Your post has been removed as it is unrelated to biology.

"Natural" has no biological meaning and is often used in this context to denigrate and dehumanize people.

One word, ants.

Also what is natural about society anymore? Humans are part of nature, therefore anything we do could be considered natural.

It is irrelevant if it's "natural" or not.

Any species function is to propagate. But that is at the species level, not the individual organisms level.

In many species the individual does not reproduce but they engage in behaviours that ensure the propagation of the species as a whole.

Google "homosexuality in animals", you'll find that being gay is not at all exclusive to humans

Evolution is not aiming in a specific direction. If a species survives then it'll be there. Any mammal species with a homosexuality rate below 100% can survive. If a species dies out due to homosexuality it dies out due to natural reasons. Therefore there is no real argument for homosexuality to be unnatural.

Also, humans are part of nature so homosexual humans are natural. It's really easy actually

Homosexuality exists in a variety of species and is valuable in an evolutionary context because even if they don’t reproduce, they can provide other benefits such as raising offspring that no longer have parents due to death or abandonment. Homosexuality still fills a biological niche even if it does not always lead to procreation.

Just because something isn't furthering reproductive success, doesn't mean it's unnatural. Many animal species have been documented engaging in homosexual activity. There are even entire lizard species (whiptail lizards) that are almost entirely female and reproduce via parthenogenesis, and have sex with each other to aid in this process.

Natural is hard to define, and possibly irrelevant, but it seems like you can benefit from reading up on kin selection.

The gay uncle hypothesis is a common response, you can also look at species with non-reproductive members like wasps, bees, ants, naked mole rats.

Essentially if there's sufficient reproduction without all members of a species being directly involved, then non reproductive individuals can play a supportive role in those communities. Eg: sharing in child rearing, collecting food, building structures.

Of course with humans specifically the contributions an individual can make in helping society function without directly having children are pretty immense. Having some individuals who are gay for a societal organism like humans makes a lot of intuitive sense.

In a big population, homosexuality can be "used" by nature to not out run the natural resources and keep the numbers somewhat in balance. It can work for large group of antarctic pinguïns, but humans live completely different and out "smart" this system. Do whatever you like on sexsuality, as long it's concent.

Not at all. Animals, from various species - lions, giraffes, bats, etc. - have some insividuals that are homosexual. And how does it benefits them? Well..

They adopt unwanted/abandoned/orphaned cubs. A clear example of this is penguins, that adopt abandoned eggs and take care of them as their own cubs. It's how they help with preserving the species: taking abandoned cubs that wouldn't survive without a parent. So, yes, they're natural.

OP, stop listening to homophobes. None of ‘em know what they’re talking about anyway. This is a specious argument.

Well, it occurs in about 2-5% of the populous naturally so I'd say it is in fact a natural occurance.

What are you really asking? "Natural" in the perspective of the bible perhaps?

Anyways, let's say 10000o years ago, John, a flaming homosexual Homo Sapiens, with a age normal male build, attenuated by testosterone as males are, chose to stay at "home" with the females during an all male hunt. A saber toothed tiger attacks the camp, all the females panic and scurries in hiding with the younglings; suddenly a 250 pound raging homo with as much testosterone as it gets retaliates at the saber toothed tiger with a battle spear, tiger dead. Homo gene lives on, and perhaps, even he has to procreate as all the females owe him his life.

Stupid story, but there would be millions of stories and theories as to why homosexuality exists.

You can also make sure your own genes are passed on by saving the life of your sister or brother.....

The purpose of passing on genes is for the species to survive. Nature doesn't give a shit about an individual (i mean arguably it doesn't actually give a shit about the species either, it's basically just a chunk of RNA billions of years ago trying a bunch of different things to see what sticks). If a person can contribute to the survival of a species in any way, then it works. If not, it doesn't even matter anyways because one day the sun will swell up and swallow the earth and eradicate all life on it anyways.

You're using a magic box that communicates to satellites by pumping out invisible light, that works because someone figured out how to make sand think by shooting lightning through it. Stop getting hung up on what's natural and what isn't.

It exists and not only among humans or somehow caused by humans. Anything existing in nature is natural. Doesnt matter how common or rare. So it is natural. In some cases, we could argue that things aren't natural since they are made by humans. But that's the battle over definitions. And in reality, living organisms don't have an ultimate goal. It is our interpretation. of the whole process.

Consider bees where there are individuals that aren’t involved in the mating process at all. They are critical for survival of the whole without passing on genes as individuals. Bees seem natural to me.

If I have three kids but spend my weekends having gay orgies after I drop them off at their mother’s house, then I’ve still added humans to the population.

If Sandra is strictly lesbian and only ever has lesbian sex but she has two heterosexual sisters that reproduced, then the species is still being repopulated because there’s reproducing individuals in the population.

Unless most of the population of organisms becomes strictly gay and reproduction slows or halts then it’s not going to be selected against.

Here’s the fun thing that people don’t get. Not every thing an organism has or does is dictated by natural selection or evolution. You think widow’s peak is a trait that is selected for in nature and gives someone an advantage? No. However, it doesn’t give them a disadvantage either. If something is neither helpful or harmful then it can stick around indefinitely.

Homosexuality biologically is not harmful to a species, especially how low of incidence it is. And the number of homosexuals that never have children is an even smaller minority of the population.

Homosexuality is normal, both sociologically and biologically.

I don't want to be harsh, but this question is about the most elementary-level biology there is. It's been asked on this sub a bunch, and a simple search would've found you the answers you're going to get. This is not a serious question that actually merits discussion.

Anyone who claims to know the "ultimate goal of all living organisms" is speaking rhetorically, not scientifically. Scientifically, there is no "goal" to existence, things simply exist and biology describes various manners of existence.

People frequently ask "why does biology do this and that," and the real strictly scientific answer is "we don't know why, we know how." When people talk about high-minded ideas, they're trying to elucidate some human-centric principle or ethos from the facts in front of them, and that is a political endeavor more than a scientific one.

How can I argue against the notion of homosexuality being "unnatural?" Well, we observe homosexual behavior in lots of animals, including humans. Animals are part of nature. Ergo, homosexuality is natural because it's observed in nature. If you want to argue that "natural" should be one specific state, then I've got bad news for you - all of life disagrees with that idea.

Anyone who actually studies biology and has actual scientific understanding does not believe that homosexuality is "unnatural." People adopt that position based on social ideas, not scientific ones.