Thank you, everyone, for defending poor, defenseless statistical analysis, which has taken a beating with this post.
Ever hear of the Bell Curve? 80% of us are within 20% of each other, which establishes "social norms" . 10% are on either end of the scale.
That's assuming what you are measuring is normally distributed. While the normal distribution is important, many things are NOT normally distributed. Age and income, for example (both are more of an F distribution). Also, 20% of WHAT? What is your metric? How are you quantifying someone's "sex-ness"? "How much I find it distasteful" is NOT an acceptable metric, as it is entirely subjective.
I guess in the case of sexuality, that would place asexuals or those who just refrain from having sex on one end and 'devient' sexual behavior on the other end.
You guess wrong. Why are you assuming that sexuality is somehow normally distributed? Again, what is your metric? As Shifty_Eyes pointed out, "asexual"--->"heterosexual"--->"what wally finds weird" is not a quantitative continuum.
Therefore, it's quite ligitimate to place homosexuality and other forms of devient sexual behavior in the same 10% of the bell curve!
No. You've artificially created a category, "things that are devient[sic]," and used that to prove that the two are comparable, and so concluded that it's acceptable to classify both as deviant. Circular reasoning is circular.
Also being able to put two things in the same part of a bell curve does not mean that they are comparable. If I wanted to do a bell curve on "how green something is" this would not therefore mean that I could say that limes and marijuana were somehow exactly the same, and then say that since marijuana is illegal, limes should be, too.
Sorry for the long post. Math geek here.