Yes, because others seem to think they're a "huge majority."
Right, but whether they are a majority or minority (I don't know), what relevance does that have to the topic at hand?
You jumped back to the buzzword already? After I was trying to avoid the word "deviance?" That was only your 2nd sentence!
Yes, I jumped back to it, because I don't have any problem with the idea that homosexuality is not particularly common. It's suggesting that its deviant that I think is rather silly.
I didn't really have much of a problem with 3bodyproblem's first post about deviance, because from what he wrote there it seemed that by deviant he was only saying that homosexuality is uncommon. Which is fine: I found the choice of word odd, but whatever, I thought I knew what he meant.
Later, he made it clear that that wasn't what he meant, and that's when I started engaging him in this thread. Of course, I may have misread that, which is why I was hoping he'd say what he means exactly when he says homosexuality or whatever is deviant.
You said we are all misunderstanding him. But since the only issue I have with him is that he says something is deviant, if you say I've misunderstood that, I can't really agree or disagree with you about that without address deviance, can I?
Well, that particular sentence didn't, but I wrote many more.
So what point are you trying to make when you say that homosexuality is extremely uncommon in animals?
Anyway, since I pretty much HAVE to address deviance, it's devil's advocate time: The
definition of deviant says deviation from an accepted norm. When a society deems something "normal," society by implication deems anything else "deviant." If you look at the population of the planet (animal, human, whatever), homosexuals are a minority, and could therefore be considered not "normal."
I can actually accept that,
if that's the way the word is being used. But, if you say that homosexuality is deviant by that definition then so, as terry said way upthread, is being left-handed.
If someone wants to use the word that way, I don't care, but you can't consistently say that homosexuality is deviant because its uncommon and being left-handed is not.
If being left-handed is not deviant then there is some other criteria beyond the one given for determining whether or not homosexuality is deviant. I simply want to know what it is.
That viewpoint is archaic and silly, but nonetheless prevalent (as we've seen in this thread). Deviance is in the eye of the beholder, and there's no way to solidly define it. Since society created it, society dictates it... and majority rules, friends.
Actually you can solidly define deviance. In this case, the definition you're using has to do with social norms. To find out if something is deviant then, first we have to look at what those social norms are. Of course, by this definition deviance caries no moral value one way or the other, as by it civil rights leaders might have been considered deviant, for instance.
no way!
ever read Green Eggs and Ham?).... 
