Mulan's point is well taken--we can bandy the word "normal" about until it loses all meaning.
The truth is, the definition of "normal," just like that of "sane" (think about it!) is not absolutely fixed--it goes by majority vote at any point in time.
Having worked a night job for many years until recently, it is now entirely normal for me, if left undisturbed, to sleep till noon and have breakfast in the middle of the afternoon. But I'm sure most folks wouldn't consider it normal!
In ancient Greece, as far as I can tell, it was quite normal for a married man to take an adolescent boy under his wing, teach him how to fight, use a sword, throw a javelin--and bugger him. But we'd all have the adult thrown in jail now for that.
What's considered normal varies from place to place and time to time, and is parallel to the "natural" fallacy that started this thread.
In the gay world, cruising for sex in bathrooms and screwing in public parks is considered low-class and trashy, at least here in the Deep South.
To be honest, there is a great deal of "promiscuous" sex and quite a few "open" relationships. There's also a large block of us, myself included, who have or want just one partner, faithful and monogamous for a lifetime. I can't quote percentages, because I don't know what they are, and I'm not sure anybody does. But I'd be willing to bet that the biggest group would be single gay men who have sex with one lover at a time until the relationship breaks up, and they move on to another relationship.
The promiscuous life is not for me, but I've been around the block once or twice, and I do understand the terrible power of loneliness. With no social training or legal backing, relationships are hard for us to keep together. I've got better things to do than throw dirt at two lonely people who get together in privacy and do whatever.
What gets me is preachers and church members who are so quick to rant about "promiscuous homosexuals"--but notice, you rarely hear them yelling about "promiscuous heterosexuals" do you? Or unwed mothers? Or "living in sin" as MILLIONS of good, "normal" heterosexuals do nowadays? One is theologically as big a sin as the other, so why the distinction? I can't quite figure that out.
Although, after Princess Diana died, I read or heard of a Catholic priest saying that she is undoubtedly in Hell, having been fornicating with her boyfriend and dying without repenting of it. He was, of course, following orthodox Christian teaching to the letter--but does anyone want to believe him? Diana was a troubled soul with several flaws, but to send her to Hell for being so damn lonely and insecure . . . ?
I'm an orthodox Christian, too, but the God I believe in has different criteria. See Matthew 24.
Bill
"If we all loved one another as much as we say we love God, I reckon there wouldn't be as much meanness in the world as there is."--from the movie Resurrection (1979)