Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[Charles Kozierok]

VERY Valid points that will not have a legitimate counter. Guaranteed.

Posted seven minutes after zsedersw gave a very valid counter-argument. Typical.

The issue isn't what's normal or abnormal. Sexual desires are what they are and they cannot be changed. Many people, gays and straights alike, have sexual desires and interests that some people would consider "abnormal".

 

[zsdersw]

Posted seven minutes after zsedersw gave a very valid counter-argument. Typical.

The issue isn't what's normal or abnormal. Sexual desires are what they are and they cannot be changed. Many people, gays and straights alike, have sexual desires and interests that some people would consider "abnormal".

Yes, many things are abnormal. The idiocy of s0me0nesmind1, for example, is very abnormal.

 

[Throckmorton]

She might have a bit of a point about there being listless young men and thus more disjointed family units. There does seem to be a trend of young men not really having a great sense of purpose versus in the past. I have no idea what gay people getting married has to do with that though. The posted rant seemed more like she was focusing on blaming porn, beer and video games. Hobbies, drinking and masturbation have all been available to men in some form or the other since the dawn of civilization so I don't put a whole lot of stock in that theory though.

Maybe we're not dumb enough to be so eager to waste our lives anymore.

What is the point of getting married and having a family and giving up everything you like? It's not special. Almost everyone does it. You can have your minivan and nagging wife and bratty kids.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yes, many things are abnormal. The idiocy of s0me0nesmind1, for example, is very abnormal.

The fact that the victim (animal or child) can't or doesn't know how to say no does not make an argument for or against - neither does it even address the point which is asking why it exists

But nice try. Wait - just kidding, that was a horrible try with no argument to the point :thumbsup:

Also, your post was edited and had 0 argument until edited thereafter, derp derp.

 

[zsdersw]

The fact that the victim (animal or child) can't or doesn't know how to say no does not make an argument for or against

Yes it does. Actions that someone cannot say no to are harmful. Harmful acts are abnormal because most people do not like them.

- neither does it even address the point which is asking why it exists

Asking why it exists is no more pertinent of a question than asking why you exist. It does, you do, that's really all there is to say about it. We shouldn't deny the existence of very abnormal things, but we also shouldn't be overly concerned about them.

But nice try. Wait - just kidding, that was a horrible try with no argument to the point :thumbsup:

The disapproval of someone who wouldn't know a good argument if it bit them in the ass... hardly something worth anyone caring about.

Also, your post was edited and had 0 argument until edited thereafter, derp derp.

Wrong.

EDIT: The edit was to add the paragraph about beastiality/pedophilia, etc. The paragraph before it was quite valid and legitimate.

EDIT: You also arrogantly claim that no legitimate argument can be made for the "Very valid points" made by Rob M. You are not the adjudicator of what is and is not a legitimate argument, given the idiocy of many of your posts.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yes it does. Actions that someone cannot say no to are harmful. Harmful acts are abnormal because most people do not like them.

The government says that I can't say no to school. Is that harmful? EXCELLENT LOGIC WATSON! (or lack there of)

Asking why it exists is no more pertinent of a question than asking why you exist. It does, you do, that's really all there is to say about it. We shouldn't deny the existence of very abnormal things, but we also shouldn't be overly concerned about them.

You somehow find that you have the answer to the existance of homosexuality just by the fact that there has been homosexual sex in the past. Yet your flawed close-minded point of view justifies what you do - but not what others do :lol:

No surprise this comes from a liberal. You guys have a patent on failed logic.

The disapproval of someone who wouldn't know a good argument if it bit them in the ass... hardly something worth anyone caring about.

Wrong.

Quoted for emphasis - you try to correlate completely off-topic comments to any valid point. It's beautiful.\

Wrong. The edit was to add the paragraph about beastiality/pedophilia, etc. The paragraph before it was quite valid and legitimate.

... THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT you dolt the correlation that you find homosexuality acceptable, but you don't find pedo/beastiality acceptable. Hence your failed logic of being brainwashed by society media standards - thanks for proving the point lulz.

 

[Retro Rob]

Posted seven minutes after zsedersw gave a very valid counter-argument. Typical.

The issue isn't what's normal or abnormal. Sexual desires are what they are and they cannot be changed. Many people, gays and straights alike, have sexual desires and interests that some people would consider "abnormal".

You guys are great at dodging questions and mis representing me. I was speaking scientifically, not from a social standpoint and you both know that.

Of course, it is abnormal from both standpoints to have a sexual interest in animals. Why, then, is it abnormal for humans to have sex with animals if we're, as z put it, "animals"? Pedophiles are abnormal and are subject to psych evals. But scientifically, they should be normal too because as you say, sexual desires are normal. They may have a inborn sexual interest in kids.

Wait... but that's sick! Some may say and I agree. But since sexual desires are "normal", who are we to subject normal people to psych evals? Animal sex would subject people to the same, but sex with persons of the same sex is somehow "different".

Science is doing a good job of giving people excuses.

 

[zsdersw]

The government says that I can't say no to school. Is that harmful? EXCELLENT LOGIC WATSON! (or lack there of)

I'd say it is harmful.. to the freedom of your parents to decide what is best for you.

You somehow find that you have the answer to the existance of homosexuality just by the fact that there has been homosexual sex in the past. Yet your flawed close-minded point of view justifies what you do - but not what others do :lol:

No surprise this comes from a liberal. You guys have a patent on failed logic.

Justification for activities between consenting adults is not required. Justification for activities with a person/animal/thing that either cannot give or doesn't know how to give consent is required in our system of government.

... THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT you dolt the correlation that you find homosexuality acceptable, but you don't find pedo/beastiality acceptable. Hence your failed logic of being brainwashed by society media standards - thanks for proving the point lulz.

I don't find it unacceptable because of some arbitrary standard of social approval. I find them unacceptable for legal and medical/psychological reasons.

 

[zsdersw]

Of course, it is abnormal from both standpoints to have a sexual interest in animals. Why, then, is it abnormal for humans to have sex with animals if we're, as z put it, "animals"? Pedophiles are abnormal and are subject to psych evals. But scientifically, they should be normal too because as you say, sexual desires are normal. They may have a inborn sexual interest in kids.

Actions are different from desires.

Wait... but that's sick! Some may say and I agree. But since sexual desires are "normal", who are we to subject normal people to psych evals? Animal sex would subject people to the same, but sex with persons of the same sex is somehow "different".

Science is doing a good job of giving people excuses.

Sex is an act that is performed between consenting adults, be they homo-, hetero-, or bi-sexual. That's what's different about it.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So there is justification between 2 consenting adults for helping another commit suicide?
So there is justification for 2 insider corporate executives cheating for gain of money at the cost of tax payers?

Your ENTIRE concept of justification is what the liberal media justifies. You are clearly more brainwashed than anyone. The concept of thinking for yourself is dead in the water for you. this isn't about what our government/media justifies. It's about what our species, genetics, and evolution were meant for us to do.


You don't find them unacceptable on social approval? Who the fuck do you think runs/dictates what is acceptable on legal, medical, and psychological reasons? LULZ!

 

[Retro Rob]

Actions are different from desires.



Sex is an act that is performed between consenting adults, be they homo-, hetero-, or bi-sexual. That's what's different about it.

Legally yeah it's different, but scientifically, sexual desires are normal and "cannot change" and should be treated as such. Period. No no more evaluating pedophiles and beastiality scientifically.

Actions and desires are different. Thank you for saying that.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You guys are great at dodging questions and mis representing me. I was speaking scientifically, not from a social standpoint and you both know that.

Honestly, no, I do not understand the distinction you are trying to make between "social" abnormality and "scientific" abnormality.

Wait... but that's sick! Some may say and I agree. But since sexual desires are "normal", who are we to subject normal people to psych evals? Animal sex would subject people to the same, but sex with persons of the same sex is somehow "different".

The brutally true answer is that what's considered sufficiently abnormal to require "treatment" and what's consider simply "alternative" is mostly based on social norms, not science.

And those norms do change.

As just one example, look at all the outrage in our society over other societies marrying grown men to teenaged girls. But that was done routinely in Western culture as well, not that long ago.

 

[nehalem256]

Sex is an act that is performed between consenting adults, be they homo-, hetero-, or bi-sexual. That's what's different about it.

This is merely your animalphobic definition of sex.

The only difference is you find sex with animals to be icky.

 

[zsdersw]

So there is justification between 2 consenting adults for helping another commit suicide?

I'd say that if such consent can be proven to have been given without threat or coercion, yes, there is justification.

So there is justification for 2 insider corporate executives cheating for gain of money at the cost of tax payers?

That's not justified because someone else (taxpayers) are harmed.

The basic concept is that we are each free up to the point of infringing upon someone else's freedom.

It's about what our species, genetics, and evolution were meant for us to do.

Who divines that? Our species, genetics, and evolution have not eliminated homosexuality.. so that would suggest it is something that is meant to be a part of us as a species.

You don't find them unacceptable on social approval? Who the fuck do you think runs/dictates what is acceptable on legal, medical, and psychological reasons? LULZ!

Lots of things are socially acceptable that are not legal or healthy from a medical or psychological perspective. Smoking pot, for example, is something that is becoming more and more socially acceptable, yet it is not healthy or acceptable from a medical point of view.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Like I said, close-minded, brainwashed by the media. Emphasis proven in just a few posts.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Like I said, close-minded, brainwashed by the media. Emphasis proven in just a few posts.

Perhaps you could stop acting like an asshole and try engaging in discussion. Who knows, you might even learn something.

 

[zsdersw]

The only difference is you find sex with animals to be icky.

I don't, I just choose not to participate in it because it is not a sexual desire of mine.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Who divines that? Our species, genetics, and evolution have not eliminated homosexuality.. so that would suggest it is something that is meant to be a part of us as a species.

Who defines that? Our species, genetics, and evolution have not eliminated beastiality, pedophilia, or fucking the dead. So that would suggest it is something that is meant to be a part of us as a species.


Once again, your posts only prove my point more and more. Thank you

 

[zsdersw]

Legally yeah it's different, but scientifically, sexual desires are normal and "cannot change" and should be treated as such. Period. No no more evaluating pedophiles and beastiality scientifically.

Not sure what you're getting at.

Actions and desires are different. Thank you for saying that.

Was that ever in dispute?

 

[zsdersw]

Who defines that? Our species, genetics, and evolution have not eliminated beastiality, pedophilia, or fucking the dead. So that would suggest it is something that is meant to be a part of us as a species.

I never said they weren't.

Once again, your posts only prove my point more and more. Thank you

Your posts prove my and others' opinion of you more and more. Thank you.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I never said they weren't.

So you are agreeing that homosexuality is on the same level of beastiality and pedophilia?

 

[zsdersw]

So you are agreeing that homosexuality is on the same level of beastiality and pedophilia?

No. It is abnormal, like beastiality and pedophilia, but I don't agree it "is on the same level", whatever that means.

 

[nehalem256]

So you are agreeing that homosexuality is on the same level of beastiality and pedophilia?

I would drop the bit about pedophilia since even if you win you are not going to end up looking good.

But it seems to me that all of the arguments in favor of SSM apply equally to bestiality.

I mean just because someone else marries there dog it doesn't mean you will suddenly feel an uncontrollable urge to co-populate with a dog too.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

No. It is abnormal, like beastiality and pedophilia, but I don't agree it "is on the same level", whatever that means.

Exactly our point. Your justification of it not being on the same level is dictated by what the media/society tells you. In real life scientifically, it is on the same level. Your mind is simply dictated based on what the liberal media tells you.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Is oral sex "normal" or "abnormal"?