On the Nature of Normal

[Steve]

Well as usual, I'm off on my own side track.

Some one in the discussion of gay people said that being Gay
was not /normal/. Well, first, how do you define normal? 
Biological Imperative? Statistics? What?

And as a side note, gay people really are offended by 
the word 'homosexual' mostly because it is the preferred 
term of those intent on persecuting or generally opposing us.
Using it in a non-clinical setting, brands you as such. True,
since it is technically a correct term, most gay people will 
not call you on it. But it is in the very least annoying to 
most, and offensive to some.

Back to Normal.

So, if we let 'most people' define normal then certainly being
gay is not normal because gay people are in a small minority.
But consider that people with red hair are extremely not 
normal. There are far fewer people with red hair than there
are gay people, so statistically speaking that makes Red
Heads more not normal than gay people. Maybe we shouldn't
allow them to marry. Maybe we should deny them tax advantages
allowed to others. Maybe we should disallow them death bed
visits to loved ones. 

So, if normal is only defined by what is statistically common,
then a lot of people are very abnormal. 

For example, a vast majority of the world has varying shades 
of Dark Skin, that would imply that white people are abnormal.

A substantial majority of the world population has brown eyes
thereby making people with blue eyes abnormal. Of course,
those with gray, green, other colored eyes are absolute freaks
if statistics are our only standard. 

So, I will concede that gay people, red heads, white people, 
people who have blue eyes, and also people who have 
brown or blond hair are not normal. But will also add that 
red heads are probably more not normal than gay people, as 
there are more of us than there are of them. 

So, maybe your argument is 'Nature'. Being gay is not natural.
But if that were true then how do you explain it having 
occurred in human and animal nature since the beginning of
natural time? So, in my opinion any appeal to nature falls
far short of a reasonable explanation.

Maybe you argument is based in Biology. That God made Adam
and Eve, not Adam and Steve. An argument that always makes
me laugh because my name is Steve and I'm pretty sure God,
with a little help from my parents, created me too. 

That the purpose of man and woman is to procreate, to make
babies. God or nature, as you choose, has instill in us the
natural desire to make babies, and there for that is the
grand design.

Except, God or nature, did /not/ instill in us the nature
or instinctive desire to make babies, it instilled in us the
natural or instinctive desire to HAVE SEX, which quite 
logically, does result in a lot of babies being made. 

All animals including humans are driven by an ingrained
sexual urge. That urge is directed in each human according
to a random process that results in personal preferences.
Logically, we should all be drawn to the best attributes
of ourselves, since, somewhat metaphorically, it is ourselves
that we seek to perpetuate. 

So, following this reason, the best of blue-eyes blonds
should logically only seek out the best of other blue-
eyed blonds. But we know that isn't true. Everyone has
their own innate 'sexual preference'. There are not
incapable of mating with others, but they do have a
preference. 

Some people prefer blonds, they are instinctually and 
biologically draw towards blonds, other are drawn 
toward red heads, some are drawn outside their race.
Personally, I think Asians are really hot. Some are
drawn to the beefy and brawny, others are drawn to the
intellectual. 

Biology favors diversity; it's part of evolution and
natural selection. The more variations there are, the
more likely some of those variations are likely to 
succeed. 

Some people ask, how can gay people exist. I ask, statistically
and biologically, how could they not? How could this
variation not be a logical and re-occurring natural variation?
With all the biologically driven natural preferences, how 
could this one very likely preference not present itself? 

Keep in mind that while nature on one hand seeks to
perpetuate, it also seeks on the other hand to balance. Yes,
the natural process seek for us to be a prolific as possible,
but excess procreation is the means to distruction. When
population, whether animal or human, outstrips natural 
resources, something must befall that population to bring
it more in balance with available resouces. 

When deer are scarce, wolves will some be rare, when deer 
are plentiful, wolves will some be common. It is nature
in balance. 

In this sense, gay people could just as easily be God and
natures plan for controlling and balancing population
growth. 

Perhaps your objection is 'moral'. To that I can only say
that morally speaking gay people are doing no more or less
on the average Saturday night than their straight counter-
parts are doing on the same night. The action of those
gay people is no more right or wrong that the actions of
their straight counterparts. That doesn't make it right by
most formal standards, but it makes it an action that is 
consistent with the actions of a very substantial portion 
of the population. I don't see the actions of gay people as
anymore morally right or wrong than the actions of their 
straight counterparts. 

Biological imperative, that is the instinctive urge to 
have sex, is an urge that most people are unable to resist,
and once again, babies are a secondary aspect of the true
biological imperative which is to have sex. 

So, yes gay people are not normal, they are as not normal
as any of the other very many statistically not normal
aspects of everyday life. 

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn