Re: This post has been deleted by a moderator
Deviant?
What do you mean by this loaded word? In its most bland and straight-faced definition, one can say that a "deviant" is anyone that does not fit in with the norm.
Now, in that driest definition, homosexuals are indeed "deviants" due to the simple fact that heterosexuals are in the majority. But then that use of the word "deviant" has next to no useful meaning. Anyone who smokes is a "deviant"; anyone who has red hair is a "deviant"; anyone who wears bright yellow socks is a "deviant". In Australia, anyone who was born in Iceland is a "deviant", as is anyone born in, say, Chad.
Jews are "deviants", as are Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals.
That's rather a long way of saying that, clearly, using "deviant" to mean those whose behaviour is not shared by the majority is fairly pointless because everyone is then a "deviant" in some way or another.
So, I must assume that you are using the word in its fuller sense to describe behaviour that is quite markedly outside of the norms of the society they inhabit - especially in reference to sexual behaviour.
That sense of the word is employed in a perjorative manner to say that the person in question engages in behaviour that is not only different to what the majority enagages in but so different that the behaviour is utterly at odds with normal, right-thinking folk and should be condemned and discouraged and the person should at the least be ashamed but preferably also punished or persuaded/forced to change their ways until they conform with 'normal' behaviour.
In that sense, what behaviours are 'normal' and what behaviours are 'deviant' is a very subjective judgement, as it is to define what is "perversion".
The "modern" (presumably western) world is not "pro-perversion" and it is not anti-morality. What it is - or is trying to be - is pro-rights and anti-prejudice. It's not perfect but we're getting there one step at a time (and they're not all forward steps).
You, like so many others who hold this position, don't seem to view the ability to live a life free of discrimination as a human right. You seem to believe that only those who are part of the majority need be considered. If the majority are heterosexual, then why shouldn't they be able to fire someone for being gay? Or a black. Or Chinese. Or a Muslim. Why must these good, wholesome, normal people have to consider and respect the rights of those others?
Remember that saying that the majority should not have to cater to the minority was a core argument of many who fought against the civil rights movement in the US, as it has been anywhere that minorities are repressed by majorities.
Frankly, I am glad that is not the case (anymore) and it is, I believe, the most important moral advancement that we, as a species, have ever achieved. That advancement is tied to the ethical innovation that is the concept of 'human rights', which is to say that you, just for being human, deserve rights. You shouldn't have to fight for them or win them or convince people you deserve them. They are yours and they can't be taken away just because the majority says so.
I am sad that you do not see that but the rest of us will get on fine without your approval.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
