"Gay is unnatural" is a redundant comment

A lot of anti-gay types will make this statement: "Homosexuality is unnatural." That's the entirety of their anti-gay argument. "Unnatural". I'm not going to talk about about whether or not that's true (its not); but rather demonstrating why it really is irrelevant to the greater issue of gay rights, and why homophobes who use it need to at least come up with something a bit more original.

Lets pretend for a moment that being gay is in fact a personal choice, or a product of environment; that its unnatural. By using this as a reason for why homosexuality is wrong, you're making the (incredibly bold) statement that "unnatural = bad". Very little of what we utilise on a daily basis is natural. Computers, calculators, abacuses; all are man-made. Video games, television, books; the majority of our entertainment is a result of human ingenuity. Aeroplanes, cars, trains; any form of transport aside from walking is unnatural. Anything that makes use of a wheel is not in tune with nature. All of these unnatural developments have contributed so much to our society, that any typical modern person would be at a complete and utter loss without the effects of humans challenging nature. Thats just the tip of the iceberg of what fits into both the "unnatural" and "good/beneficial" categories.

And those are just products. Humanity as a whole is, by nature, selfish and competitive. At the very core, the basic primal goal of any creature, not just people, is to continue its existence. And yet, throughout history there have been countless examples of people going against this natural instinct and sacrificing themselves for the betterment of their peers. Often people who they have no connection with beyond sharing the same opinion on a matter. The aims of a movement supersede the natural instinct.

Of course, this is a direct result of humanity being granted, by nature, the blessing of sentience. However, if you're going to claim that this renders all of the above as being a result of nature, then you'd have to agree that any choice or social conditioning which leads to being gay is also resultant of nature.

By claiming that "unnatural = bad", you're also suggesting that "natural = good".
One only needs to look over the major news headlines of the last few years to see that this is completely false. Tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes; all of these are terrible occurrences as a result of nature (they're called "natural disasters" for a reason.)
And no one can argue that nature is exclusively bad, given that at the very least it provides the essential requirements for life; and a lot more on top of that.

Clearly, then, the naturalness of something has absolutely no influence on whether something is right or wrong; the only factor in that is the end result of the product, characteristic or behaviour in question.
From this, I think we can safely assume that anyone who pulls out the "gayness is against nature" statement (I refuse to call it an argument) is simply a bigot for the sake of bigotry, relying on empty clichés because they have no legitimate argument to back up their claim.