evil inclination

In the answer now you are actually separating - meaning that the prohibition is only on his inclination and not on his nature, you are separating the act because of the evil inclination and the sexual inclination which is the nature so to speak. The meaning is that it is impossible to separate nature from his inclination. It is the same mechanism. In other words, even a straight man who falls in love with a girl is said to have surrendered to the evil inclination (his inclination) even though he does it because of his nature. This is definitely a reason to judge him to a certain degree since it is his nature. But the thing is that the very proposal of this separation seems illogical to me.

There is no dispute that the prohibition is on the act and not on the urge to do it. This is not my innovation. My argument is that there is room to distinguish between a person who does it because of his nature (he is gay) and a person who does it because of a one-time urge.
You claim that the urge is also part of nature, but you did not understand my argument. This is not a distinction between urge and nature, but between a permanent nature and a one-time, explosive nature. I am not a determinist, and I do judge criminals and do not assume that if they did it then it was forced upon them. It is forced upon the gay, because he has no other option.
The first builds a couple according to his nature, and fighting against his nature is impossible because it is a war to force the urge throughout life at every moment without an alternative to permissible marital relations (in this context, I cited the Gemara in Ketuvot 34: “If it were not for Hananiah, Mishael and Ezra were the pillars of the image.” You see that continuous and constant suffering at every moment, even if it is small, cannot be endured). The second commits adultery because of his urge, while his nature also allows him to act correctly (heterosexual marital relations). The Torah forbade this.