Point taken. Thus, to clarify:Homosexuality is not 'normal'. It is natural in the same way that birth defects are 'natural'.
Why so spoken? To take the loaded meaning of the word 'natural' out of the discussion, i.e. the call to sodomy is similar to the growth of the larch, or somesuch.
Am I against this sort of thing? I am not particularly fond of the 'Jerry Springer' lifestyle, and don't particularly favor those who are. Homosexuality activity tends to fall within these bonds. Am I, thusly, in favor of the surpression and persecution of said practicioners? Like any good capitalist, of course not. So long as they do not burden me with their choice of lifestyle (like, for example, not taking the most rudimentary precautions against spreading a most decidedly fatal disease, or insisting that I pay for their irresponsibility), I don't feel strongly either one way or the other. Most people feel likewise.
Unless something substantial is added to this thread, I would hope the matter is closed. I think I have been rather clear in my opinion here, and haven't seen much added in regards to it (other than, of course, the valiant attempt to define terms - well done. Well done).
Enough of this foolishness.
D.C.
None.
