Homosexuality is natural

I. PrefaceSorry audience. The resolution is wrong. I challenged Preston to debate homosexual sex is natural, not homosexuality is natural. Sorry for the confusion, and we'll be taking this OP as Preston already began.II. Gender is not naturalI guess I'll start with this argument, since it's the crux of the oppositions position. Gender is indeed natural. It is a set of characteristics inherent upon birth shared by a common group of people. My opponent confuses gender roles with gender itself. Which is why I actually want to give another definition, but in the same context. I only do this, because I hate when the opposition doesn't select the top or second definition.Gender: the state of being male or female http://www.merriam-webster.com...The fact is, that gender is indeed a natural trait, and I have to say, I don't understand what the hell my opponent is talking about. His resolution can be summed up as "Homosexuality is not a natural trait because gender doesn't exist". The opposition should explain this reasoning, as I genuinely don't understand it. Maybe this is some higher form of thinking, but "natural law" is the common key to finding metaphysical problem, and about every philosopher I know has affirmed gender differation in their studies and works. I am left concluding that my opponent has confused two terms, one being "identity" and "gender" itself. There is a huge difference. In reality, "identity" has absolutely nothiong to do with homosexuality is natural. Another example of "X is true and X posseses Y, so Z is not real". Or for clalrification, "sex is natural and sex involves unnatural gender, so Z is not natural". At least I think :/End of story, homosexuality is not a gender or a sex. It's a sexual preference.II. Sex is naturalMy opponent has conceded this point.... "...is not a sex, which is derived from nature..."Moving alongIII. Additional ArgumentJust in case the opposition switches course, I will attempt to formulate an argument on why homosexuality is a natural occurence. Or the act of having sex between two males or two females happens naturally. Sexual phenotypes are decided in the reactor. Where they clash and prove the basis of ones traits after leaving the womb. Tissue content can affect the process, including sexual reactants in the brain.Just as we all have taste buds which tell us whatwe like to eat, we also have "senses" that light up when someone we see is sexually attractive. We can't control when testesterone lights up, or for which people it does it for, but we know that it is not easily controlled. Can it? Most certainly. Sexual turn ons, or "fetishes, can even change over time. Which leads me to my main contention.Natural interactions, as I'm attempting to prove, are not built upon societal constructs. Both men and woman build up stress and tension with testesterone and estrogen. Ussually the only ways to release this tension is through masturbation or sex. It is no different in nature. If two people share a common attraction in their brain, they will get together and relieve tension, just like any other natural need. The only difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, is that two of the same sexes are involved in the process. Both have the same goal. Two natural entities getting together to satisfy a need. This is perfectly alligned with natural law.http://www.yalescientific.org...I'm going to work a couple things out of my opponent, because even though I have the BOP, these questions will greatly determine the winner...1) Can you prove that sexual preference is determined by societal constructs?2) Are you denying that homosexuality isn't decided by chemical composition?3) Is it not true that the interaction between male and male is done to satisfy a natural need?