Treating Gay People

[pongo]

The word 'deviant' only has meaning in terms of what is 'normal'. It is a relative description.

 

To describe something as 'deviant' is to express a subjective opinion - relative to what you consider to be normal.

 

I am not disputing your definition of 'deviant'. Rather I am disputing your understanding or interpretation of that definition.

[Evil Goblin]

The word 'deviant' only has meaning in terms of what is 'normal'. It is a relative description.

 

To describe something as 'deviant' is to express a subjective opinion - relative to what you consider to be normal.

 

I am not disputing your definition of 'deviant'. Rather I am disputing your understanding or interpretation of that definition.

In this context the meaning of "deviant" is not expressing a subjective opinion - it is stating a matter of fact. My understanding and interpretation is backed by facts, not opinions. As I've already asked - can we have some reasoned views rather than this emotional twaddle?

[pongo]

In this context the meaning of "deviant" is not expressing a subjective opinion - it is stating a matter of fact. My understanding and interpretation is backed by facts, not opinions. As I've already asked - can we have some reasoned views rather than this emotional twaddle?

 

I am not expressing emotional twaddle. I have no emotional attachment to this subject.

 

Quote your OED definition of the word 'deviant' and then explain how it is appropriate to what you are trying to say. Demonstrate that you are using the word to express anything other than a subjective opinion.

[manshimajin]

I cannot see that it is anyone elses concern as to what consenting adults decide to do sexually - there are far more serious things to be concerned about in our short lives like global warming, business ethics, whether drugs should be legalised or not, whether young people should be allowed to drive high-powered cars, whether motorbikes (ridden by suspect blokes dressed in leather) should be banned from the Island, whether high-fat food should be outlawed, the millions wasted on runways etc etc... Live and let live.

 

For those who are concerned about elephants:

 

Gay Elephant

 

I recall from life in Poland that the Law & Justice Party mentioned in the article was full of intolerant, embarrassing and ignorant BOFs who were happy to be in coalition with a Party that actively practiced sexual harrassment and diversion of public funds - no wonder one of them is blowing like a steam-whistle about the poor pachyderm. Just couldn't happen to nicer people.....

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The word 'deviant' only has meaning in terms of what is 'normal'. It is a relative description.

 

To describe something as 'deviant' is to express a subjective opinion - relative to what you consider to be normal.

 

I am not disputing your definition of 'deviant'. Rather I am disputing your understanding or interpretation of that definition.

In this context the meaning of "deviant" is not expressing a subjective opinion - it is stating a matter of fact. My understanding and interpretation is backed by facts, not opinions. As I've already asked - can we have some reasoned views rather than this emotional twaddle?

 

But this does all boil down to your opinion that homosexuality should be removed IF a gene existed and could be eradicated. You haven't explained why though. Interested to hear the logic of your homophobia.

[Roger Smelly]

[yootalkin2me]

If any males like fish sticks then they are a gay fish cos they like "fish dicks"....and they like putting fish sticks in their mouths....

 

 

 

fish sticks when spoken sound like fish dicks.....

 

 

courtesy of South Park

 

 

That is all, thank you and goodnight

[Evil Goblin]

EXAMINATION PAPER – QUESTION 1

 

“Quote your OED definition of the word 'deviant' and then explain how it is appropriate to what you are trying to say. Demonstrate that you are using the word to express anything other than a subjective opinion.”

 

Pongo – definition of “deviant” from the OED: “that deviates from the normal”. Further, OED definitions of “normal” are “free from mental or emotional disorder” and “the usual state” or “conforming to a standard, regular, usual, typical”.

 

It logically follows that homosexuality is abnormal and therefore is quite accurately described as “deviant”. The logic runs like this:

 

The Human Species (let’s accept that it exists although there is reason to believe there is no such thing really as a species) is a Life Form;

One of the necessary characteristics of any life form is that it reproduces;

The Human Species is bisexual i.e. it requires copulation between males and females for reproduction to occur;

The physiological, emotional and natural function of sexual attraction is to encourage copulation (and hence reproduction) between males and females;

Therefore the norm is for emotional and sexual attraction to be between males and females;

Therefore homosexuality is not the norm and is deviant.

 

QED

 

“But this does all boil down to your opinion that homosexuality should be removed IF a gene existed and could be eradicated. You haven't explained why though. Interested to hear the logic of your homophobia. “

 

LDV - why do you consider I am homophobic? Have I advocated persecution of homosexuals? I am simply suggesting that as and when our technology is capable we use it to remove an abnormality which serves no useful purpose. This does not involve causing suffering to anyone.

[pongo]

Hello Evil Goblin.

 

The Human Species is bisexual i.e. it requires copulation between males and females for reproduction to occur;

The physiological, emotional and natural function of sexual attraction is to encourage copulation (and hence reproduction) between males and females;

Therefore the norm is for emotional and sexual attraction to be between males and females;

 

Your logic is flawed is as follows:

 

Clearly copulation is required between males and females in order for reproduction.

 

Clearly sexual attraction between males and females therefore promotes reproduction.

 

However it does not logically follow that sexual attraction or emotional attachments between people of the same sex are either abnormal in scientific terms - or that same sex attraction does not serve some core social function. You simply have no way of knowing and your definition of the 'norm' remains subjective and impossible to quantify.

 

The successful survival of a group or society is not only about its ability to reproduce. You are over-laying science with assumption.

[Evil Goblin]

"However it does not logically follow that sexual attraction or emotional attachments between people of the same sex are either abnormal in scientific terms - or that same sex attraction does not serve some core social function. You simply have no way of knowing and your definition of the 'norm' remains subjective and impossible to quantify."

 

Come on, Pongo, you can surely to better than this, which is just like saying (before the development of science enabled us to settle the matter) that the moon was made of green cheese! Although at one time it was not provable that it wasn't no-one was idiotic enough to actually believe it was made of green cheese!

 

"The successful survival of a group or society is not only about its ability to reproduce. You are over-laying science with assumption."

 

In the end, no success in achieving an adequate level of reproduction = extinction. Everything else is a "bolt-on". If you could make a serious case as to how homosexuality confers survival likelihood on the overall species you might have a case. Otherwise you don't.

 

As before, you are adopting an argument totally unsupported by any logic at all. Marks - One out of Ten (for effort).

[Sebrof]

Evil Goblin

 

Surely the great problem here is that once you label a group of people "deviant" or "abnormal", they then become targets for discrimination - and worse. So, although you may logically be correct in calling homosexuals deviant (because their sexuality deviates from the norm required for reproduction), it is not helpful in our imperfect society to labour the point.

 

Many of the world's greatest artists have been homosexual, and in my view the world would be a poorer place without these "deviants".

 

S

[Slim]

It logically follows that homosexuality is abnormal and therefore is quite accurately described as “deviant”. The logic runs like this:

The Human Species (let’s accept that it exists although there is reason to believe there is no such thing really as a species) is a Life Form;

One of the necessary characteristics of any life form is that it reproduces;

The Human Species is bisexual i.e. it requires copulation between males and females for reproduction to occur;

The physiological, emotional and natural function of sexual attraction is to encourage copulation (and hence reproduction) between males and females;

Therefore the norm is for emotional and sexual attraction to be between males and females;

Therefore homosexuality is not the norm and is deviant.

 

To follow that flawed logic through, all non-reproductive sex is also deviant because the only normal form of sex is for reproduction? If you're a heterosexual and use contraception, you're a deviant?

[Chinahand]

Evil Goblin wants to insist that deviant and abnormal are fine factual terms, while rare or even priviledged cannot be used - tell me Evil Goblin why aren't these terms synonyms in this context - or is your bombast really based on "facts" - lets hear them.

 

He's obssessed with biological reproduction and ignores the fact that human society and evolution are more complex than we can imagine.

 

The idea that someone with homosexual preferences cannot reproduce is a subjective nonsense. The idea that an evolutionary strategy which reduces reproductive success, but increases evolutionary advantages elsewhere cannot be fixed into a population would get someone failed from an GCSE biology class - worker ants and peacocks spring to mind!

 

I agree that these biological issues are in many ways irrelevent. Whether we are animals or not we have morals and standards which try to overcome our origins.

 

Calling people abnormal or deviant is simply impolite and unnecessary. It demeans and marginalizes a group who have been affected by prejudice.

 

You don't go around calling red heads abnormal or deviant, I see no reason for Evil Goblin to insist he's being nothing but factual using such terms towards homosexuals. He's being rude - and wants to justify it.

[jimbms]

You don't go around calling red heads abnormal or deviant.

I think that is more out of common sense, experience and a need to survive.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You don't go around calling red heads abnormal or deviant.

I think that is more out of common sense, experience and a need to survive.

 

That statement just comes across as 'That's just the way it is' but doesn't say much more. Can you please explain what you mean?