And as usual we have those homophobes that think by using 'big words' , their points will come off as more intelligent. Yes, a lot of gay people have AIDS, therefore we should ban gay sex...right? Or, maybe we could promote safer sex practices, better sexual education among our youth, provide an environment free from discrimination so that these people won't be afraid to seek healthcare.
I don't think normal was the best word in this case-- I would have used natural instead, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose. Being gay is natural by the very definition of the word: it occurs in nature. I'm no scientist, but I don't think the aim of science is to regulate anyone's sexual practices. Science will only mention the pro's and con's of certain activities; it will, or at lesst shouldn't, say do this or don't do that. Peiple are free to do whatever they please, so long as it is not infringing on anyone's personal rights. I wonder if you're all as vehemently opposed to smoking and drinking, as those are rather dangerous habits as well.
It happens and there's nothing inherently wrong with it; its normal. AIDS will not suddenly come into existence the moment two gay persons begin intercourse; one of them has to already have the disease. Stop pretending AIDS is a gay disease!

Good points, I am still waiting for someone to explain how making male gay sex, or even gay marriage legal will affect my marriage to my (female) wife. I've read many posts on the great buggery law controversy but no-one has been able to explain this simple point. If my rights are in danger I'd like to know. Maybe the Gleaner could ask one of its columnists to address it.

Please, stop trying to compare consensual sex between two adults to murder or child rape.

Three points :

1. "superstition no longer has authority in modern jurisprudence"

Neither should incoherence. According to WHO HIV is "exploding among MSM" . The significant reason for this is buggery as anal receptive intercourse and role reversal accounts for 98% of the difference in HIV rates between MSM and heterosexuals.

2. "normality is the scientific consensus"

Scientific consensus on normality without consideration of design is foolish. In calling homosexuality normal medical associations deviated from standard practise of acknowledging design in defining normal. Hence the problem of HIV among MSM arose and persists despite the scientific consensus.

3. Removing persons who make valuable contributions in particular fields from the fringes is not a logical reason for defining homosexuality as normal.

1) The buggery law was not passed to stop HIV transmission and in Jamaica more straights than gays have HIV. The Government's latest report on HIV in Jamaica indicates that the majority of HIV cases in Jamaica are caused by heterosexual transmission, if we followed your logic then straight sex should be made illegal too.
2) Not sure what you mean by the "standard practice of acknowledging design". Biological scientists don't accept Intelligent Design as a basis for defining normality, neither is it the basis in medicine, evolution is.
3) I disagree slightly with the author and would say homosexuality is natural, rather than normal, simply because "normal" tends to describe what the majority of a group do. A minority of people are homosexual, but their behaviour is perfectly natural.

The majority of persons with HIV in Jamaica and the world are heterosexuals because there are more heterosexuals in the world. The extent to which populations are at risk of a disease is not measured by absolute numbers but by rates. In Jamaica 1.6 out of every 100 heterosexuals have HIV i.e rate of 1.6%. 32,6 out of every 100 MSM have HIV i.e rate of 32.6%. There are many more heterosexuals than MSM so :

1.6% x heterosexual population is more than 32.6% of the MSM population so more heterosexuals have HIV but the rate is 20 times higher in MSM i.e MSM are 20 times more likely to have HIV

"Not sure what you mean by the "standard practice of acknowledging design".

In medicine normal is defined by design (anatomy and physiology) so someone with a stomach in their head is not considered to be normal. There is room for slight variations from the usual called normal variants but normal variants are not associated with significant risk of disease. This is certainly not the case with HIV and other STIs in MSM.

Anatomy and physiology are not design, they are structure and function. Design implies a designer. Neither the Biological nor the medical sciences accept that there is any designer apart from natural selection.

While its correct that the prevalence of HIV among MSM is higher than among straight men & women in most populations, that does not constitute a basis for making gay sex between men illegal. The WHO and the remainder of the medical community that work on this issue have clearly indicated that the best way to reduce HIV transmission among MSM is to remove legal barriers to gay sex, educate the MSM community, provide access to lubricants, condoms and anti-retrovirals and make strong efforts to reduce the general social stigma against MSM.

What 'design' are you referring to?

To Jahmusic also

1. Natural selection does not produce novelty i.e it does not produce any new features. It eliminates existing features by selecting organisms with those features best adapted for their environment. The genesis of novelty is a major as yet unexplained hurdle for evolution

2.Structure and function is design whatever their source

3.WHO and the medical community "hope" / "believe" / "wish" and, as LGBT activists and supporters, would like to claim that the items you cite would decrease HIV among MSM. To date there is no data to indicate that they do or that they have done so.
HIV epidemics among MSM are expanding regardless of income levels or buggery laws in all countries studied.

Pick up a good evolutionary biology text book please. MUTATIONS provide all the 'novelty' species need.

Belief in the absurdity of religion is abnormal

The argument that because it exist makes it normal is Ludicrous. There are lots of deviations in creation. You could argue the same argument for mass murderers or pedophilia.

I think you misunderstand the concept of consent.

these two things are detrimental. homosexuality is not.

Very short and precise. Thank you...

Thanks writing this

I've heard good arguments for gay rights and lifestyle. I won't accept though one man having sex in another mans Anus-that part is unnatural.