[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.

Sure, I agree that everything existing can't be normal, but what is normal or not, in numbers can't simply dictate what should be viewed as abnormal, meaning faulty. There is a difference between normal as in most common and normal/abnormal as in working/faulty.

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.

Sure, but all your examples are about very clear cases of disease, or physiological problems, or organ dysfunction. As I already said, the analogy does not really hold up that well when it comes to homosexual disposition and sexual desire. Nothing is clearly wrong, or not working on that level of bodily functions, as with the eyes, blood, skin colour etc.
You actually point to a fault in how homosexual behaviour functions in relation to reproduction and the evolutionary survival of the species. This is not clearly a fault by any bodily design, as in your examples. I would agree more with you if that was the case.

I can see how it is very tempting though, to think and reason about homosexuality in that way. And I guess that is why scientific research always tries to pinpoint something abnormal and faulty in the homosexual persons body/brain that would explain this behaviour and sexual desire. In that context I find it important to remember how many of these tries that have failed to show anything conclusive throughout history, and the kind of abuse it has leant itself to.
It was not that long ago that criminal behaviour was thought to be traceable to a specific subtype of human. And early classical genetics was often thought of as a promising way to finally explain the criminal that was impossible to correct. The criminal person was simply physically abnormal, a deviation or showing examples of atavisms.

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.

Well, you propose the thought of a homosexual world as a way of showing that it can't be of any evolutionary gain to the species reproduction. But my example of kin selection was an example of how poulation genetics have explained how a trait that in itself seems to stop its own genetic transmission, acctually is possible, or even something selected for in a positive way.
Homosexuality is a persistent and quite frequent trait in the human population. Kinsey in his days estimated about 4% of the population as homosexual, but if you count the amount of people that say they have sexual desires for the same sex that could well be 7%. How is it that this sexual disposition and desire seem to be both persistent and not that uncommon? If trying to explain it in a biological way, it must be accounted for on a evolutionary plane as well.

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.

But it does live on, does it not? Again, what about kin selection? This is not the same as cross coupling where good and bad traits get inherited together. It is debatable if one can use kin selection in this case, but it shows there are biological ways to understand how seemingly self contradictory traits, like being sterile, can be transmissioned genetically within a population without being classified as a fault, disorder or disease. In this case it would explain how grounds for a sexual disposition that results in no offspring still can be within the scope of positive natural selection, it is then not a failed blueprint. Homosexuality is about sexual desire and behaviour in general is no doubt more complex to explain this way compared to being sterile, but the function you find abnormal and faulty is the same as being sterile.

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 advantage 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 available. Whether it be there are no female animals around, or they are all being "reserved" by other male partners.

I would be a bit more careful with expressions like "violation of a rule" or "intended by the genetical rule/design/evolutionary intention" in a Darwinian context. And to provoke you a bit more, doesn't it seem to be at least to some part a successful genetic accident, as it seems to live on quite happily? Adopting some flavour of Richard Dawkins way of thought provoking images, one could perhaps say that the "homosexual genes" have found the perfect way to live on, as the heterosexual part of the human population only is the vehicle for their propagation.

Yes, I agree it is not that that easy to point out what advantage the same sex sexual behaviour should give evolutionary or in a society. But for example it has been argued that homosexuality gives a more stable society, as individuals can form stable sexual relations in both homosexual and heterosexual ways. A stable society (think of a group of individuals where there is fierce competition for mating) is beneficial for reproduction in general within the group. On a larger scale this could be just enough for natural selection to work on. Or as a recent study from Italy is said to have showed, that the maternal relatives of homosexual men have more children than the maternal relatives of heterosexual men. If this is true, it could suggest that there is a reproductive benefit to women whose DNA tends to result in homosexual male children. See, with biology you can argue anything.

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 think I commented already about the design thing. And I don't mean that homosexuality is the norm in humans. But what is the rule and what is a deviation of the rule depends on where you start. I think you sometimes overstate the importance of the rule thinking as you connect it to intended design, hardware and blueprints.
And you know, there are three wheeled cars produced as we speak. Not only Mr Bean has one.

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.

Please no more crippled legs and three wheeled cars! I need to sleep now... But before that, I have to say something about the terms family and marriage. I agree that you can't change them and their use according to every whim, but I think one can see where they are possible to extend. Concepts are not rigid by nature and they are usually open ended.

Families are vital parts of society, true, but a homosexual family is not that far of from a heterosexual one as far as I know. Two parents and a for example two adopted children (or female couple with a natural born child or two) living together and being responsible to each other.
I'm not convinced about the role model argument you wrote about earlier. There will probably be enough of male and female role modelling available for the kids in their lives anyway. If one allow families like that, they will also be families that actually do support and bring benefits to the society, not just a cost. Isn't more working families even better from a social point of view?

And the ones that want to live unnoticed in peace and normality as you say, well nothing stops them from doing that, gay marriage approved or not. As I understand it, the thing is not so much about if we accept them as totally normal, the thing is about if people who prefer the same sex and that really want to have a family, children, marriage and legal rights, can have that or not.

Anyway, time to sleep now. I enjoyed the discussion!