The association that you're trying to make here is pretty sly, and your repeat claims of no agenda, just playing devil's advocate, and so on are cowardly - you won't even own up to what you're implying.
But let's treat your question as it was phrased - you're asking whether, if we accept the premise that same-sex attraction is naturally occurring, we should also accept other kinds of sexual attraction, which in your scenario are unnamed but presumably illegal and generally considered wrong.
Jets, any kind of sexual attraction is naturally occurring. People can't help that response. That doesn't mean the behaviour is necessarily socially acceptable. If someone has impulses to do things that would harm others, they're expected to restrain those impulses or pay the social cost. The nature of someone's preferences are not important, it's how they act on those preferences.
It's pretty simple. Sexual activity is acceptable if it's between consenting adult parties. The details of the activity are irrelevant and don't require your approval or anyone else's.
Ultimately same-sex attraction is common and naturally occurring. There is also absolutely no harm in its existence. There's no valid reason to deny that inclination (and no, some really old Hebrew ramblings don't count). Your attempt to conflate same-sex attraction with potentially harmful sexual proclivities is cynical and ill-judged.
Absolute ripper of an article, Ryan. None of it could be more true.
I always enjoyed watching Scott West play - he was one of the kind who never drop their heads, and I felt he did a lot more than most despite perhaps having less natural talent than many. He made himself a great player by force of will.
Was always a pleasure watching that classic Dogs group fly through the centre of the ground - Smith off half back to West in the middle to Grant leading into the pocket. Their game against the unbeaten Bombers in 2000 was one of the all-time best.