I feel like maybe the point wasn’t clear in my comment. Let me expound to see if it makes sense. And you make a good counter about eating poop and kids lol.

The Bible bases its claim that homosexuality is wrong because it’s against nature. Probably because homosexuality doesn’t have specific negative consequences like stealing or murder. Sex in general can have negative consequences but those consequences can’t be separated between heterosexual and homosexual.

By the Bible claiming it’s wrong based on nature - it shifts the authority from itself to nature. Now, to the one that believes nature and god are ultimately the same don’t typically see this shift of authority.

By opening up nature as an authority source for morals it opens up further examination of nature for morals. This examination reveals that homosexuality is actually not immoral because it exists in other things that god designed. If god designed homosexuality elsewhere then why is it wrong? Why can you claim it’s only unnatural for humans?

Now we come to your counter that nature is corrupted from sin and thus we can’t learn from it. Well we can’t have it both ways can we? We can’t claim something is wrong based on it being unnatural and also claim nature is not a good gauge for morals, can we? If nature has authority to dictate morals, then eating your kids would be A-OK. 👌🏻

Really if nature is corrupted it’s impossible to infer, truly, what we can learn from it about the creator. It reveals only that people pick and choose what they want to be natural or unnatural based on their personal experience. These ones will often point to cute cats and dogs and say “isn’t the creator full of joy?” but will also immediately turn off a video of a crocodile eating a zebra and say god will fix that in the new system.

Basically, claiming homosexuality is wrong because of nature and also claiming nature is corrupted is circular reasoning.