Well, you're clearly unbothered by making yourself look stupid, indeed more so with each post.
We all know how babies are made. You don't need to keep spelling it out because we're all familiar with the specifics and nobody is disputing them.
Spud is using this neutral, value-free fact about a particular state of affairs in the world to construct a moral edict that this is the only acceptable and permissible form of sexual behaviour for humans. This is a philosophical dead end, it being pretty well universally acknowledged that you can't derive moral prescriptions and prohibitions simply from facts about the world - in other words, he is wrong to think that he can derive an ought from an is.
Do you understand now?What about hermaphroditic creatures? There are said to be about 65,000 species of those. Why didn't nature want "Adam and Eve" 
to create offspring there?
Tell me what qualifications you have SHAKER.
The truth is that sexual behaviour being acceptable or permissible is a chosen way. But the only evidence of a natural way of sexual behaviour is a man and woman being able to procreate.
In truth a man can stick his willy anywhere. But it won't make it natural. Be it in an animal or another person. It won't make it acceptable either. Because it is all about choice.
Spud is a Christian so we both know that he believes only sex between a man and woman, a married couple is the natural and normal way for him. When asked for evidence it is the normal and natural way in his faith and the world. We see he uses the example of man and woman having sexual intercourse being able to procreate.
How he sees it is is right for him. How you see it, is wrong for you.
But nonetheless, he has given evidence independent of his faith that would suggests natures way is a man and a woman.
Our lusts are not always leading us in the right way. A man who lusts after a woman and then attacks and rapes her.
Is that sex really natural is it a loving and committed relationship or a consensual act?
Does the fact he can perform the act make it natural? As humans we make choices and we choose our partners.
But being able to do something, in itself does not make it natural or right.
Given the greater scheme of things...Spud makes an excellent point of evidence. That only a man and woman can produce a baby through natural sexual intercourse. Whatever the choices we make what ever way we choose to have sexual relationships, none of the other ways can produce a child. Whilst for Spud it is that way and no others.
We know that sexual relations do not decide how a baby is made. Nature does. In the fact of that argument there is none to change it.
Spud has not changed anything he has said previously. As a Christian he has always proclaimed that his beliefs are such.
So it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact he has now given you a natural evidence that no other sexual intercourse but a man and a woman will produce a baby. Nature makes the statement not spud.
We are talking about mankind and no diverting to any other animal will change that fact.
In this case it was HUMANS which were being discussed.
So no! You just have to admit you can't twist your way out of it this time.
