Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Nearly Sane]

The emphasis there is mine - that implies that you think it isn't normal to be gay.  That might not be what you intended to suggest, so feel free to clarify, but that phrasing makes that implication.

Where did 'desirable' suddenly creep into the conversation - the discussion was about 'normal'.  If you mean 'normal' in the sense of 'typically occuring' then being gay is entirely normal; not only does it appear throughout human history, it appears in other places in the animal kingdom too, it appears to be an entirely typical part of the spread of animal behaviour.

If, on the other hand, you mean 'normal' in the sense of 'conforming to social or cultural norms' well than that's rather dependent upon which cultural norms you choose to cleave to.

O.

Steve is merely making the point in reply to ippy that just because something exists then it doesn't mean it's fine. You are not reading in context and you are adding in meaning that is not clear in his post.

[jeremyp]

None of what Steve wrote lends itself to that interpretation

It depends on how you define abnormal. The mode is to be heterosexual so you could say it is not normal or it is abnormal to be gay, but you would be ignoring the pejorative tone of using “abnormal” in that context. So the real question about whether LR’s interpretation is correct is really whether Steve intended his remarks to be pejorative. I don’t think he did even if he unintentionally offended the gay members of his audience.

[SteveH]

So you are saying it is abnormal to be gay?

I specificaly said that it "could be considered normal". I was pointing out that Ippy's argument was invalid, not the homosexuality is abnormal. An analogy: the syllogism "some mixed-race people are Americans, Barack Obama is mixed-race; therefor Barack Obama is American" is invalid, and doesn't prove anything, but as it happens, Barack Obama is indeed American. I was arguing against the validty of a particular argumet, not the truth that the argument was trying (but failing) to demonstrate. Got it now?

[Roses]

I specificaly said that it "could be considered normal". I was pointing out that Ippy's argument was invalid, not the homosexuality is abnormal. An analogy: the syllogism "some mixed-race people are Americans, Barack Obama is mixed-race; therefor Barack Obama is American" is invalid, and doesn't prove anything, but as it happens, Barack Obama is indeed American. I was arguing against the validty of a particular argumet, not the truth that the argument was trying (but failing) to demonstrate. Got it now?

?

[SteveH]

There does sound to be a qualifying element to the "could be" part of the statement, perhaps?

OK, so I was hedging my bets. It depends what you mean by normal. I don't think it sinful, and welcomed legalisation, equalisation of the age of consent, and civil partnerships. If that's not good enough, tough.

[Gordon]

Reading back, I think ippy was making an appeal to nature and that is what Steve was picking up on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

[Nearly Sane]

OK, so I was hedging my bets. It depends what you mean by normal. I don't think it sinful, and welcomed legalisation, equalisation of the age of consent, and civil partnerships. If that's not good enough, tough.

Why do you think that trentvoyager's relationship is not as valid as mine to be recognised as marriage?

[SteveH]

If you say so, but his post doesn't make that clear.

It makes it perfectly clear to anyone who can follow a simple argument in plain English.

[Nearly Sane]

It depends on how you define abnormal. The mode is to be heterosexual so you could say it is not normal or it is abnormal to be gay, but you would be ignoring the pejorative tone of using “abnormal” in that context. So the real question about whether LR’s interpretation is correct is really whether Steve intended his remarks to be pejorative. I don’t think he did even if he unintentionally offended the gay members of his audience.

He didn't use the term abnormal in the post.

[Nearly Sane]

It makes it perfectly clear to anyone who can follow a simple argument in plain English.

Except as you have said you were 'hedging your bets' which has led to your remarks being unclear in some ways. People have read your remarks in the knowledge that you don't think homosexual relationships should be seen as the same as heterosexual ones as regards marriage. So yet again I will ask why do see trentvoyager's relationship to be separated from mine as regards marriage?

[ippy]

I agree that homosexuaity is not sinful, and could be considered normal, but the fact that they exist doesn't prove it> Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.)

Well it seems like there might be a bit of questioning yourself possibly a bit of realignment in your thinking, to your credit.

Although I've no idea of what the percentage of homosexual people there are in populations so let's say for sake of argument the percentage is somewhere about 5% per head of our U K population and this has been so since records began that would make it normal to have on or around this number of app 5% gay people as the norm, I don't see there is any point where you can lift up any one of the four corners that have been firmly bolted down and insert anything else.

There plenty of ailments that now days involve the necessary use of a wheel chair, again going back to when records began I'll guess and feel justified in saying, there is and always has been a percentage of wheelchair users and blind people so therefore the norm would be a percentage of chair users and blind people in most normal populations such as here in the U K.

How come I guess anyone that posts on this forum isn't in any way surprised when they see someone in a wheelchair or  a blind person,? Therefore wheelchair users and blind people are normal!

Oh yes you can keep your idea of the word sin or sinful to yourself preferably keep it inside your, I think narrow minded, religion based society or societies.

ippy.

[Roses]

It makes it perfectly clear to anyone who can follow a simple argument in plain English.

But you don't, you go all round the houses to make a simple point. If you used plain English your post might not have been questioned!

[jeremyp]

He didn't use the term abnormal in the post.

No LR did. I was trying to say her use of it wasn’t a fair representation.

[Nearly Sane]

But you don't, you go all round the houses to make a simple point. If you used plain English your post might not have been questioned!

What in Steve's post was not 'plain English'?

[SteveH]

Except as you have said you were 'hedging your bets' which has led to your remarks being unclear in some ways. People have read your remarks in the knowledge that you don't think homosexual relationships should be seen as the same as heterosexual ones as regards marriage. So yet again I will ask why do see trentvoyager's relationship to be separated from mine as regards marriage?

I've explained all that, and made my position quite clear, so I think it best if I drop out of this particular argument.

[Nearly Sane]

I've explained all that, and made my position quite clear, so I think it best if I drop out of this particular argument.

No, you have simply stated that you think trentvoyager's relationship is not as valid as mine as regards marriage. And you have made no attempt to say why when asked by trentvoyager. Which seems to me both discourteous on top of your twee homophobia.

[Aruntraveller]

I've explained all that, and made my position quite clear, so I think it best if I drop out of this particular argument.

Cowardly evasion noted.

[Robbie]

He didn't say the relationship isn't as valid but that it's different. Different doesn't signify invalid or second best.

[Owlswing]

I agree that homosexuaity is not sinful, and could be considered normal, but the fact that they exist doesn't prove it> Blind people and wheelchair-users also exist, but it isn't normal or desirable to be blind or have to use a wheelchair. (Obviously, it isn't sinful, either.)

Are you saying that homosexuality is a disability im the same way that blindness and paralysis?

[Nearly Sane]

Are you saying that homosexuality is a disability im the same way that blindness and paralysis?

No, he isn't

[SteveH]

Are you saying that homosexuality is a disability im the same way that blindness and paralysis?

Oh, ffs... if people can't understand plain English, I give up.

[Owlswing]

Oh, ffs... if people can't understand plain English, I give up.

Thank the Goddess for that!

[Aruntraveller]

He didn't say the relationship isn't as valid but that it's different. Different doesn't signify invalid or second best.

He explicitly did unless there is another meaning to "not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones," that I am not aware of.

but the anatomical point does suggest that gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones, which is why I think gay marriage was a step too far, since it didn't give gay couples any new rights, and was thus purely cosmetic.

[Nearly Sane]

He didn't say the relationship isn't as valid but that it's different. Different doesn't signify invalid or second best.

He wrote it shouldn't be regarded as on a par, so yes in his twee homophobia, he regards Trentvoyager's relationship as lesser.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, ffs... if people can't understand plain English, I give up.

So why in plain English do you think trentvoyager's relationship isn't on a par with mine?