Gay is damaged, straight is normal

[Cindy C.]

Hey,

Just a quickie, and I'm switching things around a bit . . . 

JDR wrote:

> Cindy, you're a nice person. I hope you don't take any flak for 
> defending a b***h like me...

Oh, hey.  There's no reason to refer to yourself like that.  We're
just having an interesting discussion, is all.  

As for taking flak, well I'll quote my President . . . *bring it on!*  ;-)

> Well, precisely. That's why I stick with the mathematical definition 
> of normal, as it's 'morally' neutral. That one does, or is,
>something that most people in their universe don't, or aren't, does
>not mean there's something wrong with that person that they need to
>take steps to correct. Normal people have 98 IQs. Normal people have
>2.3 children with an opposite-gender spouse.

Well, OK.  But as the definition of "normal" explicitly states,
"normal" and "abnormal" *do* have certain value-laden connotations to
them.  This is so even if *you* don't mean to make a value judgment.

Um . . . say it is 2003, and you refer to an African American as a
"Negro."  You mean no offense, and you are using the term in the
biological sense.  Still . . . anyone who hears this will know that,
for whatever reason, you have chosen to use an outmoded term that
bothers some people.  The reason could be ESL.  Or bigotry.  Or
stubbornness.  Or ignorance.  Either way, though, some people may
think less of you for it.

I mean, you can express yourself however you like, but why use a term
that is going to cause misunderstanding and ill will when so many
alternatives are available?  


> I totally understand why some people took offense. It's *my*
>neurosis that I'm not chastened in the least. I'm schizoid (not
>schizophrenic, ok? It means I don't relate well to my fellow human
beings) and proud of it.

Aw . . .  I think you can do just fine in relating to all of us!

Cindy -- off to catch up on the fabulous bios!