So when animals perform same sex acts they are acting contrary to biology and nature. That is why homosexual acts are unnatural.No it wasn't. The point wasn't about what happens in nature being right or wrong, but was to do with whether it's natural or not. You seem to want to avoid that issue.
What happens naturally in nature is the criteria for what is natural. Being aware of the consequences of actions make something open to moral question. These are very different things.
Playing tennis is unnatural, is it therefore immoral? Eating is natural, does that make it a moral action?
But as it happens naturally in nature, it can't be unnatural.
Because it happens naturally in nature, of course.
Umm, but I don't think humans should eat their young just because it happens elsewhere in nature, because it's not something that is natural to humans. Homosexuality is a part of nature as exhibited by it occurring naturally in nature, including in humans.
But natural/unnatural shouldn't be used as a basis for morals, as exampled by my question that you have avoided.
So again, playing tennis is unnatural, does that makes it morally wrong? Eating is natural, does that make it a moral action?
Biology and what is natural should be used as a basis for morals.
So what is your baais for morals? Why for example.should a one sex act be moral when it us dysfunctional because there are two for it?