You don't get it, probably never will. What one person see's as normal, another may not.
Simple question, if you don't think something is normal, are you bashing it? At what percentage rate would you consider particularly behavior normal?
I just get a kick out of you holier than people who proclaim their wisdom but I can't help but wonder if you practice what you preach.
Doc has the balls to admit what he thinks, and he takes the time to respond, even though you may not agree with it. But you and others are better than that, I know.
Likewise, I don't think being a homosexual is "normal" for human beings in nature, and yet you and Tim say I'm bashing gay people, yet you have NO clue some of the social relationships I CHOOSE to have with people and why.
Your premise is flawed though... you're equating inter-species sexual relations with same species but same sex sexual relations and/or attraction.
As far as The Doc goes, you obviously haven't been around long enough if you're praising him for speaking his mind... I'm the king of that around here, and let's just say that I've probably upset more people than Dana, just for different reasons. I'm also curious as to who exactly is, "holier than thou". It seems to me that the only one preaching their agenda and talking about their hatred for people is the Doc. I've also responded to damn near everything that's been directed towards me... just because it doesn't fit in your timeline doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. You seem to think that your questions and comments deserve special attention... and hell, nothing says that anyone even has to dignify your statements with a response if we don't feel like it.
I also never stated that you were bashing gay people, so perhaps you need to pay better attention to what is actually said. I'll even post it again for you, and highlight a very important word, just in case you can't quite understand what I actually said.
Those statements could very easily be taken as you bashing homosexuals... despite your claims and attempts to justify your comments by saying there's nothing wrong with being homosexual.
See, I stated that your comments
could have been taken in a way that made it seem like you were bashing homosexuals. I did not state that you
were bashing homosexuals. While the two statements and concepts are similar, they are also distinctly different...
You've claimed that homosexuality is abnormal, while implying that heterosexuality is the only thing that can be considered normal. Your claim seems to be predicated upon the fact that homosexuals account for a distinct minority among the entire population of the world. In which case, Tim's illustration about redheaded people is completely valid. Let's say that 5% of the population of the world have red hair, while 35% have black hair, 30% have brown hair and 30% have blonde hair; based on your own logic, people with red hair are abnormal. The problem is that you've dismissed that argument, while clinging to the one that states homosexuality is abnormal simply because of percentages. Additionally, you only dismissed that argument because it wasn't directly related to the discussion of homosexuals, despite the very obvious parallels between the two. I can only surmise that this is because you didn't want to admit that your logic is patently flawed. You can't pick and choose here, if you're going to come to a conclusion based on a specific set of parameters for one equation, then you need to use the same parameters to reach a conclusion for another equation.
Additionally, why is it okay for use the argument of zoophilia to prove your point, while it isn't acceptable to use the example of red headed people?
eek
