal" usually has negative connotations, but what other word is there?

[Roses]

In a sense they are (and I speak as a leftie). But being not the same as most people is no justification for discrimination.

One of the problems is that "abnormal" is often associated with negative connotations. Although it is technically right to say left handers, gay people, Christians, participants in the Great British Bake Off and Andy Murray are abnormal (because they all are different from most of us in some significant way), it's a bad idea to use that word in those contexts.

People using their left hands in the bad old days were treated as abnormal and deviants. When I was a kid an old man suggested my parents should beat me, when he saw me writing with my left hand. 

[Spud]

People using their left hands in the bad old days were treated as abnormal and deviants. When I was a kid an old man suggested my parents should beat me, when he saw me writing with my left hand. 

Interestingly, the Latin for left is sinister.

Do people marry because they love each other or solely because they are of different gender?

Both

Or not all that different: you know, people deciding who they wish to have a formally recognised relationship with without undue interference.

In that case my relationship with my cat could be formally recognized. The only reason for including same sex couples is that more and more people wanted to. If millions of people wanted to marry their relatives or their pets then I'm sure the law would be changed again, I should think with restrictions.

Have to say, Spud, that you are clearly having a laugh here: earlier on you bemoaned that the views of the CofE weren't regarded as authoritative (which they aren't, for various reasons) and now you cite UKIP as an authority - just no, Spud.

I admit I did laugh at the thought of someone swimming to work (one guy in New York actually does). I intended to say the Bible claims authority and the church is the people who try to follow its authority: if we claim to be a Christian country (in the sense that various people claim we are, and in the sense that they call one particular religion the national religion) then the law should reflect the Bible's authority.

As for UKIP being just: at the end of the day it is a matter of justice. At the time of the 2015 election UKIP said they would not reverse ssm but said they would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs. To me that seemed just.

What the article is saying is that it's a nonsensical policy (no matter how many people want it)

[Sebastian Toe]

Both

Leaving aside the business contract of arranged marriage, how many "traditional" marriages are solely of the "I'm a guy, you're a girl, we don't love each other, lets get married" kind?

[Roses]

Interestingly, the Latin for left is sinister.
Both
In that case my relationship with my cat could be formally recognized. The only reason for including same sex couples is that more and more people wanted to. If millions of people wanted to marry their relatives or their pets then I'm sure the law would be changed again, I should think with restrictions.
I admit I did laugh at the thought of someone swimming to work (one guy in New York actually does). I intended to say the Bible claims authority and the church is the people who try to follow its authority: if we claim to be a Christian country (in the sense that various people claim we are, and in the sense that they call one particular religion the national religion) then the law should reflect the Bible's authority.

As for UKIP being just: at the end of the day it is a matter of justice. At the time of the 2015 election UKIP said they would not reverse ssm but said they would offer special protection to those who wanted to object to gay marriage or express other matters of religious conscience in the course of carrying out their jobs. To me that seemed just.

What the article is saying is that it's a nonsensical policy (no matter how many people want it)

The Bible is WRONG where homosexuality is concerned!

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Leaving aside the business contract of arranged marriage, how many "traditional" marriages are solely of the "I'm a guy, you're a girl, we don't love each other, lets get married" kind?

Have you not heard of a "Shotgun" wedding?