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.
A person who's intellectually dishonest would be someone who even tries to define the word "normal."
A person who's intellectually dishonest is a person who harbor negative attitudes towards a group of people jsut becausse they don't feel right to them (like whites did to blacks for centuries) and thus goes out of their way to institutionally deny them their basic rights as US citizens and human beings to do as they please.
I'm not trying to define anything. The dictionary does a very good job of that:
normal: Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected
Noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition
To suggest that homosexuality is not a departure from the norm is being dishonest. This does not suggest that homosexuality is wrong, but it is indeed not the norm/usual.
Same with little people. They are aberrant. Doesn't make them bad people; but to suggest that it's not a condition that deviates from the normal is also being intellectually dishonest.
This silly semantics debate again? Normal is somewhat subjective. It doesn't simply mean "of the majority". For instance, despite not being the most common type, having blond hair is normal for a human being. Blond hair is a common type. Being born with purple hair or having a condition such that you never grew hair would be abnormal (or aberrant as you put it).
IDK. Even though I don't consider myself homophobic, and I'm for Gays having the right to marry.
I will say. That Black homophobia has always been around me growing up. Men and women would tease boys if they acted feminine. It was seen as the worst thing you could be is a girly man.
I could assume. That this was passed down because you need strong men to lead your group. Who knows.
I'm not trying to define anything. The dictionary does a very good job of that:
normal: Adjective: Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected
Noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition
To suggest that homosexuality is not a departure from the norm is being dishonest. This does not suggest that homosexuality is wrong, but it is indeed not the norm/usual.
Same with little people. They are aberrant. Doesn't make them bad people; but to suggest that it's not a condition that deviates from the normal is also being intellectually dishonest.
Look at your definition: "A standard", "usual", "typical" - those are all subjective criteria. Blond hair is a standard type of human being, it's usual for a human being to have blond hair, and having blond hair is typical for a human being. The same goes for red hair. Likewise, homosexual is a standard type of human being, it's usual for a human being to be homosexual, and being homosexual is typical for human beings. (side note, there are more homosexuals on Earth than people with red hair).
"Normal" has many dictionary definitions. Here are a few:
1) conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
2)according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm
3)of natural occurrence
4) Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type
5)typical
6)conforming to the standard
Notice all but one (#6) use subjective criteria: a type, a standard, a regular pattern, a norm (as opposed to the type, the standard, the only norm, the regular).
It doesn't make sense to use you're "there is only one normal when describing a human characteristic - specifically the majority or average condition - and everything else is abnormal" definition. If you think about it, it really renders everything abnormal.
Under your system, what's the normal height of a human being? Is it 5'7''? Do we need to get more specific - is it 5'7.5'' or 5'7.53245789''? Is anyone actually the average - or normal - height (doesn't the decimal run on-and-on)? Wouldn't the normal height of a human being be in constant flux as people are born and die (and shrink due to old age, and lose feet in car accidents, etc)? Doesn't it make more sense to have a subjective definition of what normal height is for humans? Perhaps something like anyone within 2 standard deviations of the average heights of a human being is of normal height?
How about eye color? Is brown the only normal eye color? And what is brown? Even among people with brown eyes, isn't each brown a little bit different? So which variation (combination of hue, shade, clarity, opaqueness) of brown is the normal color of a human eye? Doesn't it make more sense to have a subjective definition of what normal eye color is for humans? Perhaps something like any eye color shared by more than 1% of human beings is normal (since it constitutes a common type of human)?
Again though, this is just silly semantics. There's no substantive value in the distinction. (Well, although the anti-gay, and many social conservatives in general, seem to think that if something is abnormal it is morally wrong - they equate the two.)
Firstly it is the misplaced and twisted idea of respect...of what manhood is...A few years ago..I was hanging out with this black drummer out side of a club- a gay guy adored his very beautiful girlfriend - the gay guy like to give her a kiss...The black drummer told the gay fellow - "don't do that" - The gay guy states "I can do what I please" - the quick black drummer tossed the guy into a parked car- twice....I thought the whole thing was shameful - for this guy who was faster - stronger..to knock down the little gay man...Later the black drummer said to me "We don't go for that sort of thing" - I guess what he meant was - it was all important to maintain some sort of presentation of manhood...it seemed that the black guy suffered a great insecurity - Not about homo-sexuality - but about his position and status in society in general...
Black pride can be warped...In Toronto - we do not have gun crime - other than in our black ghettos...where respect - is translated and twisted - They believe that respect is getting people to fear you - sounds like poor fathering or lack of it..
The word phobia - or fear...as in homo-phobia...is really not a fitting term - blacks and others do not fear gays - They just do not want to be associated with them...cos' no matter what a liberal society we are - Gays are still considered a sub-group....an inferiour sect...and blacks have had their fill of being considered inferiours...so they seperate themselves from what they consider a group that might re-perpetuate inferiority - that's just my theory.
I can't believe your bolded part, that is such a sad conclusion that you came up with and it just sounds very stupid.
Where I come from, what the black guy did was called sticking up for his girlfriend. When someone tells you NOT to do something that involves physically contacting someone you are trying to protect ... they might be putting themselves in a situation to get physically TOLD not to do what ever they were already asked NOT to do.
I don't understand or think it is right that you could look at that in any other way. You accuse the black men of being insecure because he did that? That would have happened to ANYONE if they tried to touch the dude's girl after he asked them not to.
I swear, it seems like some of you just aren't familiar with a certain way of life or community because that's just normal in some places: you don't take any **** from anyone, gay or not.
You should check yourself on what you THINK you know about black people. I really mean ask yourself if you've got it all figured out.
Look at your definition: "A standard", "usual", "typical" - those are all subjective criteria. Blond hair is a standard type of human being, it's usual for a human being to have blond hair, and having blond hair is typical for a human being. The same goes for red hair. Likewise, homosexual is a standard type of human being, it's usual for a human being to be homosexual, and being homosexual is typical for human beings. (side note, there are more homosexuals on Earth than people with red hair).
"Normal" has many dictionary definitions. Here are a few:
1) conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
2)according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm
3)of natural occurrence
4) Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type
5)typical
6)conforming to the standard
Notice all but one (#6) use subjective criteria: a type, a standard, a regular pattern, a norm (as opposed to the type, the standard, the only norm, the regular).
It doesn't make sense to use you're "there is only one normal when describing a human characteristic - specifically the majority or average condition - and everything else is abnormal" definition. If you think about it, it really renders everything abnormal.
Under your system, what's the normal height of a human being? Is it 5'7''? Do we need to get more specific - is it 5'7.5'' or 5'7.53245789''? Is anyone actually the average - or normal - height (doesn't the decimal run on-and-on)? Wouldn't the normal height of a human being be in constant flux as people are born and die (and shrink due to old age, and lose feet in car accidents, etc)? Doesn't it make more sense to have a subjective definition of what normal height is for humans? Perhaps something like anyone within 2 standard deviations of the average heights of a human being is of normal height?
How about eye color? Is brown the only normal eye color? And what is brown? Even among people with brown eyes, isn't each brown a little bit different? So which variation (combination of hue, shade, clarity, opaqueness) of brown is the normal color of a human eye? Doesn't it make more sense to have a subjective definition of what normal eye color is for humans? Perhaps something like any eye color shared by more than 1% of human beings is normal (since it constitutes a common type of human)?
Again though, this is just silly semantics. There's no substantive value in the distinction. (Well, although the anti-gay, and many social conservatives in general, seem to think that if something is abnormal it is morally wrong - they equate the two.)
Your comparisons: blonde hair, eye color, etc are not equally comparable. More accurate interpretations of things that deviate from the norm are: little people, Marfan syndrome, physical deformity (ex: elephantiasis). These things deviate from the norm.
Doesn't matter how you attempt to twist the definition and call it subjective. As I said, intellectually honest people, without an agenda, see this clearly.
Yeah, just like I figured: you're an overly sensitive type of person. Because as we see, even on the internet you are asking someone not to "yell" at you. Come on, it's the internet, why would you have go through all that asking someone not to yell at you? LOL Plus, I didn't see that user really yell at you. CAPS are sometimes used for emphasis. Why take things so personally and I say all of this because of your comments earlier in this thread. You act like everyone is against gay people and your sensitivity levels make you over exaggerate it.
I swear, it seems like some of you just aren't familiar with a certain way of life or community because that's just normal in some places: you don't take any **** from anyone, gay or not.
It is obvious that homosexuals are not normal in a lot of ways, including their reasoning.
Right, because modern-day Africans practicing other religions are far less homophobic.
In this case, what you're trying to say (but you don't want to OPENLY) say is that blacks are congenital homophobes. Just say it and get it out of the damn way.
Fine. Then if that's the case, we can't help it. Blame God for making us this way.
As for your core question, the answer is culture. Black culture is slightly different than the larger culture. In some areas the differences are more pronounce. Black culture's view on homosexuality is similar to the view held by the American mainstream culture of the 50s or 60s. The view is religion-based, and to a degree based on the human social response to the unknown, which is to respond with fear and prejudice.
I don't really see much fear from Black people when they are opposed to homosexuality.
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.
