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

Ok I have to respond to this, then I'm done.

Natural occurring isn't synonymous with normality. All kinds of things occur naturally that wouldn't be considered normal.

Look, I'm not ignorant of the fact that the term "not normal" can sound hurtful to people. And can thus cause a emotional response. I probably should have been more tactful and sensitive, when I made my point. I apologize, for how my point has been interpreted. I also, want to reiterate that I mean no disrespect to gay people.

 

Thump, I have to spread rep but consider your posts repped. .

 

I was gonna stay out of this one, because I know there are still hurt feelings out there from the other thread.

But Morning Star, you make very logical arguments so just wanted to say kudos. Rep + for you.

I'm not gay, and don't even have gay friends, but I hate to see bullies try to condemn other people out of stupidity. Looks too familiar to me as black man.

This statement makes Evander Holyfield look stupid, and disparages the "christianity" he touts.

Don't judge, lest ye be judged. It's a shame that people who engage in rampant fornication (prolly even piss on one another) would point fingers at the homosexuals. Regarding the duck guy, it's a shame that people who fornicate across racial lines would back a guy who likes jim crow. More shame that "christians" would back a guy who rails against the social safety net

...And check it out -- when a dog humps your leg, I'm sure he's thinking about reproduction :roll: Otherwise it's not natural. It's like old people having sex -- no chance for reproduction, so that's not normal either :roll:

Some people don't care at all about examining their beliefs for truth, logic, consistency, compassion, etc. etc. And they don't do updates at all. Zero room for growth...

Evander prolly had one too many punches. I bet even mike tyson is more tolerant

 

Evander Holyfield is hardly a scholar. Who cares what he thinks? As for the alleged 'abnormality' of homosexuality, natural selection processes determine various traits for any of a multitude of reasons. There are a variety of theories about why some individuals are born homosexual, including nature programming counter-reproductive tendencies in certain individuals to stop their procreation, etc. Research will probably yield definitive answers in the future. But regardless of the basis for the orientation, it isn't for a human being who lives in a manufactured home, eating processed foods, and wearing man-made fibers, to determine what 'normal' is. I don't see him rushing "back to the land" any time soon.

 

What's far worse is people who are too cowardly to address the person they are slamming, directly and calmly. Instead they prefer to speak about the person, write tirades against them (without even being certain who they are addressing) and make assumptions and create falsehoods based on a few comments. And who, once again, doesn't read posts carefully.

Medulla.

(FTR, I neg repped you because I had a complaint about your behavior, not your opinion. Otherwise, I would've kept my comments on the board. I thought it would be a tad more respectful to do it that way. Unfortunately, you had to take it public and go on your tirades and....well, I'll refrain from expressing the rest of my thought.)

 

he is on that show "big brother" ...reality TV is going to provide many blunders this year when it comes to the politically incorrect comments

i agree...who cares what he thinks or says for that matter? :smt015

 

The only thing I'm interested in hearing him talk about is boxing. And probably not even that, lol.

 

Repped.

No matter what ones intent is, it's not their place to outline "normal" for someone else.

Thump, I think you're an incredibly respectful member here and I don't think for a minute that you're trying to be hateful or come off as anti-gay, but at the same time my opinion is that it's simply not ok to pass judgment on homosexuals as being "abnormal", when they have no more choice in their sexuality than you do in being black. How is it ever ok to judge someone based on what they can't control? You might not see it as judgment, but when you classify an entire group under one heading, it screams "judgment" imo.

I'm not a religious person (spiritual, yes...not religious though), but using ones religion as an excuse to view others as "less than" is unacceptable. These recent situations are just more examples of people using their religion as a means to judge others. People try to say that so-and-so didn't "spread hate", "they're just speaking their opinions"...but if we don't see everyone as equals, you might as well be hating. It's like saying "I'm not racist, I have black friends...I just don't want my white daughter marrying a black man". You can't have it both ways. Either we're all on the same level, or we're not. Doesn't matter if we're speaking about homosexuality, race, or any other factor that we can't control.

 

he is a saint...cool, calm and collected as his words get twisted and turned like a carnival ride...

I am beside myself at the level of reading comprehension on this forum...what is actually written versus how it is interpreted:smt012

 

So what do we hold up as the standard by which we measure "normal"?

"Normal" is subjective. It's different for everyone.

 

Exactly.

 

He is totally right. By the way,I am tired of the gays co-opting the black struggle for civil rights. Don't like my unpopular opinion? Deal with it.

 

The issue I see here is that you're relying too much on numbers to determine normality, which is highly incorrect on so many levels. Yes, there are standards in which we all have to adhere, but who's to say that whatever's the majority is deemed normal? This is what I'm getting from you. If we're suggesting population on a world basis, are you suggesting that everyone that is not Asian is abnormal? If we're applying this logic from your explanation, then you're basically implying that there has to be a standard to uphold.

Blacks make up only 14% of the US population, yet whites are the majority. According to your logic, then we all should be white since that's "normal". In this respect, it's a position you hold that is muddled with issues that can easily be broken further downward.

Normal, on a societal basis, isn't based on numbers or majority rule. Normal is just something that is wide accepted, regardless of the majority number of people. That's your problem. You're defining it incorrectly.

Normal is a societal construct, plain and simple. There are no scientific basis on what's considered normal, except on our limited experiences, henceforth, it'd be nutty to suggest that there's only one standard. You shouldn't throw the world "abnormal" around since you're only perpetuating that some other areas are deemed strange or wrong, according to some eyes.

Excellent post.

 

He's hardly an educated man when it comes to this subject matter. He's better suited as a person you can go to if you need a little advice on throwing punches around.

The unfortunate thing is that people won't really get it or refuse to get it altogether. This is especially true when Thump stated that he gravely dismissed the scientific findings regarding sexuality, which is something I've pointed out before.

But again, defining normal is a societal construct and in turn it simply implies what's widely accepted and its generally based on what we know or understand on the whole matter. Sadly, there are bricks that cannot be penetrated.

On a societal level, it's what's widely accepted and it's further strengthened by other factors such as scientific research and the overall impact that can generally benefit or cause little to no harm to a population.

 

What the hell are you talking about? They pay taxes just like everyone else. So it's money they also put into the system. It's been the heterosexual couples who were benefiting from a group of people not being allowed to marry.

Geez...so much stupidity in this thread.

 

Thanks to the people who see my words for what they are, not for what people misread them to be. I know that political correctness makes us sensitive to any perceved criticism or rebuke of put upon groups like homosexuals. (Even though I gave No judgement) It is clear to me now, that with a sensitive subject like homosexuality, even a dispassionate observation like mine, might make it hard for some people to see the forrest through the trees.

There is absolutly NO JUDGEMENT associated with NORMAL. But the way some people are talking you would think it was a slur

So again, Not talking about sociological or psychological.

No judgement
No judgement
No judgement
No judgement
No judgement
No judgement



Ok there i am litetally blue in the face:smt012

 

And yet you're still using it incorrectly. I've already explained that normal isn't based on the majority population. Rather, it's based on what's widely accepted and further proven by scientific empirical evidence, which shouldn't be debated at all.

But seeing that you actually made the post dismissing such findings, I was compelled to show you how wrong you are. After all, you called them "bullshit" and I'd be politically correct to just accept your intellectual dishonesty in that subject matter.

It's a touchy subject on the basis of civil rights and the means to pursue liberty and pursuit of happiness. However, when people feign ignorance and would make such claims and then have posters interpret their statements into something else entirely, that's strongly disingenuous and more so, just reinforces the statement I've made a long time ago that when it comes to social issues, blacks are generally ignorant of the matter altogether.

I see you're trying to hold a "moderate" perspective on the whole matter, but it comes up empty seeing that you have to tell yourself that "i have no opinion on this social matter" [which you've stressed so many times], yet you actually exert your views on the matter. You just need a window of opportunity to speak on it. So, I can see where you clearly stand on the issue.

"Get other people's benefits" is what I'm referring to. Learn to read.

How are they getting "other people's benefits" when they too pay into the very same system? That's not a misread. That's pointing out incorrect information.

 

Someone has to maintain consistency on the matter of social equality, Charles and not be a prude, selfish individual who acts on selectivity.

 

And again, they are taxes in which everyone pays into, whether they are single, married, gay, straight, etc...

Maybe you need to take off the tunnel vision goggles.

 

Cute response.