This is one huge straw man.

Except, it is typical, and it is normal for human activity. Homosexuality has been recorded in humans for as long as heterosexual activity and has been exceptionally widespread for all of that time, despite it being a taboo and therefore explicitly hidden for much of it. Cannibalism and eating one's feces is not something more than a handful of people have ever actually done.

[quote]Except, it is typical, and it is normal for human activity. Homosexuality has been recorded in humans for as long as heterosexual activity and has been exceptionally widespread for all of that time, despite it being a taboo and therefore explicitly hidden for much of it. Cannibalism and eating one's feces is not something more than a handful of people have ever actually done.[/quote] Cannibalism, slavery, murder, adultery, substance abuse, suicide - these are all examples of things which have also been around for a long time. Point being that just because a particular behavior has been observed throughout history, does not mean that it is typical, nor does it automatically mean that it should be supported. Humans and other animals normally have only two genders: male and female. This is a fact. Such living things having male and female counterparts are typically heterosexual and reproduce heterosexually. This is also a fact. When someone says that homosexuality is unnatural, this is what they are referring to, and they are 100% correct.

Except nature does not care about generalisations. You might as well say it is 'unnatural' for animals to be born with albinism, simply because it isn't normally observed, which is of course a preposterous thing to say. It is just as natural an occurrence as any other trait the animal has, the fact that it is less common means nothing. Natural =\= the general observed trend. Using the term in that way is blatantly inconsistent with its meaning.

[quote]Except nature does not care about generalisations. You might as well say it is 'unnatural' for animals to be born with albinism, simply because it isn't normally observed, which is of course a preposterous thing to say. It is just as natural an occurrence as any other trait the animal has, the fact that it is less common means nothing. Natural =\= the general observed trend. Using the term in that way is blatantly inconsistent with its meaning.[/quote] Natural can mean, "occurring in nature," or it can mean, "normal or typical," depending on how it is being used. I'll use your example, "albinism is unnatural," to demonstrate: A. Albinism 'does not occur in nature.' B. Albinism 'is not typical.' Dismissing definitions and/or synonyms suggests either an error in comprehension leading to the belief that the opponent's argument is preposterous or an agenda which willfully misrepresents the opponent's argument in order to make it appear preposterous.

[quote]Natural can mean, "occurring in nature," or it can mean, "normal or typical," depending on how it is being used.[/quote] Please cite a reputable dictionary, I have doubts about that alternative definition. In any case, in the specific context of biology, natural is not used to convey normality or any synonymous word. Using it in the context of biology but with a different definition is misleading and dishonest.

Dude, did you seriously compare homosexuality to cannibalism, murder and eating ones young? Classy. Not like there's a pretty significant difference there or anything. A couple of those do significant harm and frankly kill people and one does pretty much nothing. The only reason people even used that "argument" is because people started using the "it's unnatural" line and they went to that definition of natural because it was the only one that made any sense. No one is arguing that the majority of people are homosexual so why would people assume that you're going from a quantitive definition of natural? Genuinely curios here, I can't make the connection there. Continuing on to your definition point. Did you even look at the link you posted past the quick definition? The full definition that's literally right below that defines it as "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex." Notice how that can be applied to anything? Want to nitpick? Because I can play that game too. Now, on to what you say conservatives mean by unnatural. Even if you aren't talking literally that's still an irrelevant point. Fine, lets assume that it is an irregular occurrence. Does it negatively effect the person who exhibits it? No. Does it effect anyone else (excluding sexual assaults which are hardly confined to the homosexual community and is just a problem with humans in general)? Nope, everyone involved should be consenting. So why should we care then? I honestly can't think of a single good reason. So then, what's the point of your argument then?

[quote]Dude, did you seriously compare homosexuality to cannibalism, [/quote] Well..........lesbians eat eachother...