For you, "normal" is such a simple thing - you, yourself, are "normal." You can't imagine that anyone else would ever do or act in a different way. You would probably respond by saying that, in fact, you do understand differences of opinion. You do have a knowledge of it, you know differences of opinion exist, but it's unlikely that you truly and fully understand that, yes, people do live different lives from you. 

You talk about homosexuals choosing "non-deviant" sex, but what does that even mean? What is non-deviant sex? And how do you choose? Be honest and tell me if you choose what arouses you. Are there not nights when your partner comes into the room dressed to the nines in her best lingere just for you, but you are not in the mood - you are tired, aching, all sexed out, or just plain getting old? You want so much to want her and please her and make her happy, but, hey, just isn't the right time. You have something else on your mind. It isn't happening - or it will happen, but your heart just isn't in it.

If not that, then think of a time when you were aroused at the wrong time - perhaps during a class, or church, or at work. Suddenly, your wife, coworker or whomever has just tripped your trigger, and what do you do? Can you simply tell your body to stop! Calm down! Send blood to the toes, the toes damn you, the toes!

All men know that, in fact, you can't. The awkward boner is a universal experience.

So how do you expect a homosexual to just, poof! Be turned on by someone of the opposite sex? Your own experience should tell you  that it isn't that simple. A gay man can't simply tell his body to send blood to his fingers or toes, to his brain, to his lungs when he is turned on. He can't look at a woman and just say, blood! Penis! Now! Let's do this! 

And, so, I mean, that's the thing about it - the debate as to whether homosexuality is biological or a choice is immaterial. Any thinking, rational human being can reflect on his own experience and understand that sexual arousal is not entirely in one's control. There are, of course, the cliches of "thinking about baseball" or taking a cold shower, but even so - removing the arousal does not change the fact that arousal ocurred. It does not change the fact that you were aroused by a particular thing. 

What you can't understand is that asking a homosexual to have "non-deviant" sex is no more unreasonable than if one asked you to engage in "deviant" sex. It simply does not turn you on, and you simply cannot participate in it. If you took just one moment, just a second, to think,
reflect, and try to understand something that you are clearly
completely ignorant of, you might see that your own experiences
parallel the homosexual experience; you might see that your own
experience renders your own opinions and suggestions invalid. The times that you have not been in control of you own normal, "non-deviant" arousal ought to show you quite clearly that a homosexual has no more control over it than you do. 

The true irony of it is this: you talk about homosexuals shoving their lifestyles in our faces. You say they are trying to make us accept something that is unpleasant or unacceptable to us. They are forcing us to be something we aren't!

Yet in the same breath you sit there and sanctimoniously suggest that those same people ought to hunker down and be something that THEY aren't. Does the word hypocrite mean anything at all to you? It is wrong for them to shove their lifestyle in our faces, yet they can just shut up and live the way we do?

Do you not hear yourself?

Finally, an ad hominem. Since you won't read and understand what I've written, I may as well have fun with this. I think I'll quote one of my students.

"You are stinky every day. I know this. :P"

Ah, the joys of teaching.