Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 11:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
For example, we all known homosexuality is not normal but we
generally tolerate the aberration.

Care to define normal? If brown eyes are the most common does that make
those with green not normal?

Defining sexuality as normal or not would be fine if sex was only for
producing offspring. As some religious nutters would have you believe.


I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's sexuality as
'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with words. What's classed as
normal depends largely on the societal norms prevalent at the time. The
ancient Greeks regarded the man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have become
unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being mealy-mouthed as
usual. If something has been perverted it has simply been misused; used
for something other than its intended purpose. Since sex is intended for
procreation, homosexual activities are perversions. But so what? By the
true definition of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a
perversion. Again, so what?

Bill
How can evolution have an intention. Sex evolved and we make us of it
how we like. You might as well say hands were intended for hanging
from trees and manufacture is a perversion.

--

Roger Hayter