Evander Holyfield cautioned over 'gay ain't normal' comments

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...ed-over-gay-aint-normal-comments-9040932.html

 

Ideologies aside, what he said is true. It may not be what people want to hear. But the sole biological purpose for sexuality is species reproduction. Everything else is gravy.

Sex isn't remotely complex. We just like to pretend that there is some deeper meaning to it, but......nope there isn't. All the books and studies that talk about the complexity of sexuality are all horse shit. (IMHO)

So Biologically speaking what Evander said is true. Any sexuality that inherently cannot lead to reproduction, cannot be considered "normal". The things is, a lot of the sex that people have isn't "normal". So it really doesn't matter.

The only controversy I see in this story, is how every time a person states their opinion publicly, they are bullied or shamed into retracting or apologizing. Neither Evander or The Duck guy said anything hateful or malicious, they just said what they thought was true.

 

Sex is more universally about self-pleasure and gratification and less on the idea of procreation. Had that been the case, then it would stand to reason that there wouldn't be homosexuality, let alone men and women who are sterile or cannot reproduce at all due to low sperm count. Holyfield is a far cry from a scientist and doesn't have the authoritative knowledge to even speak his mind on a subject matter he knows very little about. Maybe some of the beatings he acquired over the years caused him to lose some of his common sense.

Sexuality is about pleasure. The act of survival is based on reproduction. These are facts. Beyond that, regarding orientation or gender roles, etc...they are all constructed by civilization.

And lastly, you're perfectly entitled to reject factual information. However, it'd be foolish to suggest that we should simply accept your thoughts as just another opinion, when in fact, it's better to think that you're just as intellectually dishonest as the people who advocate against marriage equality. That and we'd be politically correct for just accepting your thoughts as just another opinion since people are scientifically deficient in the subject matter.

 

Like the chorus from that classic song goes, "If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right." As human beings, as individuals. we have our own interpretation as to what is "normal", however, I submit that any relationship outside of collective acceptance or thought, is considered not normal. As individuals, we have choices and we can exercise them to our heart's desire. So, we accept the risks because of our choice. People will talk. It doesn't matter if it is a gay/lesbian couple, or an interracial couple.

 

Whether one or one million people can't reproduce, it doesn't change the fact that the reason sexuality exists AS A BIOLOGICAL concept is reproduction.

I think you might have missed the word BIOLOGICAL.

Also, I never referred to sociological or physiological. And I made no moral judgement, so I don't know why you brought up marriage equality. I have no issue with gay people, and half the sex I have isn't "normal" so who am I to judge.

Oh, and you also might have missed the "(IMHO)" Which means: in my honest OPINION.

 

And you're ignoring the fact that from a biological standpoint, that pleasure is the key component for the individual. You're pretty stating more of a Darwinian social conditioning regarding maintaining population. That's not a basis of anything suggesting what's normal or not. Besides, it doesn't make homosexuality less normal than those who are sterile, otherwise you're suggesting that other people are defects as well.

 

Sterility isn't a sexual orientation, and even if it was, it isn't "normal".

We derive pleasure from eating as well, but it doesn't change the fact that the purpose of food is nutrients.

What if sex didn't feel good? What if it was as mundane as breathing or sleeping? In a world without the pleasure of sex, any sex outside of reproduction would be clearly seen as abnormal. And that is the beginning and end of my point.

 

Incorrect. Eating is sustainability on an objective basis. It's a need in order to survive. So, the pleasure aspect doesn't apply. Try again.

And actually, for sex to not feel good....it would mean there are a lack of nerves in those areas where it would trigger a sensation. And again, you cannot suggest it isn't abnormal. Simply defining someone by what's readily accepted by society is just silly when society marginalizes certain concepts in the name of order.

 

Ok well, My comparison to food is right on point. And the sex without pleasure, hypothetical idea is clearly not supposed to be taken literally. So I don't know what else to say about that.

Also, maybe you could see what i'm trying to say if you get out of the idea that i'm attacking gay lifestyle.

You know it is possible to have a discussion about things like this without it being seen as a attack.

 

Actually...not. Food as an enjoyment is an acquired and personal taste. By your logic, it'd be abnormal for someone to not enjoy all forms of food if we apply it to your way of thinking. It's simply sustainability.

Plus, you need to revisit your initial post and your original statement implying that scientific studies are just fallacious and should be dismissed, which I find to be incredulous on your part. That's where it all begin. It doesn't matter if you call it just an opinion. It's just plain wrong on your part.

 

1. Being gay is no more a lifestyle choice than being black or female.

2. Sexuality is more hardwired than deliberative.

3. Humans are among a handful of species that have sex even when females are not ovulating. Dolphins and bonobo chimps, for example, also have sex for recreational purposes.

4. Homosexual behavior has been observed in hundreds of other species, ranging from mammals to birds and insects.

 

Bingo.

 

Ok how does any of that disprove my point?

 

Your claim is that being gay is not normal, which is wrong on your part. It's not a biological, nor genetic mutation that eventually will be destroyed, which would imply that something is abnormal. That's the first thing you need to recognize.

 

I said that on a BIOLOGICAL level any sexuality that cannot reproduce isn't normal. I DIDN'T say evil, or immoral or wrong. I said not "Normal".

Normal is just a baseline, who gives a fuck about normal.

If you were paying attention to what I wrote, then you would see that I included myself in the not "normal" category. I don't give a fuck who has sex with who. I was just making a simple statement of BIOLOGY.

 

You're speaking from a societal standpoint and less on the factual inclination of the sexuality. Again, to suggest that being gay is abnormal because of the sole purpose of reproduction is incredulous and utterly silly. If you read any of my posts on my explanations, you'd see where your critical errors in your post.

The only time we can consider something abnormal from a biological standpoint is if and only if a genetic mutation were to occur. But no, you're arguing from a societal perspective of Social Darwinism.

 

Wait, are you re-interpreting my own words, to me?

Look, I have already made my point half a dozen times and it needs no interpreting.

If you chose to ignore the specific criteria that makes up my entire point.........so be it.

I have no malice or any ill will towards anybodies sexual orientation. But, If you insist on making my words sound like a attack on Gay people, go right ahead I don't care anymore.

I'm just curious, what do you consider homosexuality? Is the term "alternative" correct?

 

You're making an incorrect assumption. But I'll include this little tidbit seeing that you still haven't gotten it. I'll even use Simple English to help.

Your argument: Being gay isn't normal.
Reason: Cannot reproduce

There's a problem with your argument. And why? Gay people can still engage in sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex and conceive a child. After all, it happened numerous times in history. What's left out are the attractions between one another. That being said, you are wrong in your statement and in turn, Holyfield is wrong in this assumption.

This is what satyr was implying in his post.

Now do you get it?

 

No different from heterosexuality. None at all. It's not some strange mysterious phenomenon.

It's a natural occurring event in the human species.

 

What? that is a complete left turn from the discussion. You have switched the concept of homosexuality for an individual case.



Ok I think I've figured out the problem, you are hung up on the idea that "not normal" = bad. It doesn't. It just mean different from the norm.

You will agree that homosexuals make up a smaller percentage of people then heterosexuals, right?

So ergo they are different from the norm, which means NOT NORMAL.

That's it, I'm done with this thread. G'night.