I think you talk of morals because it is the only logical argument you can make against what I am saying.
That doesn't mean it's wrong, you at least concede it's logical, and I think it's right, obviously, or I wouldn't have made the argument. .
I'm saying that calling homosexuality unnatural is a moral judgment about how things ought to be, not a statement about how things are. It's trivially true that it's certainly not the norm, most people aren't homosexual, but it occurs throughout the animal kingdom, so pretty much by definition it must be natural. I've found lots of arguments trying to explain it in evolutionary terms, but by itself it may be evolutionarily neutral for all we know. Not everybody has to reproduce to ensure species survival, it may just be part of a larger genetic package we haven't teased out the full significance of yet. One of the references I found, for instance, suggests that siblings of homosexual people, who thus have part of the same genetic package, may have somewhat greater reproductive success, and it doesn't take much of an advantage in reproduction to ensure the propagation of an allele over evolutionary time scales. It's extremely improbable that there'd be a single gene for homosexuality, genes operate in very complex and subtle interactions with other genes, and that's the environment natural selection operates on. The genes that survive are the ones that are good at cooperating with other genes, among many other reasons, and it's certainly feasible that sometimes those complex interactions manifest as homosexuality in some people.