How can the gay community claim that homosexuality is genetic, natural, yet still ask for insurance companies to cover their medical issues that result from unnatural consequences a gay sexually active lifestyle?

Can you be more specific. What exactly are they asking insurance companies to cover that isn't covered for heterosexual people?

If homosexuality is natural, why is it not evident in other forms of life?

It's been observed in 1500 different species.

Also, why is it so rare (2-3% of the population).

Until we know what the cause is, we have no way of knowing why it's rare, but even if it is rare, what difference does that make? Only 1% of people are ambidextrous. Does that make them unnatural?

I have nothing against homosexuals, but I don't believe, just based on statistics, that it is natural. There would be more homosexuals if it was normal.

Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Homosexuals clearly exist in nature, so they are natural. Even if they weren't natural, why does that matter? Your computer isn't natural, but that doesn't make it bad.

Normal: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

I agree that homosexuality may not be normal, but again I have to ask why does that matter? Being left handed isn't normal, being a genius isn't normal, but just because something isn't normal doesn't mean it's bad.

Additionally, sex is the truest way to express love - a giving of oneself to another that creates a new human being. If homosexuality is a part of nature, why would they be deprived of that?

What about people who are infertile? Are not not part of nature because they can't create a new human being?

Also, why did we have psychological research that supported the ability to restructure homosexual thoughts and feelings to heterosexual thought, that was removed from psychological textbooks because of lobbying. Why does a political group have that much lobbying power - that they could argue with the research of trained professionals (scientists).

You'll have to provide sources. The only research I'm aware of that supports the ability to restructure homosexual thoughts was by Robert Spitzer. His methodologies were flawed and he even admitted it saying, "I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy." Most organizations that offered gay conversion therapy have given up on it and admitted that it doesn't work.

Again, I have nothing against gay people, but it would be nice if psychologists could help people with those feelings who don’t want them to be able to keep those thoughts and feelings in control. However, psychologists cannot help because lobbyists have gotten it removed from the DSM.

There is nothing preventing a psychologist from helping someone with those feelings. You can see a psychologist for anything that is troubling you, regardless of whether it's in the DSM.

Additionally, homosexuality has been studied psychologically, but much of this information has been drowned out by media industries, and lobbied against by the gay community.

You'll have to provide sources.

1) There are no unnatural consequences of homosexuality. Disease is natural.

2) Homosexuality is seen in other species.

3) Something being rare doesn't make it fake or unnatural.

4) Normal and natural are 2 different things.

5) Homosexuals have sex

6) Lobbying to remove false information is not a bad thing. Scientists removed that information because they did more research.

7) Psychologists can't go against the research.

8) If psychology is doing research that you claim you should be able to find something posted recently that the media is suppressing.

Ever heard of adoption?

it is nevertheless a deviant and unnatural psychological state, with the equally unnatural physical side effects which the condition creates.

Deviant, yes, but unnatural, no. Something that exists within nature is not, in fact, unnatural.

The biggest, and most natural instinct in the healthy of any living creature is the reproduction of it's species.

No, the biggest, most natural instinct is self preservation. Reproduction comes next.

The fact that this vital process is impossible between same gender humans makes the act of marriage futile

Reproduction is not a requirement of marriage, and, again, is itself unnatural.

and demeans the celebration of marriage between man and woman, as nature intended.

Now that is just silly. The idea that two consenting adults getting married demeans your or my marriage would only be true if you are incredibly insecure about your sexuality. And, again, nature did not intend marriage, as it is an unnatural social construct.

Trying to argue against nature is an understandable, but pitiful attempt to rationalize an altogether unnatural state.

Then why do you keep doing it?

You said that marriage is only for helping the species propagate, now it is only for making just the couple's genes propagate. Make up your mind. Adoption helps the species propagate.

If men and women were meant to be together so perfectly there wouldn't be a pleasure center up a man's ass that makes gay sex pleasurable.

Marriage itself is unnatural, far more so than homosexuality itself. How else would you explain homosexuality's existence within nature, and marriage's lack of existence?

It is really nice to see your opponent go completely crazy. Thanks for that.