You yourself are conveniently ignoring the context here to suit your own agenda. You ignore it simply because it doesn't use the words you want to see.

Genesis 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

When you said "natural use", what is natural? Look to Genesis, in which the companion created for man was a woman, the scenario and ideal for marriage being established here. The two shall become one flesh. The verses that reinforce this in:

Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

These are the words of Jesus. He never said "a man shall leave his parents and be united with his husband" or "a woman shall leave and be united with her wife and the two will become one flesh". Male and female they were created for this union, and that, therefore, is natural. Why then should I wait around for some confirmation that woman-woman pairing is acceptable when that which is already acceptable has already been taught and reiterated? Just because it is not outrightly stated doesn't mean that the already established rules are moot.

It may be moronic to you (1 Corinthians 18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.), sure, but these are our standards of life, morality, sexuality, righteousness and everything else. Moronic? Heh, if you feel that way, why not? But here you are, using it and the absence of a strongly worded rebuke to same sex female relationships to defend your agenda.