The latest bit of cultural Hooah! to pop up in my mixed upper class shitlib/batshit recluse libertarian Facebook news feed today was an interaction between Australian Tall Poppy Kevin Rudd and a pastor seemly hellbent on assassinating him with sheer staring power. Mr Rudd discussed his beliefs that people were born gay, at that the idea that being gay is “somehow an abnormal condition is just wrong.”
Except that being gay is by definition an abnormal condition. Normal refers to the predominant prevalence of a particular condition within a defined sample group, or, to put it into more casual terms, “usual, typical, or expected.” [Dictionary definition, provided by Google.] Within the human population, homosexuality is decidedly not “usual, typical, or expected;” most studies of sexual demographics peg the rate of homosexuality in the single digits, with even notorious latter-day Sodoms like Man Francisco only coming in at 15% gay. Even on the extreme high end, Dr. Alfred Kinsey found that 37% of males had “achieved orgasm” with another male, with 13% of females getting theirs from their sisters – still each decided minorities. So homosexuality is not normal, as it refers to individual homosexuals.
Enter equivocation number one. Homosexuality is perfectly normal, as it relates to groups. Every culture on Earth has homosexuality. Most, if not all, sexually reproducing animal species engage in homosexuality. Hell, there are probably even gay plants and a couple rocks and minerals and shit on the down low. The concept of homosexuality in the human population – in other words, that gays will exist – is completely usual, typical, and expected.
Equivocation number two. None of what I just wrote matters for the purposes of the arguments they always appear in. Whether homosexuality is normal or abnormal, or whether being homosexual is normal or abnormal, is never the actual point: the underlying argument is always whether being homosexual is positive or negative.
Normality has nothing to do with the value of the particular condition. Stating that being gay isn’t normal doesn’t cast any aspersions on it: those on both sides of the agenda who claim otherwise, whether gay rights advocates (“He said we were abnormal! Hate speech!!” Well, you are…) or religious conservatives (“Those gays aren’t normal!” So?) are equivocating: they use normal to mean good.
It doesn’t. Normal means typical. Being gay isn’t normal. Homosexuality in the broader sense is. Neither stops gays from being good or bad people, or means homosexuality in itself is a negative or positive trait. It’s not hate speech, and it’s not an accolade. It’s just a comment about prevalence.
You can be abnormal and still be OK.
In a fit of poor judgment and time-management skills, I was once again reading an Internet comment feud between the evolutionary psych Keyboard Alpha Crew and their feminist rivals in demanding equal access to bleat egotistically for anonymous attention. 
The debate centered on a repackaged regurgitation of the brutally obvious animal kingdom concept that men seek women with high reproductive value for mating purposes. Both sides reacted predictably. The Chateau-goers lozzolllolled and butthexed a-plenty, while the Jezzies set their snark levels to unbearable and in the process repeated a tired meme:
“Oh well since WOMEN ARE CLEARLY ALL JUST PROSTITUTES WHO ONLY EXIST FOR SEX, why not get a hooker and leave the nice girls alone?”
Ignoring that snark is an immature and functionally retarded method of argumentation – in essence, a constant reductio ad absurdum – let’s cut through the attitude and break down the underlying fallacy in what that statement was supposed to convey: if men want women for their reproductive value, that means solely for sex.
P: men want women with high reproductive value
A: [reproductive value is exclusively equivalent to sex]
C: OMG they just want sex!
So why not just get a hooker and leave the nice girls alone? Well, for one, hookers unearth the fallacies of the above argument.
Hookers don’t actually have any reproductive value to the average man, since they show no commitment, zero fidelity, a high probability of paternity fraud, and, most importantly, zero homebuilding ability. Hookers exist to provide men sex without reproductive benefits, and yet the greatest tell than men want more than sex is the rise of GFE prostitution: the fantasy that a girl is actively willing to engage in homebuilding and consensus. That’s reproductive value to men, and it only partially includes sex. Oh, are you surprised that those screaming an argument steeped in equivocal nonsense are mouth-shitting out an exclusivity fallacy as well? Let’s continue.
Reproductive value includes a shitload of other factors, mostly related to actually raising and caring for the children – communicating, building a household, nesting, consensus, nurturing, all that other shit women love to bleat on about women being better at. The next time you can tell a woman is engaged in some A-1 doublethink is when she’ll tell you in one breath about how the modern workplace is now the arena of women, who TeamworkTM better and Solve Problems TogetherTM better regardless of the evidence right in front of your face that anything that remotely involves producing or manufacturing an actual product or innovation came from an industry which is still 95% male despite hunting salaciously for any females with a modicum of talent, and then turn around and tell you that men still only value women for their vaginas, which American women have colluded to market-dump anyway. They’re missing the contradiction and missing the point. One involves crowing and beatifying the traits that make up women’s reproductive value as not only innate but obvious to the entire business world, while the other involves denying, dismissing, and conveniently forgetting those same traits, or, at the very least, claiming that half the population is mistaken as to their existence. Which is ironic, considering women continue to demand affirmative action to break into the business world on the grounds that it’s still run by men. The logically bereft conclusions that data suggests are that (a) men can only appreciate a woman’s collaborative traits in the office, and not the home, which makes you wonder how men can see reproductive value in the office long enough to adequately support a sexual harassment claim; and (b) only powerful men can see those traits in the first place.
Except that I’m ignoring the real point, which is that now men are not only barred from making negative comments about women, but positive comments as well. In other words, only women are allowed to voice opinions on women. And women, of course, can voice opinions on men, too, since women are somehow simultaneously kept down by men and surpassing men, and thus either allowed to vent against their oppressors as an aggrieved class or allowed to drop pearls of noblesse oblige on the poor males to encourage their growth.
 Just like that handsome asshole who lives in my mirror.