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

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

This part isn't actually that complicated.  If the fairies didn't leave this flying carpet under my bed, then who did?  

Perhaps, no one and nothing have determined what's best for us - and the task of approximating whatever that may be, if there is such a thing, is left to agents which are at least capable of apprehending and assessing the subject.

"Nature" is no such agent - as you note further down in your own response.  

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.

Evidently, it does not - as you take moral issue with at least some of natures products.

Conceptually, it cannot- as you note further down in your own response.

"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 agree, we can, and this stands in stark contrast to your earlier claim that we cannot.  

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

You already have said it, more than once, and in more than one way.  This is why I assume it's a problem of communication.  We're not having an argument about our respective positions, you're misrepresenting your own position, and I'm trying to help you improve on that.