Word Play
The normal/abnormal faux controversy isn’t so much the problem with the quoted material that started this thread. The problem is the attribution of anger to a group which tends to deny the individuality.
If the “abnormal” reference is a societal reference, and if the argument is that societies of humans are essentially designed around a male and a female forming relationships for the purpose of procreation, then one could posit that a homosexual relationship represents a deviance from that “norm.”
Or if the “abnormal” reference is a biological reference observing that humans were designed, primarily, in male and female forms in order to come together for form more humans, then one could posit that a homosexual coupling preference would deviate from that “norm.” And in both contexts, a deviation could, arguably, be described as “abnormal.”
And one could observe that the term “abnormal” is neither a positive or a negative term. In the contexts outlined above, it is scientifically descriptive.
But here’s the thing: We are no longer organisms splashing in the primordial mud hoping to replicate often enough to assure the survival of the species. Or should I say that we have taken on additional interests beyond that simple survival function. With the global population we now have, and the huge numbers of happy (or hapless) breeders everywhere, the significance of the “deviation” becomes largely irrelevant from a scientific point of view.
So this normal/abnormal thing is just a bunch of word play. Many people enjoy, celebrate, being different (or ‘deviant’ if you will). Many neither claim to be, nor want to be, “normal.” So the suggestion, at the outset, that a group is angry about the normal/abnormal issue is silliness – though perhaps stimulating cocktail talk.