I think one of the key problems here is that j8ear is using the word "abnormal" imprecisely.
Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
Main Entry: 1ab·nor·mal
Pronunciation: (")ab-'nor-m&l, &b-
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of French anormal, from Medieval Latin anormalis, from Latin a- + Late Latin normalis normal
Date: circa 1836
: deviating from the normal or average : UNUSUAL, EXCEPTIONAL <abnormal behavior>
It's my sense, just from the tone of the discussion, because the term hasn't been otherwise defined here, that j8ear is adding a more connotative definition that includes "undesirable" or "harmful."
First, I would say that you have to substantiate that claim, if that is in fact what you mean.
Second, j8ear, I don't think anybody's disputing your claim that some of the "conditions" you list are "abnormal" using the strictly denotative definition. What we are objecting to is your apparent claim that because these conditions are not mainstream, they should be considered neither acceptable, nor worthy of the rights of "normal" human beings.
To compare pedophiles (criminals, or if you prefer, people who have presumably unconsensual sex with children) with porn stars (a profession), midgets, dwarfs, lepers, the retarded and mentally ill, (medical conditions) and homosexuality (biologically-based sexual identity) is frankly quite confusing and I can't see how any of them relate, except that they are technically abnormal. As, someone pointed out, are redheads. So are albinos, punks, anarchists, libertarians, amputees, deaf people, black people, and men (after all, there are now more women than men on the planet - does that make men abnormal?)
So if you're talking about people whose identity somehow varies from the mainstream...what exactly is your argument? Because I'll be damned if any of us can tell what you're trying to say.
If on the other hand you're saying that these behaviors/conditions/professions/identities are harmful in some way and therefore should not be tolerated, all we ask is that you prove it. Show us the research, or state your reasoning clearly and using NORMAL and explicit definitions of terms.
If you are saying that these behaviors/conditions/professions/identities are contrary to social norms and should therefore be discouraged, well, norms change. They are societally defined, they are subject to evolution. If you think change is a bad thing, well, I'm afraid I can't help you there.
Finally, don't belittle us because we, many of us who have established reputations in this community as intelligent and reasonable people, can't follow your arguments. The common denominator in our confusion appears to be you.
Whoops, the last point was not final. Many of us here are homosexual, bisexual, physically challenged, mentally ill, some of us are (wannabe) porn stars, and for the most part we value diversity of opinion, which is why you have been allowed to remain here. You have a Halx-granted right, in this community, to your opinion, however ignorant, unfounded, and undefended it is, as long as you are civil (which, to your credit, you have mostly been so far). If you have such a problem with "freaks, geeks, and weirdos" as you term them/us, perhaps you should seek out a more "normal" audience for your ideas.