chemdude1232
Active Member
4b "of natural occurrence" fits pretty well. I'm taking "of natural" to mean "from nature" btw.
So gay!!!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
Hopper
Banned
Well, OK, Chem, aint no big-*** deal, either way, and in the "medical" context you are lookin at, it might have a different useage in some contexts.
"I'm taking "of natural" to mean "from nature." OK, and I'm taking "normal" to be a derivative of "norm." Even in medicine and biology, "norm" does not mean "happens, however infrequently."
Just semantics anyway. I just wouldn't have guessed that was your intended meanin, that's all. I wasn't tryin to feign ignorance, as you suggested. Mainly because I didn't think you were tryin to say that EVERYTHING that "happens," outside of the supernatural realm, at least, was "normal."
Last edited:
chemdude1232
Active Member
Agreed - it's not a big deal.
Mathematically, what you say about "norm" not meaning "happens, however infrequently," is true, however there are other disciplines to which "norm" is attributed. The most applicable one here is that of "sexual norm."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_norm
If I'm reading this correctly, the wiki authors do actually take "norm" to mean (in a social attitude sense of the word) "it happens, however infrequently" via the quote "any activity, not otherwise illegal, performed between consenting adults in private."
Really we shouldn't belabor the point of semantics...I just thought you might find the sexual norm article interesting.
Mathematically, what you say about "norm" not meaning "happens, however infrequently," is true, however there are other disciplines to which "norm" is attributed. The most applicable one here is that of "sexual norm."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_norm
If I'm reading this correctly, the wiki authors do actually take "norm" to mean (in a social attitude sense of the word) "it happens, however infrequently" via the quote "any activity, not otherwise illegal, performed between consenting adults in private."
Really we shouldn't belabor the point of semantics...I just thought you might find the sexual norm article interesting.
Hopper
Banned
Well, Chem, while I agree that semantics aren't, and shouldn't be, dispositive of any issue, the underlying issues do go beyond semantics, I figure. NAMBLA, for example, argues vociferiously that pedophilia is "normal," and should therefore be legal. The gay community welcomed NAMBLA as an appropriate group to be included in the general quest for "civil rights," for decades.
"In 1993, the International Lesbian and Gay Association achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's association with ILGA drew heavy criticism, and many gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA."
In case you don't know: "The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States...NAMBLA began in the 1970s following media scrutiny of a "sex ring" of underage boys in Boston and a police raid of Toronto-area gay newspaper The Body Politic for publishing "Men Loving Boys Loving Men...The group stands for the position that age of consent laws unnecessarily criminalize sexual relationships between adults and children, particularly boys....In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, which said: "(1) The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
"In 1993, the International Lesbian and Gay Association achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's association with ILGA drew heavy criticism, and many gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA."
In case you don't know: "The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States...NAMBLA began in the 1970s following media scrutiny of a "sex ring" of underage boys in Boston and a police raid of Toronto-area gay newspaper The Body Politic for publishing "Men Loving Boys Loving Men...The group stands for the position that age of consent laws unnecessarily criminalize sexual relationships between adults and children, particularly boys....In 1980 a NAMBLA general meeting passed a resolution, which said: "(1) The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of-consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
chemdude1232
Active Member
NAMBLA's message contradicts the statement in the sexual norm article that says, "any activity, not otherwise illegal, performed between consenting adults in private," simply because one of the two members that bumps uglies in the NAMBLA-sanctioned unions are underage (i.e., not adults).
Not only does NAMBLA violate sexual norms (as per the article) but they violate judicial law with respect to the underage boy aspect.
Not only does NAMBLA violate sexual norms (as per the article) but they violate judicial law with respect to the underage boy aspect.
I wasn't around at the time but somehow I don't think they paraded interracial couples accross the stage at school, made books about interracial relationships manadatory reading, handed out pamplets showing interracial couples the best way to pleasure each other and I don't think a single city council published a book showing white men what clubs to frequent to get anonymous black nookie.
I'll say it again, there is a vast difference between teaching tolerance vs promotion of an idea. In Mass they are promoting gay relationships.
Hopper
Banned
Laws can be changed, Chem. That's what NAMBLA wants to do and that's the point underlying this whole thread, aint it?
Once again, NAMBLA argues that pederasty is "perfectly normal" (in the sense you used it) and should THEREFORE be legal.
Of course, once it's "legal," that proves it's sumthin to be promoted (and proves it's "normal'). All kinda circular, really.
15-20 years ago gays were in violation of both sexual norms and of judicial law in most of the country. Sodomy laws were common. I suspect that there are a number of states that still have them on the books.
I've seen it said that in 10-15 years the whole gay argument will be my generation's shame just as interracial marriage is my parent's shame. What are you going to do in 20-30 years when your shame is man boy love?
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Commenting specifically on this.
"Because same-sex marriage is “legal”, a federal judge has ruled that the schools now have a duty to portray homosexual relationships as normal to children, despite what parents think or believe!"
Parading it is a different animal altogether. I read "normal" in this instance as "not condemning."
I agree whole-heartedly with this statement.
I thought you were condoning the actions of schools in MA since gay marriage was dubbed legal.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Then I'll live with the fact that it is law, go about my business, and not participate in it.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Of course laws can be changed. In the mean time, NAMBLA members can lobby for law to be written. They may get their day in court too. At that point, we'll all have to sit by the TV and wait for the arguments to be made and the judge to make a decision.
It is circular, sure.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Didn't read that part when I posted. Only skimmed over it now and am kind of "meh" on it.
Hopper
Banned
Herbert Marcuse (to whom the article I cited gives some credit for "***** theory"), was a hard-core Commie and new left theorist with a large and devoted following. He argued that "tolerance," as a general proposition, was abhorrent and "repressive." His argument, in a piece called "Repressive Tolerance," was that general "tolerance" allowed too many things which he and his ilk disapproved of to be deemed "acceptable."
He went on to argue that "tolerance" should in fact be VERY selective, with "progressive" commie ideals being widely promoted, and all contrary views being vigorously supressed (rather than "tolerated'). He, along with commie doctrines distilled in the soviet union in the '20's, has rightfully been given a good deal of credit for establishing, and "enforcing," doctrines of "political correctness."
Of course, to promote their agenda, these types always cynically appeal to naive, well-intentioned notions of tolerance held by anybuddy who might otherwise oppose them.
He went on to argue that "tolerance" should in fact be VERY selective, with "progressive" commie ideals being widely promoted, and all contrary views being vigorously supressed (rather than "tolerated'). He, along with commie doctrines distilled in the soviet union in the '20's, has rightfully been given a good deal of credit for establishing, and "enforcing," doctrines of "political correctness."
Of course, to promote their agenda, these types always cynically appeal to naive, well-intentioned notions of tolerance held by anybuddy who might otherwise oppose them.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
"GLSEN works assiduously to build a wide network of student organizers. It looks for recruits as young as 14, who in turn are to bring on board other students to form gay/straight alliances or other homosexual-themed student clubs at their schools. Glancing over the biographies of 2002’s student organizers reveals a uniform faith among them that experimenting with a range of homosexual behaviors serves the cause of civil rights."
So, I guess I git it, then, eh? If ya don't "experment with a range of homosexual behaviors," then you're just a bigoted, reactionary, facist who don't wanna "serve the cause of civil rights," eh?
So, I guess I git it, then, eh? If ya don't "experment with a range of homosexual behaviors," then you're just a bigoted, reactionary, facist who don't wanna "serve the cause of civil rights," eh?
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Has it occurred to you in this rant you have going that you're freaking out about activist groups? Activist groups do what they do. But they represent the tiniest fraction of the gay community even if they purport to speak for them. It would be like forming an opinion on blacks by pointing out what the NAACP or the Black Panthers do. Or drawing conclusions about Jewish people from the whatever the Anti-Defamation League is up to these days.
The bottom line is you don't like gay people and think there's something wrong with them. All this other crap is just you rationalizing it with a phony smear campaign. And at the end of the day, absolutely nobody should be shocked that a historically persecuted group is not merely interested in tolerance. Like the Irish, Italians, Blacks, Jews, and Women before them, they're not settling for tolerance, nor should they.
Hopper
Banned
As far as I know, bein Irish, Italian, Black, Jewish, or female wasn't never deemed to be a form of mental illness by an association of professional psychiatrists like the APA, eh?
chemdude1232
Active Member
I don't quite see why a group's prior history of being mislabeled as mentally ill has to be the branching point between Irish, Italians, Blacks, Jewish folk, and women vs. homosexuals.
Regardless of your prior posts, billyshelby raised the more overarching point that the aforementioned groups have been historically persecuted, just as homosexuals have been in more recent history. (This isn't even really touching the topic that even IF homosexuals were considered mentally ill, it is deemed by most people in polite society to be even worse to persecute the mentally handicapped.)
Hopper
Banned
Well, Chem, ya know, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. The desire to "reduce social oppression" is admirable, but the rest of the world didn't really agree. The psychiatric manual used by other nations, i.e., the International Classification of Diseases, kept homosexuality on it's list of mental illnesses until 1992.
Since then, more recent research indicates that homosexuals have an abnormally high rate of certain types of mental problems. Here is an excerpt from the respected journal "Archives of General Psychiatry," for example:
"NO TOPIC has caused the field of psychiatry more controversy than homosexuality, and 2 articles in this issue of the ARCHIVES are likely to reopen past controversies and begin new ones. These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder. Preliminary results from a large, equally well-conducted Dutch study generally corroborate these findings." (Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:883-884.)
To the extent they have been "persecuted" it is for their behavior, not their country of origin, religion, or sex. Child molestors like members of NAMBLA consider themselves to be "persecuted" too, and maybe they are, but.....Maybe there are psychological problems associated with homosexuality, maybe there aint. Maybe they have been "persecuted," maybe they aint. To the extent these propositions are true, it aint because they are "Like the Irish, Italians, Blacks, Jews, and Women," that's the point, see?
chemdude1232
Active Member
Do you have access to that article from the Archives? I'll have to wait until tomorrow (when I'm at work and thus have access) to read it. I'd be interested in seeing the section labeled "Potential Explanations," simply because I'd bet a shiny nickel that some of those reasons for emotional pathology would include pressure from society/condemnation from society. If you knew the bulk of society didn't like you for some reason, wouldn't you be depressed and have emotional problems?
I consider billyshelby's point - and the one I'm making - as more of a generality. Persecution is persecution, no matter whether it is catalyzed by race, age, gender, orientation, etc. I'm sure you don't see it that way, but then again that's the beauty of perspective. "Ain't it?" as you'd say.
I consider billyshelby's point - and the one I'm making - as more of a generality. Persecution is persecution, no matter whether it is catalyzed by race, age, gender, orientation, etc. I'm sure you don't see it that way, but then again that's the beauty of perspective. "Ain't it?" as you'd say.