"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsKW0b.213405$uu5.38488@sccrnsc04...
You continually (and conveniently) avoid the fact that homosexuality is
not
"completely normal", any more than a host of other sexual fetishes are
"normal". However, as with most of these peculiar aberrations,
homosexuality is mostly a harmless (if somewhat bizarre) quirk of nature,

Jay, in order for something to be a "fact", it must have a factual basis.
Your claims have none; they fly in the face of medical science.

To declare same-gender relationships "abnormal", "fetishistic", "bizarre",
etc. is just as arbitrary and factually false (and morally offensive) as
when segregationists declared inter-racial relationships to be abnormal,
unnatural, perverted, disgusting, etc. The thought of homosexuality
provokes in you the same visceral aversion and discomfort that the thought
of inter-racial sex provoked in the segregationists. Both of those visceral
reactions have been common for millennia (and are both reflected in the
Bible, for example). In both cases, though, the pathology actually resides
in the reaction itself, but is ignorantly presumed to reside in the things
that provoke the reaction.

In past discussions, you have emphasized that homosexuality does not promote
reproduction, which you think makes it "abnormal" from the standpoint of
evolution. This stance reflects several basic confusions about evolutionary
biology:
1) Although the mechanism of natural selection can metaphorically be said
to have a goal of survival, its "goal" is not the survival or reproduction
of individuals or of species, but rather of specific genes (e.g., possible
genes for homosexuality); specific genes have no (metaphorical) concern for
*other* genes except to be able to exploit them. The very fact that
homosexuality thrives as a minority inclination (in our species and others)
attests to its evolutionary success; evolution has no other concern, even
metaphorically. (*Universal* homosexuality would not enjoy evolutionary
success, which is why we don't find it.)
2) Even if (contrary to fact) homosexuality were somehow contrary to the
(metaphorical) goals of evolution, that would have no consequence whatsoever
as to its normality or desirability. Evolution is amoral. Caring for the
frail elderly, for example, when they can no longer contribute to
child-rearing, may be contrary to the "goals" of evolution, but that doesn't
make it "abnormal" in any reasonable sense. Evolution's (metaphorical)
goals are not necessarily *our* goals, nor should they be.
3) There are many heterosexuals who have voluntarily sterilized
themselves. You do not regard their subsequent sexual relationships as
abnormal, bizarre, fetishistic, etc. Your fallacy about the evolutionary
"normality" of non-reproductive sex is applied quite selectively.

In short, you are merely projecting your petty prejudices onto the supposed
"intent" of natural selection the way more-religious people project their
prejudices onto the supposed will of God. You naively convince yourself that
evolution is on your side the way some people convince themselves that God
is on their side.

nor should you expect to be viewed as a "role model" for our youth.

The feeling is mutual, Jay. Many gay people are excellent role models and
many are not, just as with straight people. I sadly conclude that your
insulting prejudices place you among those who are not.

--Gary