The Myth Of Normalcy

In an effort to ostracize or silence amoral behaviors they do not like, some people might resort to condemning something because it is “abnormal.”  A rational analysis of the concept of normalcy, though, reveals that there is no such thing as an objectively normal set of behaviors.  Normality cannot exist as long as different lifestyles do.

Since "normal" is a term referring to common behavioral trends, the only things that one could appeal to in order to argue that something is normal are the actions of others--but since human behaviors vary with time and location, the very idea that some actions are inherently normal and others are not is asinine.  Normalcy is not like morality.  There can be universal moral truths even if all people dispute or deny them.  However, there can be no such thing as an objective, universal standard of normalcy if people have different ideas of what normalcy is based upon genuine lifestyle differences.  Specific human behaviors have no fixed rate of occurrence.

It follows that there cannot be such a thing as objectively normal behaviors, only behaviors that a particular person or group perceives as normal, and these perceptions are not uniform.  Since there is no transcendent normalcy, the mere fact that an activity is or is not socially accepted need not have any influence over one's lifestyle decisions: the only things that should deter people from a certain course of action are rationality and morality, not concerns with what other people will think or allegiance to a particular idea of normality.  Whether or not something is allegedly "normal" has nothing to do with whether or not something is permissible or immoral, so there can be no inherent profit from concerning oneself with normalcy to begin with.

Individuality, wherever it is expressed in a nonsinful way, is good, because God did not create humans to have identical personalities.  In an ultimate sense, behavioral normalcy does not exist, for one person might not behave as another does, and any human practice is subject to change as it is.  As long as people do not violate an objective moral obligation, they can express themselves however they please.  The trivial objections of those who believe in objective normality amount to nothing more than social constructs mistaken for reality.