: You didn't answer, as so many otehr haven't, my substantive question- why is the normal hierarchically more valuable to the abnormal?Or I could say why is the abnormal better that the regular system of values and mores? I dont think it's an issue of "winners" and "losers" or "Right" and "Wrong" it is an issue everyone has an opinion on formed through experience etc.
: Why, that always looked like damn good fun to me, and I know plenty of Str8's who wear bondage gear fairly regulalry- what are women's clothes, and why shouldn't men wear them, why should homosexuals *conform* to heterosexual norms? Again, why is normality hierarchiaclly more valuable than abnormality?
Well to my mind this is self-evident, I have ideas about decency that are part handed down to me, that is part determined through socialisation etc. but the ability to acknowledge this means I also have the ability to reject this process if I so choose, I dont I agree with a lot of those values. I dont think they are that "Superior" to deviant ones, or abnormal (your term), just they are mine and allow me to live a happier life.
Some people really love orange parades or nazi marches but I find them strange and militaristic and would prefer that I did not have to observe the practice of such conventions, if they had to be carried out at all.
: : B) A matter of choice therefore certain attention should be given as to whether or not certain choices are wise. You can choose to torture people in other fashions it isnt wise either.
: No, because torturing people, beyond the 'safe sane and *consensual* limits of BDSM is hurting someone else. Why is homosexuality unwise?
Well I consider it linked intrinsically to BDSM and I consider it to always entail hurting people.
: : Now where did that come from? Just the way that you immediately assume that socialism etc. involves defending abortion, homosexuality etc. as part and parcel you also make the assumption that people impose their views by force if they disagree with you.
: I haven't said a word about abortion, however, I have yet to here a solid socialist case against Homosexuality, and 'm certainly not hearing one from you.
Fine I dont care I've yet to hear a solid case as to why Socialism must necessarily be married to things like abortion and homosexuality.
: : The power of persuasion is the only force I've ever appealed to.
: Except you would try and persuade homosexuals to stay quiet and out of sight? Social pressure can be extremely strong and repressive in its own right...
Yes, something you didnt realise when you posted in Capitalism and Alternatives that the rule of society was preferable to the rule of state. It could be construed as repressive but I think it is only right that you demonstrate your respect for others etc. by conforming to their conventions, that is within reason I wouldnt say you'd have to be racist in a nazi society.
: Why is homosexual felatio preverted, dangerous, or generally uniwse?
Because it disgusts me. Is that the response you want? I just consider it to be harmful to the social fabric, today homosexuality's fine tommorrow it's peadaphilia, then snuff films that people are raped and die in, then nazi propaganda in cause of freedom of speech etc. etc.
: That its not consensual, and cannot be so. Pædophilia involves exclusively rape, and abuse.
That's not what the peadaphils say they say it's just a misunderstood sexuaity like homosexuality. Where do you draw the line RD?
: Might not that lifestyle as now be a general reaction to their marginalisation in society- and most of teh queers I know wear beige...
Maybe but I find it an attack on society, a society in which a lot of straight people think they should have rights but are attacked on mass but this "new culture". Just as may feminists in "all men are bastards" mode forget that some men where on their side in the issue of rights etc.
: That analogy fundamentally does not stand- hqueer couples can, quite safely, get along with one another, can get by without physical harm, and as much empotional harm as heterosexual relationships. Are you seriously suggesting that human beings have monological use values in terms of sexuality? If so, by what proof? That is argument by design, proove the design.
Listen RD prove to me for a change that I should accept your views, you've been reading your rule book on arguments again and it is clever to keep putting the burden of proof on me but I'm the currently popular view the alternative needs to be demonstrated to me.
: Evolution is a sledge hammer, it had nothing in mind, and in fact it had no design at all. Evolution requires, on our part, finding as many new and different potential uses for things as we can, variety, evolution did not impose a singular designated use upon any one thing. And tehre is no God, so he don't count.
Funny you think God is a he.
: The relationship between me and my cocktails is a purely personal matter ;) But why should what science texts books say its for be any guide to me- I bet science text books don't say they are for standing on to reach the top shelf...but guess what? Are you seriously appealing to teh authority of scientific texts- I've read a-levekl books categorically stating smoking dope leads to taking heroine...I don't take heroin.
Yeah, but I'm with accepted opinion on this score.
: I think the natural/chosen debate is by the by, I don't care either way, its irrelevent, there is no reason not to accept homosexuality as a viablelway of life.
Yes I consider it irrelevant too but I think the natural laws of deceny should be respected too.
None.
