Also i would argue paedo (12 and above) is more nature than homosexuality. Due to the various evolutionary ques. The learned behaviour is knowing that is morally wrong.
OK, I was reading your sentence different from how you meant it... but no, there is a genetic setting that can make someone more prone to love of penis (in females, it makes them prettier, but in men makes them more likely to be gay)
There is no such genetic evidence for child fucking
natural survival - when, 10,000 BC? It's a social convention, not a biological one... but yes, once a certain degree of physical development has been achieved by someone, they will naturally have a degree of sexual attraction to others.
In genetics you have to point to the genes. The "natural disposition" based on genes accounts for a tiny, tiny percent of the lgbt community if any tbh. Especially since homosexuality "naturally" goes against the key focus of the "nature" of a creature, propogation.
Again, being sexually attracted to someone who has hit and post puberty is closer to that 'naturally' than homosexuality. Those that are attracted to prepubesent are excluded in this. They are probably as much a mental/environmental issue as the probably overwhelming majority of homosexual and trans.
In my experience, any gay guy who has opened up to me has always been abused as a child... it is very compelling to conclude that has more to do with it than anything else - I'm talking people who wish they were straight, not fashion victims.
Societal and higher thinking has formed us to think the pubescent child is to not be touched, and i agree with that. But to deny it isnt the nature is wrong.
And yea most lesbians i have met (my wife being bi has lead to meeting more than a few) have all been lesbian post shit hetero abusive relationships, or parental abuses.
Incidentally, I'm hetero myself, I'm not trying to defend gay, trannies etc... but when data points in a direction, you have a choice whether to accept it or not.
