Alan Keyes, the only true conservative in the race

[Josquin des Prez]

The fact that you are sure of everything does not imply that your opinions have anything to do with reality.  In virtually biological organisms populations are heterogeneous, from bacteria, to yeast, to oak trees, to rabbits, to people.  It is not normal for all individuals to be the same, it is normal for different combination of genes to produces variations.  The fact that homosexuality is a relatively infrequently occurring phenotype does not mean it is deviant or abnormal, it is just part of the variation of the human organism.  It is advantageous for  population to have such heterogeneity, since this allows it to react better to changes in the environment.

The very same argument applies to bodily malformations or inherited medical conditions, some of which can even be fatal. Are those part of the variation of the human organism as well? Do they bring any specific advantage i'm unaware of? I'm sorry, but i'm going to have to reject the argument that homosexuality is merely another human variation, akin to eye color or stature and what not, and i consider any attempt to prove such a theory to be destined to failure in the long run.

Where's the definition of immoral or abnormal coming from? Surely not nature - Nine years ago, Bruce Bagemihl counted 470 species that were known to indulge in same-sex activity - these come from all major animal groups, not just primates and mammals - found in insects, birds etc. etc. Though this is still a small amount of animals, the fact that it has arisen so many times separately rather strengthens the case for it being able to be explained by evolutionary theory... I am assuming that we all are rational enough thinkers to believe in evolution here.

This argument is ineffectual. Humans are just a part of "nature" as any other living being on the planet, so the fact is occurs in the animal world doesn't make it any more natural or normal. At best, it dispels the notion homosexuality is determined by choice and it reinforces the theory i expounded in that CMG thread (in case it wasn't obvious, the poster Anton Webern is non others then yours truly).

     I don't think you can say homosexuality is either normal or abnormal without being more specific about what the meaning of normal is. Are you talking about frequency, or is it a question of certain types of behavior that only a small proportion engages in. Most of the time abnormality has a very negative connotation, so the protestations of innocence by the abnormalists ring hollow to me. If only 2.8% of the population has green eyes, are they abnormal? No one would say so, they would say it's part of normal variation, though comparatively rare. Why not say the same for gays, and leave the abnormality out of it? It's only purpose here is to stigmatize without cost to the accuser: "Hey, I'm just pointing out the facts." No, you're spinning them in a negative direction. That's why you say "abnormal" instead of "rare".

This is the same argument as scarpia and it is just as flawed. Abnormality implies that a particular trait is not functioning as expected. It has nothing to do with how common place it is. It simply implies that an already existing function is acting contrary to the nature of said function. For instance, we do not consider eye color to be an abnormality because it has no relation to the basic function of the eye. However, a birth defect which deprives an individual of the ability to use a limb is considered abnormal because it is expected for a person to be able to use said limb. In the case of homosexuality, it is abnormal because it negates the basic function of the impulse that drives one to sexual intercourse, the purpose of which is procreation.

[Bulldog]

In the case of homosexuality, it is abnormal because it negates the basic function of the impulse that drives one to sexual intercourse, the purpose of which is procreation.

I used to think this way 20 years ago; very restrictive thought-process.  Throw in the different ways that babies can be created these days and what the future holds, and your premise sinks like a stone.

[Josquin des Prez]

Same here, but according to Saul, Josquin Depressed and others, this is the sort of thing I enjoy (apparently).

I won't speak for Saul, but as far as i'm concerned, i made no such claim.

Those who try to use things like photos of fat biker men urinating on each other to demonstrate the "depravity" of homosexuals fail to realize that this brazenness and exhibitionism wouldn't happen (or at least, it would happen only in private situations) if homosexuality wasn't seen as "disgusting, decadent, etc."

Two wrongs don't make a right but i think it is very peculiar that liberals never seem to condemn those type of "punitive" actions against conservative sensibilities, but in fact seem to revel in it and the more extravagant homosexuals seem to get the more we are told to accept this "lifestyle", as if somehow sexual preference dictates behavior and fashion.

[Josquin des Prez]

I used to think this way 20 years ago; very restrictive thought-process.  Throw in the different ways that babies can be created these days and what the future holds, and your premise sinks like a stone.

If a man is born with malfunctioning legs, does the fact technology can offer a perfectly viable remedy make such a condition any less "abnormal"?

[Bulldog]

If a man is born with malfunctioning legs, does the fact technology can offer a perfectly viable remedy make such a condition any less "abnormal"?

Normal/abnormal is your game; I'm not buying into it. 

You apparently consider homosexuality abnormal.  Where do you go with this conclusion?

[Kullervo]

Two wrongs don't make a right but i think it is very peculiar that liberals never seem to condemn those type of "punitive" actions against conservative sensibilities, but in fact seem to revel in it and the more extravagant homosexuals seem to get the more we are told to accept this "lifestyle", as if somehow sexual preference dictates behavior and fashion.

What "punitive" actions are being taken against conservative sensibilities? What are some examples of conservative sensibilities?

The sorts of things shown in that link should be condemned for the simple fact that they are indecent acts being performed in a public place. Like I said before, the tendency to adhere to a stereotyped image such as the ones in the aforementioned link is a group's reaction to oppression. I sincerely hope embarrassments like "pride" rallies, parades, rainbows, etc. will one day go the way of the Black Panther Party, but until this country learns tolerance and moderation (as we see in many European countries), they will still exist.

[scarpia]

The very same argument applies to bodily malformations or inherited medical conditions, some of which can even be fatal. Are those part of the variation of the human organism as well? Do they bring any specific advantage i'm unaware of? I'm sorry, but i'm going to have to reject the argument that homosexuality is merely another human variation, akin to eye color or stature and what not, and i consider any attempt to prove such a theory to be destined to failure in the long run.

It certainly does.  Many gene variants in the gene pool of any higher organism can confer advantages under some circumstances, but can cause problems in others, particularly in a homozygous individual.  The most widely known is sickle cell anemia, which confers resistance to malaria in a heterozygous individual but causes serious health problems in a homozygous individual.  Your pompous rejection of these scientific realities just indicates your inability to understand the issues involved.  The fact that genes which contribute to homosexuality persist in the human gene pool is strong evidence that they confer benefits on the species as a whole, otherwise they would be strongly selected against, given the obvious impediment to their transmission to subsequent generations.

[scarpia]

The sorts of things shown in that link should be condemned for the simple fact that they are indecent acts being performed in a public place. Like I said before, the tendency to adhere to a stereotyped image such as the ones in the aforementioned link is a group's reaction to oppression. I sincerely hope embarrassments like "pride" rallies, parades, rainbows, etc. will one day go the way of the Black Panther Party, but until this country learns tolerance and moderation (as we see in many European countries), they will still exist.

Yes, there are certainly instances of heterosexuals engaging in indecent behavior in public places as well.  The fact that some homosexuals engage in such activities does not differentiate them from the general society.

[Florestan]

this is specifically addressed to florestan

Here's my reply.

Generally speaking, sexuality and its forms are a deeply personal matter. What two --- or more... --- people do in the privacy of their home is no bussiness for other people, much less for the society at large or the government.

In the specific issue of homosexuality though, I firmly believe it to be an abnormality, in the strictly statistical / biological sense.

I do not "oppose homosexuality": a fact cannot be opposed, it can only be noticed. Nor do I despise or hate --- God forbid! --- homosexuals. I love the music of Tchaikovsky and the literature of Proust and I wouldn't mind in the least having homosexual workmates or friends.

What I oppose --- strongly, for that matter --- is using homosexuality as a tool for advancing the "Liberal" agenda of turning the society completely upside down.

I oppose "pride parades" (and I very much doubt that a decent homosexual ever took part in this disgusting exhibitionism). And I strongly object to the theory that they are just reactions to intolerance. In the times of the greatest intolerance against them, no homosexual ever take to the streets to protest. One may argue that they were afraid for their life but this doesn't stand: I am sure that many homosexuals took part in riots, rebellions and revolutions, risking their lives. On the contrary, gay parades appeared and developped in highly tolerant countries, where no legal measures could be taken against them. They might still have aroused moral outrages here and there, but they did not risk anything, except their own decency. Proof to that is the fact that the most "grandiose" and "fastuous" parades take place in Holland, Switzerland and Germany, where according to the aforementioned theory they should not happen at all since there is no intolerance against them. Also, one would expect to see grand reactions in "backward" countries like Poland, Greece or Romania --- but there these parades, if at all, are laughable from the numerical point of view.

I oppose promoting "homosexual lifestyle" in schools, high-schools and universities (this madness went so far in some places as to forbid using words like "mother", "father", "husband" and "wife"). These should be places for education and learning, not for ideological indoctrination.

I oppose homosexual "marriages" (not civil unions, mind you, since this is just a contract between two individuals): marriage is a specifically religious institution anyway, and since most homosexuals are atheists, I really don't see what marriage can mean to them.

I oppose giving homosexuals the right to adopt children and this from a strictly biological / evolutionary POV: since the nature, by the very evolutionary process, has devised a specifical way of having children, i.e. from a man and a woman, any other way would be a violation of the nature; after all, generalized homosexuality would mean the extinction of human race. Moreover, since, as it is claimed, the homosexuality is also an evolutionary result, this means that the very nature intended them not to have children. Still moreover, having and rearing children is something typically heterosexual; it doesn't make any sense for a homosexual to want to behave in a typical heterosexual fashion.

Call me a Conservative, if you will, although I am not: I wouldn't conserve much of the present social and political arrangements, if asked. Call me a Reactionary, if you will, this I am: I react. Some of you may call me a Fascist, if that makes them feel better, this I am not, however, because I abhorr mass movements, uniforms and popular leaders. Bottom line, I am just a man who does not want to see our traditions and heritage gone with the wind and who does not accept that truth should be call lie, white should be call black and war should be called peace.

[Sarastro]

a fascist strongly reminds one of the twin brother of Fascism, i.e. Communism.

You confused communism and totalitarianism. I suggest you to read The Article before making such ignorant statements; this is not the first time you distort facts. It states that the true communism never happened, and the attempts led to totalitarian states. BUT it does not mean that communism itself is meant to be totalitarian, such thing just happened to Russia and China, which had their distinct kinds of communism.

[Sarastro]

I firmly believe it to be an abnormality, in the strictly statistical / biological sense.

In "the strictly statistical / biological sense" many things are abnormal. In the strictly statistical sense listening to classical music is abnormal, so you are such.

[Florestan]

In the strictly statistical sense listening to classical music is abnormal, so you are such.

Of course. I wholeheartedly agree.

[Florestan]

You confused communism and totalitarianism. I suggest you to read The Article before making such ignorant statements; this is not the first time you distort facts. It states that the true communism never happened, and the attempts led to totalitarian states. BUT it does not mean that communism itself is meant to be totalitarian, such thing just happened to Russia and China, which had their distinct kinds of communism.

To Rusia, to China, to Romania, to Poland, to Czechoslovakia, to North Korea, to Vietnam, to Cuba, to the Baltic States, to Hungary, to each and every country who had the pleasure of being taken over by the Communists.

I really don't think that Wikipedia is more authoritative in the matter than The Communist Manifesto of the writings of Lenin, which are as totalitarian in theory as they were in practice.

Saying that "Communism in itself is not totalitarian, only its real incarnations were" is exactly like saying "Tsarism in itself is not authoritarian, only its real incarnations were".

[Sarastro]

its incarnations

I believe, you meant Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism incarnations?

Anyway, here is an image that's just popped on my screen.

[Florestan]

I believe, you meant Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism incarnations?

Ah, I begin to suspect you think Marx himself would have been a sort of Thomas Jefferson.

Anyway, here is an image that's just popped on my screen.

Funny! 

[Sarastro]

Ah, I begin to suspect you think Marx himself would have been a sort of Thomas Jefferson.

I'm just trying to be precise with the terminology. I don't know what Marx was like, do you?

[Florestan]

I'm just trying to be precise with the terminology. I don't know what Marx was like, do you?

I can only inferr from his political writings that, had he been in power, he'd have behaved just as his followers did.

As for Communism that never happened, I remind you the devil's best trick, if you know what I mean.

And after all, whether it happened or not is completely irrelevant. It is in its name and in full agreement with its basic tenets as expressed by its ideologues that thousands of millions of people have been imprisoned, tortured, starved to death, killed and deported and the attempt of making it real brought about ruin and misery for each and every country where this has taken place, with no exception whatsoever. The attempt to build paradise on earth resulted in complete hell and I hold Communism in more contempt than Nazism: at least the Nazi never obscured their goals of domination and enslavement of the world, and committed their heinous crimes accordingly, while Communism acted just as murderous as Nazism while pretending it liberates the world and bring it happiness.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

In the specific issue of homosexuality though, I firmly believe it to be an abnormality, in the strictly statistical / biological sense.

There is more than one way to look at this. A bit of historical/anthropological perspective:

The idea of a "homosexual" as a person (and a "heterosexual" too, for that matter) is quite new (late 19th cent.) and geographically restricted. The notion that you can only play for one team for your whole life is in fact a recent, largely Western idea. Large parts of the world even today do not adhere to this binary scheme of sexuality, and in numerous cultures and civilizations, some form of bisexuality has been the norm. (Ancient Greece is maybe the most famous example, but there are plenty of others.)

So the idea that homosexual behavior is ipso facto abnormal is questionable from both the statistical and biological perspectives.

[Florestan]

The idea of a "homosexual" as a person (and a "heterosexual" too, for that matter) is quite new (late 19th cent.) and geographically restricted.

Geographically restricted it may very well be, but new hardly. The concept of person goes back to the earliest Christian theology and was in full force in the mediaeval theology and philosophy (St. Thomas Aquinas being its most vocal proponent).

in numerous cultures and civilizations, some form of bisexuality has been the norm. (Ancient Greece is maybe the most famous example, but there are plenty of others.)

That is true, but at least in the case of Ancient Greece homosexuality (actually, pederasty, to be precise with terminology, as Sarastro would us to be) was culturally / ideologically promoted and for most of its practitioners was an acquired trait, not a biological one. The percentage of natural-born homosexuals then was no smaller or bigger than it is today.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Geographically restricted it may very well be, but new hardly. The concept of person goes back to the earliest Christian theology and was in full force in the mediaeval theology and philosophy (St. Thomas Aquinas being its most vocal proponent).

I was not referring to the concept of personhood as such, only the idea that one can speak of a person as "a homosexual" or "a heterosexual" - two polarized concepts - as opposed to describing certain acts and feelings - which is how they did it in the Western world until the sexologists came along in the late 1800s, and how they still do it in many countries today.