Klarinet Archive - Posting 000574.txt from 2004/03

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@------.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] Re: Biologically Correct
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:58:13 -0500

At 10:44 AM 3/10/2004 +0000, Matthew Lloyd wrote:
>IF homosexuality is deviant BECAUSE it isn't NORMAL (and I don't concede
>it) then I think that makes all of us MORE "deviant" than homosexuals -
>as there are fewer of us.....
>
>I don't think we can deny that it isn't statistically normal - but I
>don't really think that is what Bill meant. He is clearly making a moral
>judgment - and statistics are amoral. Or is he prepared to make a public
>statement that any minority interest should not be counted as "normal"
>in the full sense of the word? Of course not.
>
>When we use the word "normal" we mean more than statistically normal. It
>has so many overtones of meaning that anyone who is going to use it to
>mean purely statistically normal without the explicit clarification is
>either deliberately misleading or very stupid.
>
>As Bill is neither I conclude he doesn't mean normal to be purely
>statistical.

Actually, I DO pretty much mean to confine my definition to the statistical
definition of "normal." To go outside of that, as you suggest, brings in
SO many overtones (religion, etc.) that is would take the discussion to a
level far beyond the scope of this little digression. I am going out of my
way to make NO moral judgements here, especially since it would be POSSIBLE
to view the behavior as MORALLY correct (loving, caring, etc.) while still
acknowledging the biological incongruity of it.

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!