The very question presumes there's a problem, that it's not natural.
It isn't, in the sense it is a flaw in the human genome. Natural as it exists in the genome yes, but unnatural in the sense that it is not a normal occurrence in the species. So no, it isn't natural.
Yet, as I've proven it's natural.
Sigh, I said I was going to stay neutral, but as with all attempts at neutrality, one winds up taking a side. Just because your argument went unchallenged for a period of time does not constitute proof of anything. It is an argument of false declaration at this juncture.
Thus, to your question the origin of homosexuality is clearly based on human / animal desires for "
sex,
courtship,
affection,
pair bonding, or
parenting." Yeah that last one sounds odd, note: it was not my list.
In fact, the assertion "animals do it too" is deceptive. Animals act on instinct, not emotion. Therefore they have no perception of homosexuality as humans do. We are in fact, as you said, intelligent and unique. I find the idea of attributing human behavior to animals to be a flawed line of reasoning, as such:
"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world (notice how he stresses behavior), it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
-LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207.
"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."
Dr. Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos medicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.
Animal species akin to mammalia (excluding humans, which are intelligent mammals) have an overwhelming instinct to propagate their species. They don't have enough intelligence to override that instinct. We do. There's human nature and animal nature. Neither can be equated with the other.
In nature "there is documented evidence of
homosexual behavior of one or more of the following kinds:
sex,
courtship,
affection,
pair bonding, or
parenting." (
Bruce Bagemihl's 1999 book
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. )
Speaking of Bruce Bagemihl: in that very same book, he made
this assertion on page 262:
"Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle--back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions....Biological Exuberance is...a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable."
Ibid, p. 262
That has no scientific backing whilst resorting to a supernatural, spiritual basis to anchor his assertion. He hinges this part of his argument solely on the mythical conceptions of ancient Indian and aboriginal peoples. I take his argument with a grain of salt, and rightly so. It is an androgynous myth. Mythology is not science.
Then, he shows his dissatisfaction with empirical science and suggests that the aboriginal cultural perspective is superior. That immediately discredits any perspective he has on the subject:
"Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality..."
Ibid, p. 5
Once again, we are discussing empirical science, not mythology.
Another instance of this conflationary argument comes here:
"To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of "explanation" or "cause" or "rationale." In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds.."
Ibid, p. 215
"Most Native American tribes formally recognize--and honor--human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the 'two-spirit' person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The 'two-spirit' is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes .... And often engaging in same -sex relations. ... In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or "supernatural" two-spirit(s)....A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirits--creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time--were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer."
Ibid, p. 216
He is using the religious beliefs of aboriginal cultures to define homosexual behavior in animals, in another attempt to equate it with human behavior. That is not a scientific argument. I am told by many people that in some cases science and religious belief are incompatible, in this case I agree. With all due respect, RKM, this source is dubious at best.
I will contend that human behavior is completely dissimilar to the instinctual behavior of other mammals. I am also calling you on the grounds you based your argument on an unreliable source.
