This was originally a response posted in the Philosophers guild Facebook group. But I liked it's composure so I decided to include it here as a blog.

Drama Llama  When you are "honestly ignorant" there is hope, when you are "stubbornly ignorant", less so. Not implying you foster either, just making a statement. With respect to "Royalty vs Religion"  Religion has always been the convenience of royalty, not just in Islam but in every reinvention of it (religion) since the dawn of time.

Tony Res Be thankful you live in North America, That very proclamation of being Wiccan would have cost you your head in Saudi Arabia. I can only confirm one beheading so far this year for sorcery, but I am sure it is an annual, if not more, occurrence. On another point you made, I always find the counter argument that animals are gay or bisexual simply silly, no offense or derogation to you implied. Animals are base natured entities, they simply respond to those based natured sexual impulses.  Just in the same way that Bears do not have breakfast they simply satisfy there hunger.  Where that came from?... was most likely some field anthropologist reached for a pecan and accidentally consumed a peyote button. We have very vivid imaginations, we silly humans.

As I have mentioned in other threads, and has been referenced here, deviance from the sexual norms of our species, are! simply "deviant behavior"  again no derogation implied.  Early in our conscious evolution,  as society formed its structured norms, the tendrils of  what would become our religions, royalties, hierarchies etc were formed. Into that soup, the sacredness of the sexual act was indoctrinated.  Quite logically so too, since it is one of our top tier primal urges.

 Now to concisely concatenate this for the convenience of this thread is folly on my part, but I will continue never-the-less.  Sexual preference, prejudice or however you choose to define it. was at the mercy of these founders. They (insert your hierarchy here) have used it to ostracize, punish or subjugate the societies they habitated, and most often under the banner of the sacred or divine. Throughout history the unbridled indulgence of this base nature was the exclusive right of royalty, the temple or in secrecy, and engaging in it outside the protection of the royal court or temple walls was done so at your own peril. Fast forward to the sexual revolution... same primal urges, only the subjugation and tyranny has for the most part been subdued substantially, not eliminated but placated and subdued.

With this threat of persecution eliminated every deviant has grabbed their soap box and proclaimed their particular fancy as being worthy of legitimacy. And in our current demographics the more people you can assemble wearing the same hat, the more recognition you will receive, and with that recognition comes all the political, financial, and accredited  legitimacy required to give you that laurel of acceptance that will chase away the demons.

Who are we sexually?  Well that is a biological crap shoot. The truth is biology does play an incremental role in the prima facie of our sexual leanings, but societal conditioning does the rest. The folly of being born gay is just that folly. Bisexuality has simply replaced the term base nature, for personal and social legitimacy. We would much rather be known as a bisexual, as to be known as a implement of our carnal nature where any orifice will suffice.

Is sexual deviance abnormal? First you would have to define normal.  Is it biologically deviant? it may deviate from the norm of procreative reproduction, but is that the sole indicator of sexual normalcy? In my opinion no. Is it socially deviant? In my opinion again no, society is not a static entity or indicator. It's like a statistic can mean anything you want it to, based on what your prejudicial motivators are.

The truth is sexual nature has been cemented in the ether's by religious sentiment, not societal. Post sexual revolution saw it liberated societally, but as an aberration to it origins in religion, by the religious. Society plays both sides of the court when it comes to acceptance. It all depends how close it is to an election, or for its  marketing and demographic exploitation potential.

Are there inherent dangers by its proliferate social abandon? absolutely. If you think different then just look at the west's explosion of obesity and complacent dysfunctionality, and then draw the parallels..

What we should never lose sight of is the fact that this is a primal nature, it existed before society, it is as personally unique as each one of us. And as such will be an ever elusive paradox.

And if man were smart enough he would garner it the same protected right as freedom of speech and religion, but make no concession for it or against it. But man has been many things, but smart most times eludes him.