Richard Ellis wrote:
> On 2007-09-06 10:37:00 +0700, Douglas
cox.net> said:
> >>
>>
>> Richard Ellis wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-09-04 22:35:21 +0700, Rufus Opus
gmail.com>
>>> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am I? OK... I am sure you are right.
>>>
>>
>> Yes you are.
>
>
> I am sure you think so.
>
Heh, why did you snip the above when it references what is
being discussed here? I'd say that is fairly dishonest of
you.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I merely point out that Tom isn't quite
>>>>> normal. And yes, I do think tht is OK to do. if it's OK with you. And
>>>>> if it isn't Ok with you in fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is "normal" to mean heterosexual white anglo saxon protetant?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, normal generally means the those falling in the range of + or -
>>> a defined number of standard deviations from the mean. As I recall.
>>>
>>
>> Heh, normal is nothing more than average besides the fact that people
>> have a tendency to not tell the complete truth in certain kinds of
>> surveys... particularly Geriatrics and Sex and Homosexuality. Look
>> up recent studies and you might learn something but I doubt you have
>> any interest in learning from your posts here.
>
>
> So post some Douglas. Don't just talk, do...
>
When you start to post some evidence I'll be sure to do so
as well since I've already done so in this post and you have
yet to in any post of yours that I have read. You have yet
to post any evidence for your claim that I replied to above.
Do unto others and all that crap, dick.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In point of fact, bi-sexuality, homosexuality, and heterosexuality are
>>>> all normal modes of human sexual expression. It's even (gasp) found in
>>>> other animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yah. Sure they are. I assume you can provide scientific evidence to
>>> support your essertion that homosexuality or bisexuality are normal?
>>>
>>
>> Natural Geographic provides some info:
>>
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
>>
>>
>> "It will take a long time before such ideas reach the mainstream. But
>> Vasey sees Bagemihl's "exhaustively and meticulously researched" book
>> as a watershed. "His work will make it increasingly difficult for
>> anyone to write off the whole idea of homosexuality in animals."
>
>
> erm, I hate to be a party pooper, but where does it say that same-sex
> sexuality in animals is normal? In fact, where does it give any
> incidence rates or other statistice at all?
>
The article reveals two animal species that naturally engage in
homosexual behavior. How do you explain that? It seems you think
that National Geographic is full of shit... got any statistics to
prove otherwise?
> Just makes you feel goog that you aren't alone does it?
>
I have no problems being alone and actually prefer it at
times.
> Correct me if I am wrong but you havent made any point at all in respect
> of the normalcy or otherwise of homosexual behaviour in humans. Or did I
> miss it? Just self-justifying froth I suspect.
>
"Will S wrote:
"It seems to me that by bringing in the vague terms 'normal' and
'abnormal' you are fogging the issue. If you want to express moral
approval or disapproval, then fine - you are right to do so. But it's
best if you use appropriate terms like 'good' and 'bad'. Then it's clear
where you stand".
The definition of what is normal and what is abnormal in Medicine is
usually devoid of any moral, religious, or legal connotations, and is
based on scientific grounds that vary only according to the progress
made in the field.
Thus, for an Internist, normal is what is Physiological, and abnormal is
Pathological.
For a Psychiatrist things are more complicated since normal human
behaviour is difficult to define (Psychiatry is indeed one of the least
"scientific" branches of Medicine, and the brain is still the last
frontier), and so is human sexual behaviour. One may be tempted to say
that normal is what is "natural", ignoring the fact that many animals
practice homosexuality, rape, and incest (eg. Bonobo monkeys) when they
don't kill and eat their male partner.
Therefore, unfortunately, definition of what is an abnormal human sexual
behaviour has varied with the zeitgeist and, in particular, with the
morals and religious attitudes of the times, and this is particularly
relevant for homosexuality.
Nowadays, homosexuality is considered a variant in the spectrum of
normal sexual behaviour not because new discoveries or experiments have
shown that it is so, but because the mental attitudes have changed, and
whatever happens sexually between two(or more) mutually consentient
adults in their privacy is physiological, morally (if still not
religiously) acceptable and legal. It is true, as you write, that
violence may intervene between hetero- and homosexual partners but,
unless you consider violence as normal human behaviour, it is immoral,
abnormal an illegal, and is called Rape.
OK?"
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=22470&start=125&st=0&sk...
You are hung up on your own definition of "normal" it appears
discounting rational definitions in relation to science.
>
>
>
> And not a statistic anywehere.
>
Statistics are not everything. Surely they don't do anything
to support your view of magick.
>
>
> Nope, not here either.
>
51 species... still can't account for why it is natural behavior
with these species.
Once again you provide nothing that refutes the article.
>
>>
News-Medical.Net
>>
>> Add our medical news to Google Add our medical news to del.icio.us -
>> 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality Add our medical news to
>> digg - 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality Add our medical
>> news to NewsVine - 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality Add
>> our medical news to blinkbits - 1,500 animal species practice
>> homosexuality Add our medical news to BlinkList - 1,500 animal
>> species practice homosexuality Add our medical news to blogmarks -
>> 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality Add our medical news to
>> co.mments - 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality Add our
>> medical news to Fark - 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
>> Add our medical news to Furl - 1,500 animal species practice
>> homosexuality Add our medical news to Ma.gnolia - 1,500 animal
>> species practice homosexuality Add our medical news to Netvouz -
>> 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality Add our medical news to
>> Shadows - 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality Add our medical
>> news to Simpy - 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality Add our
>> medical news to YahooMyWeb - 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
>>
>> "1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
>> Medical Science News
>> Published: Monday, 23-Oct-2006
>> Print - 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
>>
>> Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among
>> herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same
>> gender sex."
>>
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718>
>
>
> Nor here. Not a one.
>
You still provide nothing in the way of statistics to prove your
point whatsoever. Hell, not even an article or anything other
than your blowhard word.
>
>
>
>
> lets see you address the point that was actually being discussed. And
> some serious support for whatever point you think you are trying to make
> would prevent you looking pretty silly Douglas.
>
Heh, you are doing a fine job of looking pretty silly yourself dick.
You posted: "No, normal generally means the those falling in the range
of + or -
>>> a defined number of standard deviations from the mean. As I recall."
Heh, just your word here... nothing to back it up as usual. Can you
even come up with one article from a respected scientific,
anthropoligical or medical site, journal that supports your
veiwpoint?
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you protest same sex marriages, beat down gays at the park, preach
>>>>>> that AIDS is a punishment from God while you're at it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now having byuilt a straw man, you proceed to address it and not the
>>>>> point I actually made. You are engaging in political correctness at
>>>>> its
>>>>> most insidious. Get over yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having exposed you as the bigot you are and hyperbolized it to make a
>>>> point, you dodge and weave to avoid the uncomfortable fact that you're
>>>> a homophobic troglodyte.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL. Homophobic. Troglodite. Is that really the best you can do when
>>> trying to insult me? You will have to do better than that...
>>>
>>
>> It was a decent description that fits quite well.
>
>
> Evidence? Silly boy. Or does do you feel threatened by anyone who takes
> a rational and normal approach to sexuality? Seems you feel the
> compulsion to automatically insult and denigrate so you dont have to
> actually address the point which was made.
>
These days your approach isn't close to natural or rational
given the consistant observation of animals in the wild or
humans in modern society.
Your point is not supported by nothing other than your word
and that of homophobic dolts who are stuck in Victorian morality.
Please do try to do what you ask of others.
> Since I am sure you would have provided evidence that homosexuality or
> bisexuality is normal, one assumes there isn't any, in which case, you
> would be better advised to practice that hermetic discipline of
> remaining silent.
>
Consistant observation of animals in the wild supports my
point but you have yet to supply one shred of evidence to
the contrary.
You would do well to take your own advice but I doubt you
ever will.
>
>
> I sure hope someone teaches you how to tidy your posts up Douglas.
>
Heh, hopefully one day you will update your viewpoint to
include the whole of the last 50 years research into
homosexual behavior.
>>>
>>> Are you Toms gay lover?
>>
>>
>> Heh, you are the one that probably wants to be... your sort of
>> bashing is a tell-tale sign of repressed homosexuality.
>>
>> -Douglas
>
>
> Ah, the old 'projection' ploy is it? I can see a London bus is dirty so
> it means I need washing. Is that right Douglas?
No projection whatsoever... I have no fear of homosexuality... but
you obviously do.
Heh, probably just your glasses that need washing... but you
are not bright enough to consider such.
>
> A bit wimpy for a serious argument...
Heh, says the fucktard that doesn't supply one shred of
evidence to support his own viewpoint... just more
blowhard anti-gay propaganda.
Try again dick.
-Douglas
