On 21/12/2017 15:54, pamela wrote:
On 15:03 21 Dec 2017, 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?

The "so what" is.... the BBC should not foist these ideas on a young
generation to give them the impression that such aberrations are
morally acceptable.

Although a liberal society tolerates such sexual deviants, their
behaviour is hardly something we should hold out for coming
generations to aspire to. Otherwise what's next, bestiality as
acceptable if it doesn't cause harm to an animal? You know it's
wrong.

Still OK in many US states...

--
Max Demian