Just prefacing with the fact that I fully support LGBTQ and their rights, and I don't believe there is anything unnatural about it.

However, I've always found the line of thinking strange: that the existence of animal homsexuality supports human homsexuality being natural, positive or beneficial. I've never seen someone challenge this notion either academically or casually, and maybe I'm simply not educated enough or missing something obvious, but here's my reasoning:

Much animal sexuality isn't what we would call consensual. Often, animal sexuality also crosses lines that humans deem immoral or aberrant when applied to our own species. (This is NOT saying that animal homosexuality in particular is aberrant.) If we were to equate it to human terms, killing a male of the same species and then r*ping their mating partner is an extremely common occurrence across hundreds of thousands of species, as is a male near the end of their lifespan mating with a female who has just become sexually mature.

Expanding the scope to animal behavior as a whole, animals have no problem with behaviors that we condemn. What we would think of as eugenics or genocide has been an ongoing process in the animal kingdom since animals have existed. Cannibalism and murder are usually on the table, and even herbivores we'd consider "innocent and cute" routinely eat smaller animals alive without a second thought.

All this to say, I feel like it's a very surface-level line of reasoning to say animal homsexuality supports human homsexuality, as animal behavior clearly can't be compared to human behavior on a 1 to 1 basis. The argument seems susceptible to someone saying, in bad faith, "Just because animals are doing it, doesn't mean it's okay for humans." I'd say human sexuality vs the sexuality of other animals might not necessarily be in the same category of behaviors. What arguments have you seen regarding how animal homsexuality relates to human homsexuality, and do you agree or disagree?