Is homosexuality normal?

[Blue Rectangle]

of course not.  like clarivoyance, ambidextrism, and hexadigitalis, it is not normal, or what a biologist would call the "wild type"

but hey, if every organism was the wild type, then humans would never have come to exist via genetic mutation in the first place, so I'm not knocking abnormality.  you and I are the result of some abnormality. 

unless, by normal you mean the mathematicians definition.  then I'd suppose gays were more normal than straights, in the sense that the set of all homosexual is more likely to be found orthogonal to the set of all women.  well, actually that's not true either, if we consider "fag hags" a nonvoid subset of all women, then I suppose neither the set of all gay men nor the set of all straight men are normal to the set of all women.

Hmm, now I've confused myself.  I'll throw up the definition and y'all can fight about it:

two vectors are normal if the integral over all space of the multiplicative product of those vectors is equal to zero.

Regardless of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals are normal, it is clear that bisexuals are a linear combination of the two.  Clearly bisexuals cannot then be normal no matter what standard you use.

Seriously, this question is very difficult to answer.  Also, answering this question does not seem to answer any moral question.  If we just consider the two extremes, either can be spun either way.  A biological origin to sexuality does not define as homosexuality as "normal" or "defective".  Any proof of a biological origin would not suggest acceptance of homosexuality by society any more than it would suggest that we should find a cure for it.  A purely social origin of sexuality would also not settle anything, because it seems to weaken the arguments of both sides.

As much as some organizations claim otherwise, the fact is that science has very little to offer in terms of settling public policy.

[Blue Rectangle]

As much as some organizations claim otherwise, the fact is that science has very little to offer in terms of settling public policy.

it cannot.  and usually it doesn't try.  or, as my undergraduate probability instructor used to say, "figures don't lie, but liars figure."  I think every side of every debate always lines up its "exerts"

Usually it doesn't try?  The Center for Science in the Public Interest, Union of Concerned Scientists, American Institute of Physics, Scientific American  All have a history of being very preachy and seem to be acting more so lately.

As far as this debate in particular, the history of the American Psychological Association addressing the issue is enlightening.  The APA changed from "homosexuality is a mental disorder" to "homosexuality is normal" in a very short amount of time (in the early-mid 70s).  The factors involved had nearly nothing to do with new scientific theory, but rather the internal and external politics at the time.  We now have a very circular logic: politics caused the APA to change their position, now the APA position should be considered when deciding political issues.

The APA homosexuality FAQ

[Blue Rectangle]

angus, let me give you some examples of what I am talking about:
Center for Science in the Public Interest is mainly interested in health and nutrition policies.  As you pointed out, the realm of medicine is primarily concerned with engineering, not science.  The CSPI claims to be representing science (hence the name), but their mission is not to present scientific facts, but rather to constantly tell policies makers what they "should" do.  Read their press room: "Hardee's Monster Thickburger More Porno Than Ever"  Is this presentation of fact, or a sensational attempt to browbeat consumers into making CSPI-favored choices?

Here's another example, from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Provocative point--but not science.  Scientists are not foreign policy experts; they are not in a position to decide what the greatest security threats are.  Scientists are not engineers; they rarely have a feeling for what is currently possible with technology.

There is no shortage of scientists willing to tell the public what they should do.  The worst part is the arrogance; the belief that "I'm right because I'm a scientist" is bad enough.  It gets worse when it becomes "I'm a scientist, therefore I'm super smart, therefore I am an expert in all fields."  As a local example take Carl Wieman, who won the Nobel Prize in physics for studying Bose-Einstein condensate.  Dr. Wieman is active in pushing for the Kyoto treaty for carbon emissions, but he has little real authority since he is neither a climatologist nor an economist.

Policy makers have to balance the input of many different experts to come up with the best decision.  There are too many scientists who proclaim that only their beliefs matter.