RitterVonRitter (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:44 am I really don't understand the problem with these words.

Eugenics.

When the society regulates certain people into categories of defective and abnormal, the law is not far behind.

The most basic responsibility of any government is to keep its people safe. One way that is done is to imprison and treat those that are deemed defective and abnormal.

Then, it's Eugenics and the world fought for decades to wipe out that kind of thinking.

Gay men being involuntarily castrated to "treat" their homosexuality - many as teenagers. This was happening in the United States as recently as the 1970s. Gay men being given injections of chemicals that make them physically sick when viewing imagines of nude men and encouraged to masturbate to imagines of naked women; that is happening right this minute in so called "repaeritive therapy" all around the world. If the chemicals to make a gay man sick didn't work, shock him with electric shock if he gets an erection while watching gay porn. Again, happening right now.

The point? If government's most important job is to keep its citizens safe and we label gay men and women as defective and abnormal, then government has every right to sanction punishment or treatment to keep the rest of society safe from the defective and abnormal people.

Eugenics would sterilize anyone born with Achondroplasia (dwarfism), Down's syndrome, etc. Why, to keep the rest of society safe from these defective and abnormal people. We want a strong gene pool in the future, right?

It's not that long ago that thinking of certain American citizens as defective lead to their castration. Hey, between being circumcised or castrated without my consent (even though I'd rather take neither), I'd take the circumcision.

I'm gay, I'm not abnormal and I'm not a genetic defect.

Brave gay men and women have rioted in the streets, fought to change laws, filed lawsuits to enforce the law, helped elect governments willing to ensure equal rights and even gained marriage equality rights in many countries. Most would not take kindly to being called abnormal.

I get the resistance to reject the social construct of gender. Hey, the National Hurricane Center received hundreds of thousands of protest letters when they started naming hurricanes with both male and female names. Hurricanes were female and now the government had made them trans-gendered. Today, our society simply accepts that every other named storm is male and female. Society adapted to that change and will here as well. The only question is when will the non-binary riots start.

nulloguy (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:50 am I surely don't think most gay men have the sexual drive of females. Not even close. We are attracted to the same gender is all.

You mean being attracted to a man, just like a woman!

@TopManFL

I hate to tell you - but homosexuality is abnormal. It's what, 10-15% of the population? That is abnormal. Left-handedness, too, is abnormal. I never said that it was automatically bad to be abnormal. You believing such is entirely on you.

Normal:

-conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

-the usual, average, or typical state or condition.

RitterVonRitter (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:37 pm @TopManFL

I hate to tell you - but homosexuality is abnormal. It's what, 10-15% of the population? That is abnormal. Left-handedness, too, is abnormal. I never said that it was automatically bad to be abnormal. You believing such is entirely on you.

Normal:

-conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.-the usual, average, or typical state or condition.

I have followed this thread with interest, and I am pleased it has not become a "flaming mess". It does however seem to have drifted from the title. A eunuch is not necessarily homosexual and the thread has moved towards homosexuality as the key term in the last posts.

Normal is a very poor term to introduce to the discussion as it has many connotations that are unhelpful, it is hard to define "normal" when describing anything with such unclear boundaries. If you do not take care, I am sure you will become embroiled in an argument based on English definitions, statistical meaning, and quantifying how "homosexual"anyone is (since it is clearly a non binary/non linear characteristic).

Abnormal is very provocative and poor term to use in any discussion on social and sexual topics. Even if there is a statistical evaluation of a population, who is to say there is indeed a line to be drawn in the bell curve at any point to define normality, it is a not a quantity you can simply apply a standard deviation too, it is a subjective definition at best and to apply objective and quantitive terms will merely end in expression's of differing opinion and obscure the original topic of discusion

In various past cultures being gay was the most popular thing for most of the males to be. In which case being heterosexual was outside the norm in those cultures. Its very doubtful the genetics of males in those cultures varied greatly from modern day males. This indicates that str8 and gay are more likely cultural inventions than genetic differences.

Modern sex is quickly evolving to be far less based on simple reproduction and more and more based on personal choices of what excites a person. Sex is less and less reproductive in advanced cultures today. The number of sex acts in which producing a baby is the desired goal is a tiny fraction of even heterosexual sex act intentions. Under this very clear fact, reproduction is not the normally desired goal or outcome of the vast majority of sexual acts in any sub group of modern males and females.

Castrated males are therefore not abnormal in enjoying and seeking sexual pleasures in non reproductive forms and neither are male or female homosexuals. Reproductive sex is a fraction of sex for pleasure in modern societies currently.

Also, the ease with which many heterosexual males and females will engage in homosexual sex acts with great enthusiasm in single sex settings such as prisons, military services of the past, shipboard, and in isolated settings away from the opposite sex, indicates that pleasure is the desired goal regardless of genetics.

When the opposite sex becomes available, the formerly homosexual then often return to heterosexual sex as their first preference in sex partners. Just as some people prefer sex with members of their own sex as their first choices. Maroon a gay man on an island of only females and he will likely seek sexual pleasures in his second choice gender.

RitterVonRitter (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:37 pm I hate to tell you - but homosexuality is abnormal. It's what, 10-15% of the population? That is abnormal. Left-handedness, too, is abnormal. I never said that it was automatically bad to be abnormal. You believing such is entirely on you.

Not so fast. Being a minority and being abnormal are not the same thing.

My entire point is that all humans are normal. Are there differences? Sure. There's average and there's normal. A man with a 3" penis has a normal penis even if the average is larger.

By saying that gay people are abnormal became they are 10 to 15% of the population, you are saying any minority is abnormal. In fact, gay men and women making up 10 to 15% of the population of any group is "conforming to the standard, usual, and expected". Again, having a population of 10 to 15% gay men and women is the norm it is "usual, average and the typical state or condition".

It's also perfectly usual, average and a typical state or condition for there to be left handed people.

If redheads, people with blue eyes, men with third nipples, gay men and women, left handed people suddenly stopped being born, that would be abnormal.

I think we've reached the point at which we are failing to communicate and have a fundamental disagreement. It's your opinion that gay men and women are abnormal, I get that. I call it gayphobic. Especially since you don't use the term gay but rather homosexual. Hey, at least you don't use the scientifically BS term SSDD - so , there's hope yet. I say hope springs eternal.

tjstill (imported) wrote: Tue Apr 03, 2018 3:36 pm I have followed this thread with interest, and I am pleased it has not become a "flaming mess". It does however seem to have drifted from the title. A eunuch is not necessarily homosexual and the thread has moved towards homosexuality as the key term in the last posts.

Normal is a very poor term to introduce to the discussion as it has many connotations that are unhelpful, it is hard to define "normal" when describing anything with such unclear boundaries. If you do not take care, I am sure you will become embroiled in an argument based on English definitions, statistical meaning, and quantifying how "homosexual"anyone is (since it is clearly a non binary/non linear characteristic).

Abnormal is very provocative and poor term to use in any discussion on social and sexual topics. Even if there is a statistical evaluation of a population, who is to say there is indeed a line to be drawn in the bell curve at any point to define normality, it is a not a quantity you can simply apply a standard deviation too, it is a subjective definition at best and to apply objective and quantitive terms will merely end in expression's of differing opinion and obscure the original topic of discusion

I read your post after replying my last time. I'm done discussing "normal". As I said in my last point. We're no longer having a failure to communicate, but, rather a disagreement.

For our new member in this thread, let me say this: the ice is getting pretty damn thin, even if this is a cold spring season.

I've gone over this thread, and I will come right out and say that I take personal offense at the initial, and continued use of the word "abnormal".

Let me make one thing clear, Ritter - if you are here to troll, forget it. I find your posts offensive from the get-go, and while we try to be welcoming, I am about an inch away from booting you already. Your posts here are inflammatory.

PERIOD.

This thread goes back to a discussion of what constitutes a third gender, without derogatory comments involved.

That's not what this site is for, and while we're at it - until the Flaming Nun is back in good health and gets her happy ass back to work here, I OWN THIS FUCKING PLACE, SO DON'T FUCK WITH ME!