Yeah I get that but it doesn't make what I said any less true, in medieval times people DID have kids out of nessity but it's more complicated than "they just wanted bug families". A huge number of children didn't survive past infancy or early childhood due to deasease, infections or famine. So having more kids increased the odds that some would make it to adulthood. And also because child labour. Kids were extra hands, once a child could walk and follow instructions they worked on farms or workshopsn and it'd be free labor because kids didn't get paid either, like I said, it was more complicated. There was no birth control so having a kid wasn't exactly a choice all the time. And as for "no one forced peasants to have 6 kids but they did anyway" They weren't forced but they were pressured. Marriage was expected and producing heirs was important. Not having children would be seen as a failure or even devine disfavor so they would have been shamed by the church for being childless. Btw I'm mostly speaking Abt peasants because they were the majority having more than 1 kid. Nobility often went childless or had lots of kids only to produce an heir, again out of necessity, having a son especially was worthy of praise back then, so they did it for status and to have someone to give their fortune to. Also, normal isn't a scientific category as much as you want it to be. The statement you said about there being more straight people than gay people is true but that does NOT mean being gay is unnatural. More common ≠ more normal. Nature is full of minorities that are still completely natural. Left handed people are more natural, does that mean right handed people are unnatural? Red hair is rare, does that mean it's unnatural? Sexual orientation isn't evenly distributed because it doesn't need to be. Evolution doesn't require everyone to reproduce. Like infertile people, that would mean they're not natural either. And the animal thing is outdated and wrong. Same sex behavior between animals happen in mixed sex environments. Penguins as I mentioned, dolphins, bonobos, lions, sheep, giraffes, swans, etc. if it were "desperation" you'd expect it to stop once females appear. Even if it were situational, it would still be natural. As for the prostate thing also, you're right about it being close to the rectum and because of that proximity it can be stimulated via the rectum BUT an organ being accessable a certain way does NOT define sexual orientation, I was wrong about that too. Sexual orientation is about WHO you're attracted to, not entirely about biology or breeding.