Gay is damaged, straight is normal

[Cindy C.]

JDR wrote:

> Second, I'm talking about mathematical normalcy, which is the only 
> true normal there is. 

I know you mean well, but I think there may be good reason to rethink
this.

If you label things as "normal" and "abnormal" based on mathematical
occurrence, I think you will wind up with some seriously weird
statements.  For instance:

African Americans in the U.S. make up 10-12% of the population and are
therefore "abnormal."  Whites are "normal" because they are the
majority race.

A male nurse is "abnormal" because most nurses in the U.S. have been
women.  Similarly, female doctors are also "abnormal."

Since the vast majority of straight people marry at some point in
their lives, those who do not marry are "abnormal."

Oh, yuck.

I suspect the problem here is that "normal" doesn't mean what you
think it does.  Normal means:

"   1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard,
pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's
normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
   2. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking
observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
<snip definition in Chemistry>
   4. Mathematics.
         1. Being at right angles; perpendicular.
         2. Perpendicular to the direction of a tangent line to a
curve or a tangent plane to a surface.
   5.      1. Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or
development.
         2. Free from mental illness; sane."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=normal

So it seems to me that using "normal" for straight people and
"abnormal" for gay people is a misuse of those terms, in addition to
being rather offensive to many people.

Can't we say that something is more or less "common?" 

>If his best friend in his new 
> life is gay, then the Dursleys remain justified in their treatment
>of him because he's still a freak. But if his best friend is the 
> unimpeachably conventional Ron Weasley, then even the Dursleys can 
> see that their family structure is the odd one out.

Uh . . . a person is a "freak" if their best friend is gay?  I must
not understand your point.

BTW, since when is it justified to mistreat someone just because you
consider them a "freak?"

 
> Third, if the prevailing opinion around here is that Harry has not 
> sustained the kind of psychological damage that would make him a 
> problematic father and husband, then I *am* sorry. 

I don't follow you.  I can see how one could argue that Harry has
sustained the kind of psychological damage that could make him a poor
*mate* to anyone (although that is not my own view of Harry).  But you
seem to be suggesting (and correct me if I'm out of line) that
Damaged!Harry would be perfectly fine for a gay relationship.  That
can't be what you meant.  Is it?


> I do know that language comes from usage, and that most people 
> understand *normal* to mean *right* and *conventional* to mean 
> *healthy*. I understand that what I see as a lack of respect for the 
> English language may not be as offensive to most as it is to me, and 
> I apologize for my tendency to wax dogmatic in the face of such 
> assaults. 

OK, fair enough.  But it is important for you to understand *why* some
people took offense.

Cindy