If homosexuality was natural and everyone was the human species would die out.
If
everyone was homosexual,
maybe. But since nobody with any sense is arguing that, you're fighting a strawman.
Homosexuality is obviously natural because it's not artificial. More importantly, the whole "natural" argument is a logical fallacy, specifically a false appeal to authority. It's also hypocritical, since many other things are far more obviously not natural than homosexuality. Farming, for example. Not to mention the computer you're using. They're don't grow on trees, you know. Besides, what is natural anyway? If humans do something and humans are natural, does that make it natural? I've just turned my gas central heating on. Is that natural? Methane is natural, but is it still natural if it's refined and piped into my house? Fire is natural, but is it still natural if it's started deliberately by a person or by a device invented by a person? Heat transfer from hotter to colder objects is natural, but is it still natural if the colder object is designed by people for the purpose of transfering heat to water in a device designed by people? Water is natural, but is it still natural if it's put into my central heating system by a person and pumped round my radiators by a device designed by a person?
Why should anyone care what is natural anyway? Nature is amoral. It has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong.
I guess you are also saying pedophiles are natural as well and not a mental illness?
Mental illnesses are natural. Murder is natural. Mass death from disease is natural. 40% of all people dying before reaching adulthood is natural. Famine is natural. Dying from a small cut because you got unlucky and it became infected with something your immune system didn't succeed in fighting off is natural.
Your appeal to nature as an authority is wholly invalid. It's a false appeal to authority, a pretence that you have the authority to decree that you are nature and your decisions must be obeyed because you are The Authority.
A better question is "does it do harm?" followed by the more difficult question "is that harm justified by the greater good?"
But it's simple with homosexuality because the answer to "does it do harm?" is "no" and so the second question doesn't apply.
A pedophile cannot control the fact he/she is attracted to children though and is seen as a mental illness because we as a society see it as wrong.
A homosexual cannot control the fact he/she is attracted to the same sex but we as a society now see it as normal.
I am not trying to be offensive but just pointing out how the two are viewed.
That's true but the application is very limited because of the question I mentioned above - does it do harm? Sexual activity between adults of the same sex doesn't, sexual activity between adults and children does or at least has a very high chance of doing harm.
So if a child could be consensual it would be okay?
Theoretically, maybe, but that question doesn't really apply in real life because a child's ability to consent is limited by the fact that they are a child. It's inherent in being a child. An analogy would be something like harnessing puppies to a dog sleigh - even if they agree, they're not yet capable of pulling it.
The thing the annoys me is people that come out act like they are special and expect other people to treat them as if they are special also if you don’t your classed as homophobic, as far as I’m concerned there is nothing special about you if your gay, straight or a lesbian everyone is the same
I don't. Many other people don't. It's just some bigots who do. Same [Magic Bad Word banned here], different group.
It wasn't meant to, it was two different points... firstly we're not really born as either (or both) - that's true in that sense whether it is determined just by genetics or not (as in beards perhaps).
The second point was a separate one - I suspect there isn't a single genetic element (else it perhaps would have been found), there might well be a few genes that give a higher chance of being gay etc.. It's pretty likely to be a probabilistic thing though and I'd be surprised if environmental factors didn't come into it too.
Maybe, maybe not. Genetics is far more complicated than it's often portrayed as being. My favourte example of that is eye colour. It's quite well studied because it's easy to measure. But nobody even knows how many genes are involved in determining eye colour, let alone which ones or how. So far, 14 are pencilled in and 12 of those do other things as well. It doesn't seem to be a probabilistic thing or to have environmental factors.