There is some confusion here between the meanings of the words "normal" and "natural". I'm not gonna get into boring semantics, but they are different.

For example, Loops asks if it would be normal for a world to exist in which homosexuality is the norm because such a world would very soon run out of human beings. Well, I don't know if you think that extinction is "normal" but it is cetainly "natural", it happens all the time. In reality, homosexuality is not a dominant trend in human evolution, but one could easily argue that homosexuality, just like other non - dominant human behaviours such as schizophrenia and pshycosis have nothing to contribute to human existence. Tchaikovsky, Wilde and Michaelangelo may have been gay, but one could hardly describe any of them as non - contributors. The same is true of some people with mental health problems like Van Gogh, Beethoven and William Blake.

The problem isn't what is normal or natural, but what is acceptable. There is a basic, axiomatic fear in much of what is said in the debate about whether homosexuality is normal or not, that gay people want to spread homosexuality amongst the heterosexual community, that there is some sort of secret gay evangelical conspiracy to take over the world .... or just get into our heterosexual pants. People, it isn't so. Just think about it.

muffing