Or, you jumped to a base you wanted to cover. I don't think it means commonly accepted according to what the guy said, as if human acceptance had anything to do with the reality of the natural world; it means the overwhelming majority of cases with only a very small percentile of any alternative. Black people are the norm in Africa, white people are not normal in Africa. Mexicans might soon be the norm in America, or at least whites people won't be the norm any longer. The fact that homosexuality is common throughout history does not mean it is THE normal. You're arguing that it is normal because it occurs, when that is not what is meant.
The difficulty of saying "natural" versus "unnatural" in terms of human behavior is that human behavior is far more complex and depends on so many more factors than simple genetics, as we can assume in nature, if only because of our sentience.
What the guy is saying is that heterosexuality is indeed the normal course of sexuality in the nature which leads to our existence in an evolutionary frame of mind (bacteria are asexual, many amphibians can change gender, so it's not exactly accurate to compare all of humanity to all of nature). In nature, homosexuality invariably leads to the removal of that individual from the gene pool, and is a defect in that regard according to the "laws of nature", whether do to genetics or environment in the whom or whatever. It is not natural or normal for an animal in nature to be homosexual, as their being homosexual removes them from the gene pool.
Natural or normal according to what the guy means doesn't mean that it can simply happen, as if all occurrences in nature, having happened, are somehow part of the norm or natural progression of events; thats not what the dude means, and you seem to conscientiously make that error to prove a point.
The thing is that you argue about "natural" and "normal", yet with a degree of separation of humans from nature, since we talk of morality within a supposed genetic, natural (your first definition) happenstance. Within an evolutionary world view, homosexuality is a defect. That people support it with this view is highly ironic. The hypocrisy of the situation, where people who hold true the notion that all the progress of natural selection has brought us to the point where we are, with the ruthless elimination of all defective genes or defective animals due to environment, thus relegating homosexuals to defects of the course of nature by association, yet state that the moral higher ground belongs to those who accept homosexuals within this world view, is pretty perverse, really.
Either humans are separate from nature, and can thus make moral decisions based on our extremely complicated behavior, far more complex than relying on mere genotype, or an integral part of nature, where morality should favor "eugenics", which is merely the moral progression of the natural progression of events within an evolutionary world view.
Because I've been wondering, if morality is a natural thing that we have tapped into via some miracle in evolutionary development, how is it that it isn't in sync with natural selection?
Or do i mistake myself?
