Porphy,
I just mean that just because a physiological or physical abberation from a norm exists, this does not make it a norm in itself. The phenomenological existence of an exception to the rule may be called "normal" in the meaning of that it could happen, could appear, could take place, but nevertheless it is not necessarily a norm euqla to that to which it is an exception. Albinos also a reality, both people lacking pigments in their skin, or in their eyes - or both. Nevertheless that is in not the way our genetical design is meant to be, and even can cause disadvantages. Albonos are noi norm for our specie'S design - they are a copy of our design that happened to have been reproduced with a fault. Genetic mutations can be caused by environmental influence, but thexy can also take place atb random, due to an accident in the genetic reproduction sequence, and then eventually being carried over to the offspirngs of that individual. And medicine knows quite some of these egnetical diseases - and usually you would not call them "normal" in stati9ng that they are a norm of our design, the natural intnetion of how we were meant to be like, genetically. If homosecxuality is caused by differences in the hardware, it may be like this, too, thew thiung one could argue over is if this automtically makes it a "disease". IMO it does not, although that also has something to do with the subjective experience of suffering due to this aberation from a norm. but in a country of blin people, the seeing man would be called the ill, too - does this chnage the fact that nevertheless man's genetical design is such that man is meant to have two eyes for stereoscopical eye-view? Are hemophiliac people nromal in that they represent an evolutionary intended design feature of our species? Hardly. With homosexuality, it is the same, in my understanding, and it suffers sometimes more sometimes less disadvantages from it, but I cannot see a single positive advantage from it. In a homosexual world, individuals would be unable to carry over their genes to the next generation in a natural way, although this is a basic principle of life on earth: genetical copying. Not too mention the suffering from communal constellatios and social system in a heterosexual world.
Homosexuality does nothing for the survival of the species, for it does nothing to help the species to reproduce: it even cannot reproduce, our species's design is to survive as a species by heterosexual reproduction. From evolution's standpoint, it is not anything else but a failing blueprint, unable to live on. When talking of survival, I do not mean "fight or flight", or something, but reproduction. Without reproducing, our species would die within 2-3 generations, for obvious reasons. If homosexuality would be normal in your understanding, it would be able to survive by itself - but it cannot.
Homosexuality can be found as a phenomenen appearing in many mammal species. But in no mammal species it is "normal", but appears to take place in form of a violation of the norm, or violation of a rule - not because it is intended by the genetical rule/design/evolutionary intention. It is a genetic accident, something like that, an accident that does not cvause a retarded mind or three arms and four eyes, but an unproductive sexual orientation. We also fail to understand or to demonstrate any evolutionary advantage for the individual from being homosexual, or to see an advanatge from it for the social context and the community in which the homosexual individual lives. Society wins nothing from the example of homosexuality, but history shows that it can be able to tolerate it, like we also tolerate somebody having something harmless like a flu. But with animals you often see that it allows the animal to gain relief from sexual energetic pressure that it cannot relieve by mating with an individual of the other gender when such an matching partner is not avialable. Whether it be there are no female animals around, or they are all being "reserved" by other male partners.
Homosexuality may appear with a certain frequency, but I completely fail to see why that makes it a norm in itself, or even a norm euqal to that of heterosexuality, or makes it appear to be normal with regard to the genetical design of the species. that some genetical abberations in diseases come together with a positive side effect, in some cases is true, for example sichel-cell-anemia raises your immunity to Malaria, however, nobody so far has been able to show such effects for the majority of known diseases - or for homosexuality. Such examples as I just gave, are expections to the rule which appear with a certain frequency - they are not part of the content of the rule itself.
You can also eventually see a broken-down car driving home on just three tires. that does not make it normal. The norm is that a car has four tires.
Anything less is called a malfunctioning car. To what ammount the driver cares, is his business. just when he drives in public on three tires, security concerns become valid - and then it is the community's business as well.
I agree on your last remarks on "desires to share the majority's way of normal living". but I cannot help it, family and marriage are terms reserved for certain social constellation which define these terms, and these constellations nevertheless also are of vital importance for the communal interest and the oingoing exoistence of the society. A person being born with a crippled leg maybe also desires to be "normal" and to compete in running competitions, but his leg is simply against that. he will not grow a new, healthy leg just becasue he wishes for it. Nobody should hinder gays or lesbians to live together if they want, all fine and okay with me, and if one dies, he/she shall even have the right to leave his possessions under the same regulations and conditons like they are legally valid for heterosexual couples, for God's sake: okay, do it like that if that makes them happy and forms social peace Just when they want the same privileges and finacial support and material boni and legal protection that the far mor important institutions of family and related marriages enjoy, and are guaranteed to be given in several Wetsern constitutions - then I become willing to start a fight. and as I said and as Henry also said: quite some many homosexual themselves argue against seeing family as such an arbitrary thing that it could be used as a term to describe homosexual relations as well, maybe even adopting children. This is where my understanding ends and turns into determined rejection.
I think those "representaives" of gay/lesbian lobby organisations we use to see on tV, are not representing a majoirty of their subcommunity, like the hyperaggressive, provoking nudity at Cristopher street Day alöso probably is not representing a majority of their sub-community's general sexual attitude. It's just that they are so incredibly noisy, and the majority that just wishes to live in peace and normality, unrecognised by the general public, does not wish to start a high profile in the media, spoiling their privacy and adressing the media themselves by that.
for heaven's sake, start making such a fuss about these things, guys, and start to please the lobby orgnaisation only, they are little more than noisemakers. just let homosexual couples live in peace and do not make a show of how tolerant about them you are. I am very sure that this is what the vast majority of them wants. - Would you like to see reports about yourself constantly in the media, and people always telling you at every damn opportunity that they think you are "
nevertheless very much okay", and that they "
nevertheless accept you" and consider you to be "normal"? Hardly.