For that species, yes. You have a very flimsy stance on nature. On one hand you say that God made nature the way it is and on the other hand you decide that you, Jorge, are the one fit to judge what is naturally occuring outside of the parameters of objective observation. If a species eats its young, then based on a theological argument, is that not how God made that species? You believe that God made every facet of nature, well did God stop at defining how each species interacts with its young?
Secondly "choice" is only one element that I refered to in when it comes to sexual behavior. But it is of course the element we are responsible for.
If there is no biological component in sexual orientation then it is purely based on choice. If that is the case, you could choose to find a goat more attractive than any woman alive. But, you don't. I've known homosexuals who have never been interested in the opposite sex. I find it hard to believe that a perfectly healthy man or woman wakes up one day and decides.... "hey it'd be a nice change of pace to go find another member of my sex to have be with!"
There is a vast difference between Nature as God created it and nature which is corrupted by sin.
The natural world left untouched by man and only by natural processes is not touched by sin. It is acting according to natural design. If a gay animal thus occurs in nature then that is a natural occurance. It doesn't mean that that is typical of the species. Even still, you can't make your dog or cat gay. If you don't believe me, try getting to unneutered dogs or cats of the same sex to mate. It ain't gonna happen unless one or both of them is homosexual.
This was never God's intention, and has nothing to do with the natural biological design of human sexuality.
Whatever. If it occurs in nature then it was part of the natural design. Do you not find it odd that a being that can create a universe as complex as ours is caught off guard by minor behavioral differences in its creations? That's as absurd as the idea that a mere latex condom can thwart the will of God. If it was God's will it'd happen regardless of your intentions and actions.
For that species, yes. You have a very flimsy stance on nature. On one hand you say that God made nature the way it is and on the other hand you decide that you, Jorge, are the one fit to judge what is naturally occuring outside of the parameters of objective observation. If a species eats its young, then based on a theological argument, is that not how God made that species? You believe that God made every facet of nature, well did God stop at defining how each species interacts with its young?
You obviously missed the distinction I made between nature as God created it, and nature in it's fallen corrupted state.
It's still easy to see God's created intent in spite of the corruption of nature, which is what I have been trying to explain to you.
You only seem to comprehend select parts of my responses, and are losing track of which statement of yours I was responding to.
For example; You implied that because homosexuality can be observed among some animals, it was natural behavior and could therefore be call natural for some humans.
My response above is that some animals eat their young, and by your definitions this is "natural". Therefore would you also say that if some humans eat their children we MUST call this "natural" child rearing behavior?
By insisting on leaving God out of the picture, your arguments are leading to some grotesque conclusions.
If you can't see this, the isn't much point in my trying to convince you of anything.