How important is something being 'against nature' to you?

It’s simply not a real thing, it’s a quasi-religious concept that people appeal to in order to legitimise their beliefs and arguments. The real question is ‘what is the actual harm’ not that ‘something that people do that doesn’t occur naturally’ is necessarily harmful. I’d argue that something harmfully interfering with natural processes, for example man made climate change, is ‘against nature’ but the key concept is changing natural processes harmfully, rather than something being necessarily harmful because it changes a natural order. Nature is fucking horrible. Animals in the wild never die of old age, 90% of death involves getting slower than another animal and getting eaten alive from your butthole first. I mean even my dog will just hump things publicly with no sense of shame, in a way that would almost certainly result in a conviction should I do it. Something being ‘against nature’ is often more ethical and less harmful.