Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[Greatest I am]

I define nature as mostly good, but in our dualistic universe, I have to look for it's other side of that coin as well. Like our evolution, it is mostly good with a touch of evil. I doubt that either of us would want to rid the world of either side.

That wasn't the impression I got before, but it's a necessary bit of data to understand what you mean, for sure.

As to your self referentially false statement, I do not see the sense in your reason for naming it so.

I would think the reverse true.

Why would a true fact annul a true moral state?

Give a specific example. You know we get nowhere when you go too generic.

I gave you the specific examples of both the types of claims you were objecting to, and your own objection to those claims, and explained their equivalence, and explained what a self referentially false statement was twice.  I doubt the third time will be the charm.   

With revisions, though, we've finally achieved the point of even having asked you.  You don't actually think that nature has determined what's best for us or that we can't second guess nature or that a thing being natural is the same as a thing being good.  

You think that some of the natural things that some of us do are bad, and that nature cannot be relied upon to determine what is best for us in those cases.  That you have a moral issue with nature in at least as many instances as there are bad ideas in humans.  

Do we have that correct now, or closer to correct?

Sorry, no. It is complicated though.

"You don't actually think that nature has determined what's best for us ".

I do. If not nature, then what?

Nature always creates for the best possible end and I have no complaints on that. The only evil in this will be felt by those I compete against who lose or myself if they win. In a sense this is not true given that I debate to win, while hopping to lose. Winning gives me nothing. Losing improves me.

"we can't second guess nature "

Sure we can. That does not mean we can do better than nature. There might be some areas, like us being less innovative than chimps when we are young. I think our mimicking, a requirement for us for sure is good, but we are too strong in it for innovation, generally. We do have some that think out of the box and they are valued more than most.

I would not say I have a moral problem with nature, as morals are thoughts, and nature does not think. All I question is the method used.

Regards
DL