The normality of homosexuality is certainly questionable. If you mean it that it shows up throughout history then of course you'd be right. However prevalence is not what were discussing. If everything that is prevalent is normal, then so murder must be called normal, but no ones passing laws protecting it.


I guess it would be a hard-core, fringe sociologist or anthroplogist that would call murder normal, but that might not be as much a stretch as I imagine. There are still societies that routinely practice infanticide, aren't there? If so, I guess that would be an opportunity for an anthropologist or someone to describe that murderous societal behavior as normal.

I see your point on incidence, though. I guess destructive hurricanes and tornadoes would be considered normal as negatively as we might feel about their visits.

I don't reduce this to the incidence argument, though. I think of homosexuality as normal not only because it has been present for so long as we can tell, but for a few other reasons. First is that, somewhat like hurricanes and tornadoes, homosexuals aren't really subject to being deprogrammed. They are the people that they are. Second, I'm perhaps more willing to extend my personal definition of normal based on the practical aspects of the society in which I live and the people whom I work and play with. If I got it into my head to decide that homosexuals were not normal, my days at work would be miserable!! Imagine moping around all day thinking how abnormal some of my coworkers are when instead I could be appreciating how well John tells a joke, and how considerate Jane (the Does) has been to me. i think they wouldn't take it very well if I decided in my heart of hearts that they were abnormal.

Instead rightness, or even correctness, is the point. A thoughtful person who condemns homosexuality will condemn it not only for what it does to society (basically that it propegates itself)

Other than society continuing to give birth to homosexuals at some, perhaps poorly understood, rate, I wonder do you mean that by "propogating itself" do you mean that they are taking over? That somehow their numbers should be contained or reduced? Maybe we just wouldn't agree on the whole propogation hypothesis.

but for what it does to the individual practicing it. For every happy gay couple (I know, I know), you find I can point to as many gay people who say the lifestyle led them to depression.

I don't guess I'll ask you to list every negative thing that you think follows from homosexuality, but I *do* want to take a moment to stand up for depressed heterosexuals!! (Like myself!) I'm not going to say that there aren't depressed homosexuals out there who are depressed because their life seems to lack meaning or that they aren't in satisfying social relationships, or because they are just depressed. How this connected to sexuial orientation I fail to see, save that both homosexuals and heterosexuals might be marginally less depressed if people were nicer to them!

I don't see sexual orientation as a complete absolute. I'm guessing you can find homosexuals who *were* deprogrammed in some fashion. A woman who worked for me many years ago was what i would call a "path of less resistance" lesbian. She was married to a guy, but really felt overwhelmed by her experience of the man-woman dynamic. During the course of her employment, she divorced that guy and took up with a very nice woman from the office next to ours. Did this make her a bisexual? A latent lesbian? I don't know, and I didn't really care. All I know is that she was great to work with and she made a much happier homosexual than a heterosexual.

Since we can't see the truth for the personalities, it makes it impossible to prove beyond a doubt. It is purely anecdotal. Therefore whether or not its wrong or right must be decided away from or before individuals are concerned or bias is inevitable.

I'm not sure what you mean by this but it sounds like "it all depends on your point of view"?

II also would like to point out that the extra hurdles that must be jumped by homosexuals in order to parent. Therefore insuring that only those serious about parenting would actually be given the opportunity to do so. This hurdle dramatically changes the appearance of homosexual parenting. If the hurdles were less the seriousness of some parents would be equally less.

I guess I'm also unsure on what you mean here. Is it "If we make it hard enough, then those who get over the hurdles, it's OK"?