Those aren’t answers. Those are non sequiturs.
Homosexuality is normal to homosexuals. Just like left-handedness is normal to lefties.
If you mean normal as in “not what most people are,” then males are all abnormal, as well.
Kirk
Well, yes, that’s true…sexuality is a fundimental aspect of mankind, and homosexuality is statistically abnormal, but why would it be harmful to the individual/society/the state/the world for there to be more homosexuals than there are now?
Which leaves the poor Queers up Shit’s Creek, of course. Nice liberation you got going there.
Yeah, we’d have the tax and family rights legally enforced. Gays would still be discriminated against, beaten, and even killed because people hate us. It’s illegal now (Except discrimination in some states, though progress seems to be being made there), but it doesn’t stop people from doing it.
Laws can’t dictate how people think of others, and such an intolarant attitude is more likely to reinforce any bigots’ feelings than change them. So again, what use is a victory in court if it doesn’t change the underlying situation?
Why is it rational to be homophobic if homosexuality is socially caused, anyway?
And you’re mistaken- a liberal society has more people that are openly gay because it is safer, but the numbers are the same.
There’s even gay people in places like Afghanistan. If they’re caught, they are crushed by walls and run over by bulldozers. This would be why there’s not going to be a pride parade there anytime soon.
Ah, so we should all strive to be “normal” by your definition.
Let me clue you in. There are a majority of females in this world. Therefore you are not “normal” if you are male. I’d suggest an immediate sex-change operation, so you can be “normal”
I rejoice in being other than normal – and in the friendships of people male and female, young and old, gay and straight, who differ from me. It is in that difference and in the common humanity that binds us despite it that makes such interactions a pleasure.
There is nothing basic about your thinking except the desire to make everybody in the world exactly like you. That is megalomaniac egotism at its height.
Homosexuality IS normal; it just isn’t common. Black folks make up 12 percent of the US population; are they abnormal, or just one segment of the human spectrum? Lefthandedness is also a minority trait; is being a southpaw abnormal?
Free your mind, and your butt will follow.
–Joe Bob Briggs
This is the real world.
This board represents a microcosm of a generally more literate and lingustically skilled lot.
By being a contrarian, don’t you think that amounts to trolling? Or in your twenty-four year old wisdom, do you simply think that you are the only one who exists, leaving the rest of us as figments of your imagination?
Now… as you are twenty-four and in college, I would think logically that the wealth is not yours. Now, you may have access to wealth. You may have quite the trust fund, or perhaps have inherited monies through some unfortunate circumstance.
Regardless… I doubt you earned the money. Your attitude is one of entitlement and selfishness, IMHO. Everything comes easily to you, and thus the concerns of others is of no matter because it does not affect you directly.
I wonder, based solely on your remarks, if you are not out, and if you use your wealth to control the people you sleep with.
Your remarks against the ruling power(also known as the hegemony), do use the same tactics as the most hateful of their ilk.
You’ve spoken openly of your hate, and desire to control the will of others to make it reflect your own. This is, I think, why so many have asked you how old you are. Your remarks come off as the immature rantings of a person who has not gotten beyond the developmental stage of egocentrism.
Were I not needing to get to an appointment now, I would say MUCH more, but let me close with this thought:
By your vehement remarks against the perception of the feminine pronoun being used against you, and your proclimation that you aren’t a “girl,” you support the homophobic hegemony that you claim to so despise. By being focused, in a very hostile fashion, on gender roles you behave no differently than those who oppress you. YMMV.
Let me clear things up here:
I mean that homosexuality is abnormal (don’t know it the cause for h. is biological or social), but I don’t wan’t to outlaw everything that aren’t normal.
I do however think that our leaders should be alowed to prefer that the heterosexual lifestyle are the one we should base our society on. Family, marriage etc.
Western society IS based on heterosexuality. Does that preclude recognizing homosexual unions as well? Why?
OK, finally a clear statement! Now please explain why. How is it in any way to the benefit of society to do this? I understand that homosexuality is “abnormal” in the sense that it is not the norm, but in what definable way does fully endorsing it take anything away from society?
Now we’re getting somewhere. We’ve argued against your broad-brush statements; you now propose a certain standard. Thanks for the clarity (and that is not sarcastic).
Our leaders are allowed, like every other citizen, to have whatever opinions, and preferences in consequence of those opinions, they choose. This would include the one you specified.
The next question, however, is to what extent they should be permitted to legislate that standard into being.
(BTW, what is a “heterosexual lifestyle”? I usually ask this in connection with the homosexual one, but it’s a useful variation. Does Gaudere, a single woman who does not attend church (to the best of my knowledge) and works with her brother IRL, have the same lifestyle as my wife and I do? What about Duck Duck Goose, with a spouse and teenaged children? I see some distinct differences in lifestyle there.)
If legal measures regarding marriage and family are in fact at the heart of your question, as your elliptical comment at the end suggests, then what precisely do you suggest? Why is this appropriate as opposed to other options?
[hijack] I don’t work with my brother. 
Never have, save for when we would collate brochures for a few hours as young children. [/hijack]
I know I’m exagerating but, if it were, say, even 100 years ago, if everyone were homosexual, wouldn’t humanity cease to exist?
So, today at lunchtime, I got lazy and decided that instead of coming home and cooking up something, I’d go to the college cafeteria and get some already prepared food. I’m paying for my meal when one of my classmates (who I already now is an asshole because he’s constantly rude in class, even after damn near everyone in class AND the teacher have told him to show some freaking manners) is having a rather loud conversation with one of his pals right behind me in line. The following conversation ensues:
Pal-o-Asshole: Hey, you’re acting like you hate me.
Asshole: Maybe I do hate you.
PoH: What for?
A: Because you’re gay.
Me: HEY! KEEP IT DOWN! I can’t hear the cashier over your crap!
A & PoH: <stunned silence>
WTF? Are we back to that juvenile ostracizing of people again? In college?
Well, assuming that, 100 years ago, every one was homosexual and never had sex with the opposite sex, yeah, probably. However, no matter how accepting a society is of homosexuality, that’s not going to happen. The majority of men like having sex with women, and the majority of women like having sex with men.
To make a comparison, we don’t, as a society strongly condemn celibacy. A person who never has sex is probably not going to be discriminated against, or harassed, or suffer from discrimination, and, if everyone was celebate, humanity would cease to exist. However, in spite of the fact that society doesn’t condemn celibacy or virginity, the majority of the population does have sex sometime in their life.
This assumes that all homosexuals do not want children, or that none are capable of having them. I dont think either is true.
Dr. Lao: It’s also leaving out the whole issue (sorry about the pun) of bi-sexuals who obviously can end up with children from engaging in that behaviour!
I would think that, yes, it’s ok to be homophobic, that’s your right.
But, one can’t discriminate.
The problem is, if you are truly homophobic, you’d HAVE to discrimate.
If you were in a position to hire someone that you had to work with, a homosexual applies for the job and you don’t give him that job because you don’t think that you can work with that person because of their homosexuality - that would be discrimination.
But, I understand that if you were truly homophobic, you just couldn’t physically work with that person.
It would be like any other phobia. If you had a phobia about spiders and a spider came to you for a job and you didn’t give it to him because he was a spider, that’s descrimination too but it’s understandable because of your phobia to spiders.