Aquinas' Natural Law Theory cannot accurately explain moral objectivism

Moral Objectivism: A meta-ethical theory that claims that moral statements are either true or false regardless of any rational beings opinion, including God's, for He is a rational being and surely cannot contradict objective morality. Accurately explain: Not only being consistent, exact, and precise in making clear a proposition or set of propositions but also logically sound. I will present two main objections to Aquinas' Natural Law theory. The first objection is that on many issues, the theory either leads to absurd conclusions or is unfounded. The second objection is that Aquinas' view of Natural Law and Eternal Law contradict the actions of God in the Bible. First of all, Aquinas claims that one can glean the morality of certain actions from nature itself, such as contraception. A modern formulation of Aquinas' argument might appear as follows: 1. Anything that violates the natural purpose of an action or body part is morally wrong. 2. Contraception is an action that violates the natural purpose of human coitus, since the production of children is the natural purpose of human coitus 3. Therefore, contraception is morally wrong. ∀x(~Nx-->Wx) ~Nc Wc The argument is logically valid but is it sound? I find a problem with premise 1. By reductio ad absurdum, we can see the absurd conclusions that an argument based on premise 1 can lead. 1. Anything that violates the natural purpose of an action or body part is morally wrong. 2. The licking of envelopes violates the natural purpose of the tongue, since the natural purpose of the tongue is to communicate and taste. 3. Therefore, the licking of envelopes is morally wrong. ∀x(~Nx-->Wx) ~Nl Wl 1. Anything that violates the natural purpose of an action or body part is morally wrong. 2. Drinking any beverage socially violates the natural purpose of drinking, which is the quenching of thirst. 3. Therefore, drinking any beverage socially is morally wrong. ∀x(~Nx-->Wx) ~Nd Wd I see no reason to accept premise 1 as a rational tool for determining rightness or wrongness. My second objection is to Aquinas' belief that the Natural Law, which is supposedly objective, flows directly from the Eternal Law which Aquinas' claims is God's nature. This would mean that any action forbidden or allowed by Natural Law is part of God's nature. Since God cannot contradict His own nature, He could not commit an action that violates Natural Law. But God did contradict the Natural Law when He commanded the sacrifice of Isaac. 1. If the Natural Law flows directly from the Eternal Law and the Eternal Law is God's nature, then the Natural Law flows directly from God's nature. 2. If the Natural Law flows directly from God's nature, then God cannot contradict it, since His nature is Himself and God cannot contradict Himself. 3. God has contradicted the Natural Law when He commanded the sacrifice of Isaac. 4. Therefore, the Natural Law cannot directly flow from God's nature. 5. If the Natural Law cannot flow from God's nature, then Aquinas' theory that claims it does is unsound. 6. Therefore, Aquinas' theory is unsound. ((F&E)-->N) (N-->C) ~C ~N (~N-->A) A Premises 1 and 2 are consistent with Aquinas' theory. Premise 3 should be obvious as commanding a man to kill his only son is surely morally wrong in any moral objectivist system. Premises 4, 5, and 6 logically follow. These are a few opening arguments. I eagerly await my opponent's arguments.