Not at all.  1st, my point is that sexual differentiation in primate behaviour, even when apparently arbitrary, is innate.  You have confirmed that.  2nd, I have never heard anyone is against ‘same-sex behaviour’ in social interactions; we all do that.

But if you meant, ‘sexual acts between members of the same sex’, then we’re not talking about sexual differentiation of labour (and other behaviours) anymore, but about homosexuality.   My hypothesis there was that the current western epidemic of sexual attraction/identification disorders currently results in large part from the irrational belief that men and women are to all intents and purposes identical.  It's not instructive to equate western-style “gay” homosexuality with animal behaviour.  Simply because a behaviour can be found, commonly or rarely, among animals does not make it moral (that’s not what ‘natural law’ means).   Many species kill their own kind with abandon, but that does not mean that humans should emulate them.