Human sexual behavior is Natural, but some sexual behaviors are not necessarily Normal.
The definition of Natural is:
Being in accordance with or determined by nature. Example: Natural impulses.
Definitions:
Normal is the common pattern of behavior found among the majority.
Abnormal is the common pattern of behavior found among the minority.
The U.S. population is approximately 92.9% heterosexual and 7.1% lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than straight or heterosexual, reference below.
Heterosexuality is normal
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than straight or heterosexual is abnormal
Before you get your panties in a twist, consider the same sociologically speaking analysis of pet ownership, dogs vs cats.
The U.S. pet ownership is approximately 60% Dogs and 40% Cats
Dog ownership is normal.
Cat ownership is abnormal.
REFERENCE: WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup finds 7.1% of U.S. adults identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than straight or heterosexual. The percentage has steadily increased since Gallup first measured LGBT identification in 2012.
NOTE: There are approximately 70M (60%) dog owners and 45M (40%) cat owners in the U.S.
All: I Hope you enjoyed this ad-hoc lesson in Philosophy 101 (Logic) and Sociology 101 (Human Behavior) as much as I did
The only problem here is the sources you're using. 7.1% of the US population IS NOT gay. It's closer to 2-3% and has always been roughly 2-3%. You're quoting a gallop poll, one of the MANY left winged polling companies that are known to manipulate statistics in order to fit their world view and whatever the current liberal narrative is.
I won't bother getting into the ways they do this, since we all know, or at least should know, how they do it by now. But I WILL however point out that this specifically references adults, and neglects to mention the several polls and studies they've attempted to cover up showing a drop in the number of queers in people under 30, as well as a drop in queer acceptance among people in the same age group. This was quickly "corrected" in the next couple polls and studies they put out, but it was a slip up on their part.
Regardless, you're right in that it's not normal, and they've been TRYING to normalize it using false statistics and propaganda campaigns. Though I maintain it's a mental illness either way, and there's probably a treatment for it they've suppressed, but won't release because they want everything to devolve into degeneracy.
Great comments and I agree that the REAL numbers are much lower, but that does not change the context or conclusions of this post ;)
Also agree,
A couple of the things that happen in these polling places are:
Carefully framed questions "to be objective" but are made specifically so that the person listening will tend to a specific answer where the real answer would be along a 'don't know / don't care'
People on the phone with someone stupid might just 'fill in' correct answers to get them off the phone sooner.
Using their "random pools" that are already tending towards their desired results.
All of this, plus throwing out results that don't agree with their preconceived result as "outliers", using bots and false reporting to pump up the results towards their desired outcome, and if all else fails, just straight up lying by making crap up while claiming that it was an "anonymous study/poll".
I have little doubt, I was only speaking to things I had witnessed/noticed for the brief period I worked as a phone monkey for one of those polling places. Though, at that time, bots weren't really an option.
The pet analysis extended to the whole population makes it even more enlightening.
U.S. Population is ~332.7M
65.5% own neither dog or cat
21% are dog owners
13.5% are cat owners
Non Dog/Cat ownership is normal.
Dog ownership is abnormal.
Cat ownership is abnormal.
While there may well be more dog owners in the US, there are far more Cat Videos on the Internet.
Dogs are for companionship, Cats are for adorability.
It's hard, in my mind, to compare it as a Yin or Yang, take it or leave it, scenario such as gender.
There's nothing wrong with having a cat and a dog. There is something wrong with trying to present as another gender. Typically, no one will want to be with someone who can't make up their mind about something as simple as what they got going on downstairs.
Dog and Cat ownership are both normal, because it's not exclusive. Compare Hamster vs. Cat using your same assessment system, and you'll be forced to say that Cat ownership is normal when compared to abnormal Hamster ownership.
In reality, the premise is flawed because you CAN have more than one pet, but you can't have more than one gender.
Every population in the world has males and females. Not every population in the world includes pets such as rabbits. Some places just don't have rabbits, and so keeping them as pets never caught on.
I get your point, but you're splitting hairs in what seems like an effort to normalize dog ownership while gaslighting cat owners into an "abnormal" category which is on its face just not sincere.
I can agree that being straight is normal, but your argument has a glaring flaw which a clever Groomer could exploit to prove you "wrong."
Abnormal is not bad, it is just not normal. Don't over think it. We all have been gaslit by the misuse of words. Cat owners are not bad. Cat owning is outside the norm in the population of cat plus dog owners in which a majority own dogs and a minority own cats. I agree the analogy is a bit of a stretch, it is just taking the definitions literally.
There are so many areas in this discussion you could pick at and have a truly great conversation -- I like it!
Among them:
I'm asking these rhetorically (and because I like asking questions :P), but please feel free to have fun and answer.
These are the kinds of arguments kids should be exposed to in school, although... not necessarily about sexual preference (please no). Kids should be forced to ask questions, pick at arguments, and dismantle their own assumptions before rebuilding them with a better understanding of why. Bring back critical thinking!
Great comments and questions.
That's why I included the definitions I was using.
All analysis have defined data boundaries. In this case the boundary is only the population of Dog + Cat owners. hence there can only be normal or abnormal. I agree that there can be a spectrum. Look at IQ where normal is 100 and, "those who have an IQ between 0 and 25 are idiots; IQs between 26 and 50 are considered imbeciles; and those who have an IQ between 51 and 70 are considered morons."
This is a major point I was trying to make. Normal vs Abnormal is not good vs bad, or good vs evil. It is just low fidelity categorization.
Yes - people jumping on the bandwagon.
"Human sexual behavior is Natural, but some sexual behaviors are not necessarily Normal." Natural is: Being in accordance with or determined by nature. Example: Natural impulses.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than straight or heterosexual acts are natural impulses in consenting adults but they are not normal sexual acts in the population of sexually active consenting adults
Thanks for playing along!
To #5, I would disagree with you... but I think it's mostly semantics.
The impulse to have sex is "natural" but it would be unnatural to call homosexual acts natural. Those acts are not in accordance with or determined by nature. I don't think you can qualify it by saying "consenting adults".
Think of it this way: You can't control what you crave. Most crave normal stuff. Human sexual behavior is Natural = it is what you crave. If you crave normal it is your natural instinct. if you crave something else, it is still your natural instinct. I would hate to have a natural instinct that craved anything other than what I crave. But, what do I know except what I crave.
good points, but I hope you're not in the medical field. all test results, for example, exist within a "normal range"; the bottom of that range is still normal.
your dog and cat data is a good example of how statistics can be used to reinterpret data in a less than meaningful way.
I agree.
I would venture to say that the general obsession with knowing everyone's business and making sure everyone knows your business is abnormal.
Maybe that's just me.