This question already has an answer here:

Ok, firstly I don't know if this is the right forum to ask this question.

Secondly and most importantly I am an ally and a supporter of the community, its rights and for their equality.

Recently, I met a guy who was a military veteran and did not support the LGBTQ community and we got into a healthy argument. I told him that homosexuality was found everywhere in nature (gave him examples of a lot of animals that reproduce by having sex with the same gender).

But his counter argument was that none of these organisms have sex for pleasure (like humans do)! He went on to say that it was a rudimentary component of sustained growth for an organism's culture to produce progeny and continue growing to avoid extinction and that's why it is is justified in those organisms and he asked me from a purely biological standpoint, if homosexuality in humans was essential to the survival of the species.

Interestingly, I found his argument valid and could not produce a counter argument to it. I said I'll ask people and get back to him on this. So, Is his argument right?

I mean, if nature thought it was natural for humans to mate with the same gender, then it would've facilitated reproduction to keep the species alive right?

So, here's the crux of my question, when psychology says "homosexuality in humans is natural", does it mean that some people are born with a natural attraction towards the same sex ("wired that way" in layman's terms) or does it mean biologically?

I know this is the wrong community to ask about biology, but would be interesting to see how they'd argue to this question. Would they consider it "natural" as well?


marked as duplicate by Robin Kramer, mfloren, AliceD Oct 27 '17 at 18:30

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • $\begingroup$ Your question on how 'natural' should be interpreted according to psychiatry is answered by the duplicate question (it is not a mental disorder). Note that the interpretation by your friend implies that only things which are "essential to the survival of the species" are 'natural'. That is a very common, easily countered, statement. Just think about all things not 'essential' for the survival of the species we do. Are all those not 'natural' either? For example, as he himself stated, sex for pleasure. $\endgroup$ – Steven Jeuris Oct 28 '17 at 10:19

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.