Er, how exactly is homosexuality a defect? Mind you, some homosexuals marry and have children, so don't go that way. They might not really enjoy it, but then again, I hate working. I'm obviously defective as well. But I digress.
Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that "normality" is a random state defined culturally as much as biologically, if not more. Also, trying to debate "normality" avoiding the connotations the term has is a difficult and somewhat pointless exercise, and I suspect it's also an attempt at appearing neutral when one really isn't. The connotations are there, precisely because of what "normality" implies, and how it's defined.
In this case, homosexuality seems to be a trait prevalent in a percentage of mankind, which makes me wonder if it's comparable to, say, having red hair. Your reasoning considering one abnormal and the other not is a fine example of fallacious randomness, and it would be amusing were you not trying to pass it as some sort of obvious pseudo-scientific fact. Yeah, yeah. Opinions are opinions and all that jazz, but using pseudo-science to put down a lot of people as inferior (yes, inferior as being genetically sub-par) is not very nice.
EDIT: Mets beat me to it.