Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can it be a normal biological state if a male wolf, buck, mallard or stallion refuse to procreate with the female of their species? The answer is that it's not normal, because if all male members of any species refused to mate with the females, that species would cease to exist.
One man's "common sense" is another man's inexcusable ignorance.
"Normal human biological" sexuality is more complicated than "make babies."
Humans have sex for pleasure, not just to have kids. Even if you do, not all people have sex with the lights off, missionary style, under the covers, praying to baby Jesus for fertility every time they have sex.
It appears you are applying "normal" to a whole population. It's normal for a small percentage of a population to be homosexual. You're arguing that if it occurs once, it's not normal, then expounding on that to say that if every male/female did the same thing, it too would not be normal. No one would argue otherwise on that last one.
I also think some people here are confusing "normal" with the actions of the majority. There is no relationship between normal and what the majority of people/animals are doing. I think this whole idea of "normalcy" is meant for people who are not gay feel OK about themselves while establishing something tangible to find wrong with those that are gay.
Normal? Look around. No one is normal. Normal is strange and boy, we are all strange!
Indeed, under the behavioral communists' definition of normal, being a white or black male would be "abnormal" since it's not what the majority of humanity is..... or, having blue eyes, or being six foot 5 in height.
They mistake "variation within a population" for discussions on what is "normal" or "abnormal."
it is a question of fairness in the workplace. What is so wrong with giving everyone that works what they are entitled to where they work? rush limbaugh was addicted to pain pills. Last I checked he was a republican unless elton john converted him into a gay democrat.
Ahhh.......there's that entitlement thing again.......thanks for clarifying.
Fair?
How 'bout extending health benefits to heterosexual couples living together?
Better yet, if my Mother in law moves in with us, haw 'bout extending my work bennies to her?
No, I don't. It is yet another step forward towards putting same-sex relationships on an equal footing with heterosexual relationships. However, I would not be opposed to hospital visitation rights.
Why don't you think it deserves to be on equal footing? Isn't love, just love?
Ahhh.......there's that entitlement thing again.......thanks for clarifying.
Fair?
How 'bout extending health benefits to heterosexual couples living together?
Better yet, if my Mother in law moves in with us, haw 'bout extending my work bennies to her?
No, she should be covered under your father-in-law's "bennies" unless your wife doesn't have a dad and is considered a bastard. Wait, isn't that against your beliefs too? I hope she's not.
It appears you are applying "normal" to a whole population. [/quote]
Sorry if you are still dead set on reading more into what I said, then was actually there. Maybe its just the word "normal", should i use fundamentally divergent? I don't want to argue over semantics.
The sole, and overriding purpose of any species on this earth is to procreate. A species can survive catastrophic climatic or geological events, disease and plagues, and even the introduction of a new predatory or parasitic species, as long as that species is reproducing and evolving. In that sense, a member of a species that refuses to, or cannot reproduce is abnormal, irregardless if it has become common place or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001
It's normal for a small percentage of a population to be homosexual. You're arguing that if it occurs once, it's not normal, then expounding on that to say that if every male/female did the same thing, it too would not be normal. No one would argue otherwise on that last one.
I was just trying to illustrate that if it was "normal" the species would cease to exist, so how could it "normal".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001
I also think some people here are confusing "normal" with the actions of the majority. There is no relationship between normal and what the majority of people/animals are doing. I think this whole idea of "normalcy" is meant for people who are not gay feel OK about themselves while establishing something tangible to find wrong with those that are gay.
Normal? Look around. No one is normal. Normal is strange and boy, we are all strange!
The commonality of something does not make it normal to its fundamental purpose for existing.
Indeed, under the behavioral communists' definition of normal, being a white or black male would be "abnormal" since it's not what the majority of humanity is..... or, having blue eyes, or being six foot 5 in height.
They mistake "variation within a population" for discussions on what is "normal" or "abnormal."
Ahhh.......there's that entitlement thing again.......thanks for clarifying.
Fair?
How 'bout extending health benefits to heterosexual couples living together?
Better yet, if my Mother in law moves in with us, haw 'bout extending my work bennies to her?
we're talking about committed relationships between consenting adults when we are promoting benefits for same sex partners. Your MIL may be deserving, but I think that there has to be a limit to what employers should be expected to bear. I resent that you think that same sex partners are just two "buddies" who decide to shack up together. that's an unfair characterization.
Extending bennies to het couples that live together has been explained umpteen times already. They have the right to legally marry already, no excuse for them not to marry if they truly want the benefits and responsibities of marriage.
No, she should be covered under your father-in-law's "bennies" unless your wife doesn't have a dad and is considered a bastard. Wait, isn't that against your beliefs too? I hope she's not.
My father in law died.
Guess that didn't cross your mind.
Your attempt at humor failed miserably.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
