Human Sexuality is NOT Natural.

[rukia4204]

sugar and splice

rukia4204

sugar and splice

It's a bit pedantic to use a dictionary definition to argue that nothing about humanity is natural, don't you think?

Humans are animals like any other, fully part of the world around us. The line between "man-made" and "natural" is blurry... and kind of snobbish, anyway. Aside from scale, what exactly is the fundamental difference between a human city and a beehive or a prairie dog town?

At best, the only "unnatural" things humans are capable of are things we consciously decide to do. As we have very limited control over sexual attraction, it can't be considered man-made, ergo it is natural.

Intelligence. An ant does not stop and think, why am I helping this queen? what has she done for me? An ant does not have hobbies that it has spare time to do, nor does it think to want them. Humans are so complex in their intelligence that natural just cannot define us. we can't look at another species that has evolved to survive its own situation and think, "oh, so thats how it should be done," because we're subject to a different situation and social parameters. Sexuality is affected by many variables like childhood experiences; in many situations, not all but many, children who've been sexually abused grow up to become the abusers of their own children. Boys who've beem molested by men at a young age tend to, and again not all cases, grow to become more lenient on male to male relationships. And how would you explain fetishes? What do humans gain from wanting to have sex with chickens? we cannot physically mate with them yet the fetish is there. What of feet? feet weren't designed for those parts and they cannot ejaculate or accept sperm so what is the purpose of many peoplse strong attraction to them?

Intelligence explains the difference in scale. But look - what's the fundamental purpose of a city? It's a place designed to provide shelter and subsidence to a large number of interconnected people, and a collective pooling of resources for maximum efficiency in production. So is a beehive. I can rattle off a whole list of fancy additional reasons why I might have my apartment where I have it, and certainly that level of deep thinking is beyond the bee... but the fundamental reason I have an apartment is so I can have shelter. I engage in labor so I can feed myself. I live in a collective grouping of my species because it makes it easier to feed, shelter, and protect myself. All of those rationales are shared by the bee.

Sure, a bee can't have hobbies. (At least as far as we know; there's a lot about insect intelligence we don't really understand.) Smarter animals can, though. Crows do all kinds of weird s**t for the lulz. Baby apes have gendered play behaviors quite similar to those of baby humans. Dolphins and whales do all kinds of non-survival-related things for the sheer fun of it.

And weird sexual behavior? Eh, we don't know enough about other animals to be able to really draw a good comparison. But we've got loads of evidence of animals trying to have sex outside their species (for example, harbor seals trying to court penguins), necrophilia is a thing many animals do, etc. etc.

You are an animal, with all the wonders and weirdnesses that entails. You don't have to make us out to be snobby special snowflakes to defend the right of people to be homosexual. It's entirely natural. Anyone trying to claim otherwise is A) unaware of how many species engage in homosexual behavior, and B) probably failed biology, since they clearly lack any real understanding of evolutionary theory.

There will always be similarities, humans can learn from animals and have, but it doesn't mean everything has to be derived by their "normal" from species to species its different and they don't seem to mind. Why should we?

[Bogotanian]

Henry Hobo-Master

I'll even go so far to say that homosexuality isn't natural. And guess what? Neither is heterosexuality. Our sexual behaviors are VERY UNNATURAL in comparison to every other life form on this planet, while they do share a lot of similarities. True, you can find homosexuality in certain species, as well as heterosexuality. However, HOW humans go about their sexuality is completely different than any other species. Our courtship patterns, our fetishes, romance, and basically all of the other little behaviors that encompasses human relationships and sexuality is so unique, that you simply cannot compare us.

It does not matter how you try to convince yourself that humans are a part of nature. We are not. We removed that idea a long time ago. Nature by definition, is everything but us. That is the truth that we all understand and accept.

If homosexuality isn't natural than how would you explain people who claim to be born homosexual or have homosexual predispositions with genetics? (or would you say the nature vs nurture debate comes into play here?) Most species that are able to reproduce with a mate are predominately heterosexual, and homosexual instances are by far not the norm for a species, so biologically speaking you can say that heterosexuality is natural for reproduction purposes.

So if humans are not a part of nature or removed from nature, than how does natural selection apply to humans? How can you say that humans are removed from nature when nature defines our actions? Would you say that humans just evolved past this? I'm unconvinced by your argument about debating how natural/unnatural homosexuality is.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Project 429

Light
1. having a considerable or sufficient amount of natural light; not dark.

2. (of a color) pale.

Natural
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

Yes, I understand that both words have different meanings. Are we not talking about the first definition of Natural here? I'm not trying to post an equivocation. I was under the assumption that when people start talking about "natural", they mean from the perspective of the first.

Heck, I could just be arguing at a wall here. If we are not using the first definition, then I clearly have no idea what a "natural" thing would be.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

sugar and splice

It's a bit pedantic to use a dictionary definition to argue that nothing about humanity is natural, don't you think?

Humans are animals like any other, fully part of the world around us. The line between "man-made" and "natural" is blurry... and kind of snobbish, anyway. Aside from scale, what exactly is the fundamental difference between a human city and a beehive or a prairie dog town?

At best, the only "unnatural" things humans are capable of are things we consciously decide to do. As we have very limited control over sexual attraction, it can't be considered man-made, ergo it is natural.

I don't exactly agree with what "natural" is by definition (it's exclusion to humans" for a number of reasons.

However, we must see that "natural" is from the perspective of humans. It's biased, because we are humans. The lien between "man-made" and "natural" isn't exactly as blurry as you think. It's actually fairly simple.

As far as your reasoning, I agree 100% completely. I've often used that to argue as well. Why is it that the creations of humans are considered unnatural, when we know perfectly well that other animals build stuff as well? Our behaviors are not that much different either. The only reason why I could agree from separating humans from nature, is the fact that we are still human. If we were aliens looking in on these "humans", it would obviously be much different. We as a species feel a need to separate us from everything else. It makes sense, and then again, it doesn't.

For the sake of simplicity, I think that the definition is allowable under the right circumstances. Humans are not much different than other animals; we share a lot of similarities, and other animals are still very capable of creating and behaving in unique and complex ways. That isn't the point of what natural is however; it's just way to separate us.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Raining_Nights

Henry Hobo-Master

The definitions that I was using were the most relevant. When we talk about "natural" and "nature", we often imply there is an anti-human element to it. Feel free to argue the opposite, but I'm simply using the first definitions that were given to me on various sites.

Biological reproductive mechanisms mean little to nothing when it comes to what natural is, because natural isn't based on that factor.

While it might feel different, we live in a world of unnaturality. It's all very silly.

They are not the most relevant when referring to the thread where someone asks if homosexuality is natural. That person also specifically points out reproductive mechanisms and phrases their question again, asking how homosexuality can possibly be biologically correct. And in addition to that, they mention people and animals in their first post.

Do you see what is wrong with this statement? "You are stupid if you can't ride a bicycle". The problem with this statement, is that stupidity has nothing to do with riding a bicycle. It's irrelevant.

Homosexuality and natural still isn't relevant. Reproductive mechanisms and "biologically correct" mean little when it comes to nature. To my definitions, it doesn't mean anything. To other definitions, it's doesn't exactly fit either.

While being homosexual may not produce children, this does not change the fact that homosexuality is any more or less natural. If you were to say that "homosexuals do not naturally produce kids because of the biological factors", then I could see your point. However, you cannot say that "homosexuals are not natural because they produce kids". That is the wrong use of the word, "natural".

I'm an honest fellow here, just trying to spread information. If you still think otherwise, I am very much open to debate on this one. I would more than love to talk this out. If you want to use definitions to help me understand, please list them. Enough evidence will convince me to change my opinion on this one (while also realizing that sexual preferences of an individual person doesn't really matter, heterosexual or not).

Quote:

Let's say that what you're saying correct, and despite mentioning people, the thread still intended to imply an anti-human element. In that case you would still have occurrences of homosexuality in nature because homosexuality occurs in animals, even though many animals also have similar reproductive mechanisms.

True. Homosexuality is occurs naturally with other animals.

Quote:

Edit: Since I went back and noticed that you mentioned homosexual behavior in animals yourself, I'm going to say that how we have sex/romance is irrelevant when it comes to sexual attraction. Other animals have their own exhibitions of sex and "romance" which still include a homosexual attraction and interaction. Humans may be so unique that you can't compare their behaviors to other animals, but that doesn't mean that they're the only ones who really have sex. Even if it's different, other animals do have sex.

Sex and romance is an important part when it comes to sexual attraction and arousal. For many of us, it's very important. That's how we have sex. It's not all about delivering the sperm to the egg, rather, humans have a unique emotional bond with each other that they like to express physically.

Romance, or rather how we go about getting sex, is still an important part to sex. A lot of animals perform similar forms of courtship to impress the opposite sex. If you don't think it's relevant, then I guess I won't go any further to change your mind. How we go about romancing the opposite sex, clearly sets us apart sexually from other animals anyway (or rather, they are set apart from us).

[Henry Hobo-Master]

rukia4204

What im trying to say is, what is normal? i understand that it is subjective to the perceiver but if that is the case then the arguement can be made that normal does not exist; it is just a looking glass, a view that the perceiver places on their environment to better process information but it also means that judging aspects of your life based on your own looking glass is folly and biased.

How can normal not exist, yet, be subjective?

Morality is something that could be considered subjective, yet, it still exists. It's relative.

I'm biased. I get that. I don't remember where this was going though. Do you? I'm a little lost now.

[crimsin eyes]

Henry Hobo-Master

We have all seen the thread that talks about homosexuality and "natural". It's actually getting quite annoying.

Definition of Natural:

Quote:

1. existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature:

Definition of Nature:

Quote:

1. the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2. the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.

What do we know about nature? If it's natural, then it comes from nature. "Nature" and "natural" both have anti-human elements; they are REMOVED from humans. Humans are not natural.

I'll even go so far to say that homosexuality isn't natural. And guess what? Neither is heterosexuality. Our sexual behaviors are VERY UNNATURAL in comparison to every other life form on this planet, while they do share a lot of similarities. True, you can find homosexuality in certain species, as well as heterosexuality. However, HOW humans go about their sexuality is completely different than any other species. Our courtship patterns, our fetishes, romance, and basically all of the other little behaviors that encompasses human relationships and sexuality is so unique, that you simply cannot compare us.

It does not matter how you try to convince yourself that humans are a part of nature. We are not. We removed that idea a long time ago. Nature by definition, is everything but us. That is the truth that we all understand and accept.

For the love of God, let's all just try to get off the topic about human sexuality and whether or not it is "natural". Being natural is about the last thing most humans actually care about. We are such ******** hypocrites if we think that we can bash homosexual people based on their "unnatural behaviors", while we sit in front of a UNNATURALLY FORMED COMPUTER, while wearing UNNATURAL CLOTHING. "Being "natural" is irrelevant, and we all know it.

Is anyone convinced yet?

Who is your god?

Where on earth do you get unnatural from?

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Hidden Path

If homosexuality isn't natural than how would you explain people who claim to be born homosexual or have homosexual predispositions with genetics? (or would you say the nature vs nurture debate comes into play here?) Most species that are able to reproduce with a mate are predominately heterosexual, and homosexual instances are by far not the norm for a species, so biologically speaking you can say that heterosexuality is natural for reproduction purposes.

Genetics does not factor in what is natural or not. Nature and nurture are both factors in deciding a person's sexuality, but neither is actually relevant to my argument. The "nature" in this means something completely different than my provided definition of "nature". Nature in this case, doesn't actually mean nature, but we use it anyway because we understand it anyway.

The point of my thread, was to provide you with a better definition for Natural and Nature. Once we realize that neither is actually talking about humans, the better off we will all be.

Human sexuality, while it may have some strong similarities, is still very unique as a whole. True, heterosexuality is natural for reproduction purposes, but I'm unsure of what you mean by that. That is an equivocation in a sense. It is natural for reproduction to happen, but human sexuality is still not natural.

Quote:

1.existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2.of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies"

This all makes sense when you look at Google's definition. It's natural because of 2, but it's not because of 1. Human sexuality is natural for humans (2). Human sexuality is unnatural (1).

Quote:

So if humans are not a part of nature or removed from nature, than how does natural selection apply to humans? How can you say that humans are removed from nature when nature defines our actions? Would you say that humans just evolved past this? I'm unconvinced by your argument about debating how natural/unnatural homosexuality is.

Natural selection applies to humans, like all animals. Humans naturally are involved with natural selection (2).

Nature doesn't exactly define our actions. We haven't evolved past this. We are realizing that we, as a human race, are separated from other things. We purposely invented "nature" and "natural" for our use as a human race. True, it might make more sense to not be so biased, but that's just how it is instead. This word is for humans.

I'm not saying that we evolved past this. It's all about the definitions I guess, and how you want to look at this.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

crimsin eyes

Who is your god?

Where on earth do you get unnatural from?

I'm atheist. I couldn't begin to know if a God exists or not.

I don't know how to answer the second question.

[Raining_Nights]

Henry Hobo-Master

Raining_Nights

They are not the most relevant when referring to the thread where someone asks if homosexuality is natural. That person also specifically points out reproductive mechanisms and phrases their question again, asking how homosexuality can possibly be biologically correct. And in addition to that, they mention people and animals in their first post.

Do you see what is wrong with this statement? "You are stupid if you can't ride a bicycle". The problem with this statement, is that stupidity has nothing to do with riding a bicycle. It's irrelevant.

Homosexuality and natural still isn't relevant. Reproductive mechanisms and "biologically correct" mean little when it comes to nature. To my definitions, it doesn't mean anything. To other definitions, it's doesn't exactly fit either.

While being homosexual may not produce children, this does not change the fact that homosexuality is any more or less natural. If you were to say that "homosexuals do not naturally produce kids because of the biological factors", then I could see your point. However, you cannot say that "homosexuals are not natural because they produce kids". That is the wrong use of the word, "natural".

I'm an honest fellow here, just trying to spread information. If you still think otherwise, I am very much open to debate on this one. I would more than love to talk this out. If you want to use definitions to help me understand, please list them. Enough evidence will convince me to change my opinion on this one (while also realizing that sexual preferences of an individual person doesn't really matter, heterosexual or not).

You might want to exclude other definitions of natural in your discussion, but I am using a definition where the word natural does apply to humans. Since humans are in the original context of the thread, it would make the most sense to use a definition that could apply to humans. This definition of 'natural' that I mentioned previously is closer to the one that I thought best applied in the original thread.

Quote:

1. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

In other words, the question would be "Does homosexuality agree with the makeup of humans? If heterosexuality leads us to reproduce, given our biological reproductive mechanisms, then what use is there of homosexuality? Can homosexuality really be considered "biologically correct"?"

The answer in this case would be no, because in fact homosexuals do not produce kids because of biological factors. (Even though homosexuals still have the same reproductive organs that go with their gender.)

However, if you use this definition:

Quote:

2. (of a skill, quality, or ability) coming instinctively to a person; innate.

Then homosexuality would arguably be natural because it is often an inherent quality of the individual. (A quality that shows up in both humans and animals.) In other words, people are sometimes born that way. Although there's also still a bit of speculation about whether psychology could actually be involved. Both actually seem possible to me. I even wrote a piece where I've discussed the two, if you'd like me to send you a link to that. xp

I think I actually explain how I apply the term natural in my original post in that thread pretty well too, although no one ever responded to or appeared to take notice of it.

Raining_Nights

Whoa, why is everyone arguing about what is or isn't "biologically correct"? Who cares?

Except for masterbation and things like non-penetrative sex, penises and vaginas are practically useless unless they're used to attempt sexual reproduction.

So, from a biological standpoint there appears to be no use for homosexuality, and in fact if everyone became homosexual then the species would simply go extinct.(Albeit for the potential of technology and zygote incubation, but we're focused on what's natural right now.)

Arguably, from a biological standpoint, homosexuality isn't natural, or it isn't supposed to be.

However, studies have shown that homosexuality may have a biological link. Since it's not as common and wouldn't be as useful, homosexuality can instead be considered a biological anomaly. Therefore, it seems natural to people who are homosexual, but for the species it isn't something that is "supposed" to be natural.

There is my bare-boned answer for you, which reduces human beings to an object of biology and says nothing of higher thinking or feeling. Although I must say, I would think that even most animals couldn't care less if another one of their species were exhibiting such an anomaly, they simply wouldn't mate with them. Only humans would feel the need to pass judgement on another individual, and to attack or scorn them for their own feelings of what is "natural".

I even make a slight mention to higher thinking and feeling myself. xd Which would be intended to incorporate the things that distinguish us as humans such as romance and the way we have sex.

Henry Hobo-Master

Sex and romance is an important part when it comes to sexual attraction and arousal. For many of us, it's very important. That's how we have sex. It's not all about delivering the sperm to the egg, rather, humans have a unique emotional bond with each other that they like to express physically.

Romance, or rather how we go about getting sex, is still an important part to sex. A lot of animals perform similar forms of courtship to impress the opposite sex. If you don't think it's relevant, then I guess I won't go any further to change your mind. How we go about romancing the opposite sex, clearly sets us apart sexually from other animals anyway (or rather, they are set apart from us).

Haha, I had a feeling you'd get me on that. I wasn't too sure of my word choice there either. sweatdrop I'm not actually trying to say that sexual attraction has nothing to do with sex and romance (and even courtship in the "natural" world). I'm trying to make a distinction that sexual preference (the preferred mate that you're attracted to), doesn't necessarily affect the way you're going to go about trying to attract them or even the way that you would have sex with them. Whether you're attracted to males or females, then in the general sense you're still going to try to impress them and get them to notice you, and get them to return the feelings to you. And ultimately (if you succeed), then you're (probably) going to have some kind of sex with them.

Maybe I was wrong to say that it was irrelevant, but at the very least, whether you're attracted to a male or a female, it doesn't change the fact that you're going to romance (or "naturally" court) them and have sex with them.

[Bogotanian]

Henry Hobo-Master

Hidden Path

If homosexuality isn't natural than how would you explain people who claim to be born homosexual or have homosexual predispositions with genetics? (or would you say the nature vs nurture debate comes into play here?) Most species that are able to reproduce with a mate are predominately heterosexual, and homosexual instances are by far not the norm for a species, so biologically speaking you can say that heterosexuality is natural for reproduction purposes.

Genetics does not factor in what is natural or not. Nature and nurture are both factors in deciding a person's sexuality, but neither is actually relevant to my argument. The "nature" in this means something completely different than my provided definition of "nature". Nature in this case, doesn't actually mean nature, but we use it anyway because we understand it anyway.

The point of my thread, was to provide you with a better definition for Natural and Nature. Once we realize that neither is actually talking about humans, the better off we will all be.

Human sexuality, while it may have some strong similarities, is still very unique as a whole. True, heterosexuality is natural for reproduction purposes, but I'm unsure of what you mean by that. That is an equivocation in a sense. It is natural for reproduction to happen, but human sexuality is still not natural

Quote:

So if humans are not a part of nature or removed from nature, than how does natural selection apply to humans? How can you say that humans are removed from nature when nature defines our actions? Would you say that humans just evolved past this? I'm unconvinced by your argument about debating how natural/unnatural homosexuality is.

Natural selection applies to humans, like all animals. Humans naturally are involved with natural selection (2).

Nature doesn't exactly define our actions. We haven't evolved past this. We are realizing that we, as a human race, are separated from other things. We purposely invented "nature" and "natural" for our use as a human race. True, it might make more sense to not be so biased, but that's just how it is instead. This word is for humans.

I'm not saying that we evolved past this. It's all about the definitions I guess, and how you want to look at this.

Well the debate is about whether homosexuality is natural in nature or not, and it seems like you're talking about the semantics of the word nature. I think that genetics is very relevant to the debate about homosexuality and is a case for people arguing for why homosexuality would be natural for people. I said that it is more natural for creatures that reproduce sexually to be heterosexual, and this also applies to humans because humans reproduce sexually, therefore in that biological sense heterosexuality is natural in humans as well. It seems like you are saying "who cares if it's natural?" in regards to homosexuality because humans don't derive their sexuality from nature. Is that an admission that homosexuality is unnatural in nature, or at least a deviant behavior in some species?

In these discussions, people usually argue that homosexuality is natural among animals, but by your definition are you saying that we don't follow nature exactly so what does it matter? I brought up natural selection because it involves passing along genes, and how can this be done by homosexuality? In that sense it is valid to say that heterosexuality is more natural, and heterosexuality definitely is the majority in all sexually reproducing species, as well as in humans. I think that is is logical to debate how natural homosexuality is in nature because it applies to humans, and I think that everyone knows what they are talking about when they talk about how natural something is in nature. (Also sorry, I'm not the best with the quotations format so I put everything at the bottom talk2hand )

[crimsin eyes]

Henry Hobo-Master

crimsin eyes

Who is your god?

Where on earth do you get unnatural from?

I'm atheist. I couldn't begin to know if a God exists or not.

I don't know how to answer the second question.

Than you have no basis for saying what you have said.

And you could most certainly know. The answer is in this dialog.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

crimsin eyes

Henry Hobo-Master

crimsin eyes

Who is your god?

Where on earth do you get unnatural from?

I'm atheist. I couldn't begin to know if a God exists or not.

I don't know how to answer the second question.

Than you have no basis for saying what you have said.

And you could most certainly know. The answer is in this dialog.

I have not basis for saying what I have said? What did I say? I said a lot of things recently. I don't understand why we must continue to talk in cryptic language that only you understand. I wish I could read your mind, but I'm only human.

I don't know how to answer the second question, because I don't understand the "do you get unnatural from"? Are you talking about every time I said that? What do you mean by it?

If you want me to, I could try to answer this anyway, and I'd probably give you a very awful answer that you were not expecting (or wanting). Would you like me to give my best shot at this anyway?

[The Herald of War]

Henry Hobo-Master

Project 429

Light
1. having a considerable or sufficient amount of natural light; not dark.

2. (of a color) pale.

Natural
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

Yes, I understand that both words have different meanings. Are we not talking about the first definition of Natural here? I'm not trying to post an equivocation. I was under the assumption that when people start talking about "natural", they mean from the perspective of the first.

Heck, I could just be arguing at a wall here. If we are not using the first definition, then I clearly have no idea what a "natural" thing would be.

If they did it from the perspective of the first the entire discussion would be moot. I think that's not exactly a generous interpretation as it requires them to be utterly oblivious. And everyone replying to them as well.

I'm fairly certain they are talking about whether it is something that comes without outside influence. From outside the person themselves that is.

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Raining_Nights

You might want to exclude other definitions of natural in your discussion, but I am using a definition where the word natural does apply to humans. Since humans are in the original context of the thread, it would make the most sense to use a definition that could apply to humans. This definition of 'natural' that I mentioned previously is closer to the one that I thought best applied in the original thread.

Quote:

1. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

In other words, the question would be "Does homosexuality agree with the makeup of humans? If heterosexuality leads us to reproduce, given our biological reproductive mechanisms, then what use is there of homosexuality? Can homosexuality really be considered "biologically correct"?"

The answer in this case would be no, because in fact homosexuals do not produce kids because of biological factors. (Even though homosexuals still have the same reproductive organs that go with their gender.)

However, if you use this definition:

Quote:

2. (of a skill, quality, or ability) coming instinctively to a person; innate.

Then homosexuality would arguably be natural because it is often an inherent quality of the individual. (A quality that shows up in both humans and animals.) In other words, people are sometimes born that way. Although there's also still a bit of speculation about whether psychology could actually be involved. Both actually seem possible to me. I even wrote a piece where I've discussed the two, if you'd like me to send you a link to that. xp

I think I actually explain how I apply the term natural in my original post in that thread pretty well too, although no one ever responded to or appeared to take notice of it.

Ahh, I think I'm beginning to see. This is all very confusing to me, because I was arguing at a very specific angle.

I have read what you said, and I have explained this in another post. Maybe we can agree to this; human sexuality is and it isn't natural.

Here is the googled definition of Natural:

Quote:

1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria"
2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies"

Human sexuality is almost irrelevant to the first definition as shown. However, one could try to assume that the definition leads us to believe that humans are just separated from being "natural"; what is human, is not natural. Because human sexuality is very unique to humans, our sexuality is not natural.

However, if we look at the second definition, I guess we could argue that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both natural. You used this definition earlier, did you not? Yet, you said that it didn't lead you to believe that either was natural. This was because the character make-up didn't biologically fit right? What if the biological conditions didn't matter when it comes to sexuality?

What if the character make-up has more to do with personal preferences, and sexual behaviors? Could we then agree that under this definition, human sexuality is natural to humans?

I think it really just depends on how you use "natural" at this point. Humans can naturally want to do or be something (which is valid under the 2nd definition). Humans cannot be natural (which is valid because of the 1st definition). Do you think this makes sense? What do you think?