4th,
heh.
One thing I don't understand is why it's so hard to accept that different people have different views of nature though.
The natural state of man is something philosophers have debated for centuries and will continue to debate for centuries to come, and despite all attempts to look at it from a scientific perspective, when people are speaking of "nature" in terms of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, I'm pretty sure they mean something more metaphysical.
So, with it being impossible to determine what the natural state of man is to anywhere near the level of certainty that one can state that, in non-vector mathematics, 2+2=4, what makes the argument that it is against nature weak?
Since it's impossible to know the metaphysical nature of man beyond conjectures and faith, what makes the argument of a person who puts faith in the Bible and says that homosexuality is against the metaphysical nature of man any more or less weak than the argument of someone who places no faith in anything but man itself? Neither is any more capable of determining what the "natural" metaphysical state is than the other.