The book was compared to the gay rights activist Urvashi Vaid's Virtual Equality (1995), and received many positive reviews, praising it as well-written work on its topic.

Sullivan presents the reader with four groups of types of people who view homosexuality in a specific manner within American society, criticizing the different arguments: Prohibitionists, Liberationists, Conservatives, and Liberals.

In his discussion of the Prohibitionist view, Sullivan also draws on the work of the historian John Boswell to argue that biblical passages dealing with homosexuality, such as those by Saint Paul, may have been mistranslated.

Sullivan claims their flaw to be that liberationist policy, by rejecting the notion of limiting oneself to words, fails to improve the plight of the gay and lesbian community.

Sullivan identifies the philosopher Michel Foucault as "arguably the most significant influence on liberationist thinkers and politics," and criticizes his views as expressed in The History of Sexuality (1976–1984).

[9] Mansfield described the book as "excellent" and credited Sullivan with setting "a standard for depth and subtlety of argument that has not been reached before on either side of the debate.

However, she criticized Sullivan's reticence about his private life, and for attributing the sexual promiscuity of gay men to social prejudice, arguing that this explanation is contradicted by the different behavior of lesbians.

[14] Hitchens described the book as "subtle and seductive", praised its autobiographical aspects, and credited Sullivan with changing the way homosexuality is debated in the United States.

He concluded that the book was an important discussion of the politics of homosexuality, though he noted that authors such as the critic Bruce Bawer and the journalist Jonathan Rauch had already expressed similar views.

[18] The Virginia Quarterly Review described the book as "lucid" and "engaging", crediting Sullivan with carefully criticizing the four perspectives on homosexuality he discussed.

[21] Minogue wrote that Sullivan had "done for homosexuality what John Stuart Mill did for freedom", crediting him with fairly presenting the range of social opinion on the subject, and suggested that only those familiar with the history of political philosophy would "recognize the scale of his achievement."

[23] Peyser wrote that the book was "packed with the kinds of contortions you'd expect from someone straddling so many cultural fences" and contained "numbing dialectics and 25-cent words".

He described Sullivan's views, including his support for same-sex marriage and military service by openly gay people, as well as his opposition to legislation banning discrimination in the private sector, as "incendiary".

[25] Gliatto described the autobiographical material in the book as moving, but found Sullivan's arguments about the main political viewpoints on gay rights, while rigorous, to be also "self-absorbedly quaint".

[40] Kristol wrote that Sullivan offered a moving case for same-sex marriage as well as a "poignant memoir" of growing up gay, and that Virtually Normal should be of special interest to conservatives.

However, she believed that Sullivan's view that social disapproval of homosexuality is responsible for gay men's sexual promiscuity is contradicted by the different behavior of lesbians.

She accused Sullivan of presenting a sanitized picture of gay life, and argued that he undermined his own case for same-sex marriage by supporting "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets".

However, he did not believe that Sullivan's proposals would end attempts to change private behavior toward gay people, which in Wilson's view would inevitably lead to "the political imposition of tolerance".

He agreed with Sullivan's case for gay military service, but believed that Virtually Normal would not permanently alter how people thought about homosexuality, describing its "history, sociology, psychology, and political theory" as "perfunctory" and its "philosophy" as "thin".

He criticized Sullivan for failing to disavow the pedophile organization NAMBLA, and described him as "childish" for suggesting that emotional and sexual desires must be satisfied.

He suggested that instead of arguing for gay rights, Sullivan should have turned to a "merciful God Who reminds us that we are all sinners and that we will be judged on the charity, and truthfulness, we show our neighbors as they bear their crosses.

He criticized Sullivan for "genuflections before authority" such as trying to present the Catholic Church's condemnations of homosexuality in a favorable light, and for his opposition to anti-discrimination legislation.

He maintained that the different behavior of lesbians contradicts Sullivan's suggestion that gay men's sexual promiscuity is the result of social disapproval of homosexuality.

[46] Virtually Normal received positive reviews from Malcolm Stuart Edwards in Theology & Sexuality and James J. Tarbox in Southern Communication Journal.

He also believed that he mistakenly interpreted social constructionism as holding "that homosexuality is not an orientation but a form of life which is chosen", thus confusing "Foucault’s historical argument with the etiological question of nature and nurture."

She was also unpersuaded by his attempt to show that the "Prohibitionist" and "Liberationist" views are equally extreme and unreasonable, writing that the latter was "much more offensive to reason", and that Sullivan's discussion of it exposed its implicit totalitarianism.

She found Sullivan's discussion of the "Conservative" view less than fully accurate, arguing that he "stresses the social utility side of conservatism, ignoring the principled ground of their argument."

He argued that Sullivan attempted to make his readers feel pity for gay people by claiming that they have no choice about being homosexual, and also indulged in self-pity.

He described Sullivan's treatment of natural law as "nuanced and insightful", but considered it irrelevant, since the "Prohibitionists" were led by biblical fundamentalists rather than "sophisticated philosophers".

"[56] The psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover described Virtually Normal as a "defense of a moderate gay activist position" that was for the most part "reasonably argued".