correct, so your point was meaningless concerning what happens in the animal kingdom. So why did you make that claim again?
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.
Because biology is an objective criteria for what is natural and what is therefore moral.
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?
No, same sex acts are unnatural because there are two sexes for it.
But as it happens naturally in nature, it can't be unnatural.
First you need to acknowledge what I have said instead of misrepresenting it.
The fact that there are two sexes for it means one sex isnt for it. So two sexes is natural and one sex is unnatural. Explain to us how one sex can be natural when there are two for it?
Because it happens naturally in nature, of course.
Explain why you think because some animals perform same sex acts and some animals eat their young you think that humans should do so as well because it happens in nature?
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.
No it couldn't. If we are using natural/unnatural as a basis for morals we need to agree on what that is
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?