Naturalist argument against homosexuality

[Martinus]

This is probably much less likely used these days in the West, but at least here it is still touted from time to time as an argument against homosexuality (and by extension gay equality) - homosexuality is unnatural, as it does not occur in nature/animal kingdom.

Setting aside the fact that this appears to be false and there are apparently many cases of homosexuality among animals (although the opponents claim these are just homosexual behaviours, not homosexuality in the human sense), could someone explain to me why this argument even has any legs to stand on?

I mean, isn't the entire point of human civilisation pretty much the departure from what is "natural"? We do not condone infanticide, incest, cannibalism, etc. but all are pretty much normal occurrences in the "natural" world. Caring for one's elders is unnatural. Monogamy and celibacy are, mostly, unnatural. Art, poetry, hell, especially religion, are all unnatural as they do not occur in nature.

So am I missing something? I am asking seriously, because this line of thought seems so obviously bogus, there must be more to it than that, as otherwise how would anyone not die of embarrassment just proposing it?

[Viking]

is/ought

This is the Naturalistic Fallacy in action.

The supposed fact that homosexuality is un-natural neither makes it immoral or bad. Pretty much everything that is good about modern life is not natural (vaccines, mobile phones etc.) imho.

[Razgovory]

Conversely, many arguments have been made in favor of homosexuality because it is "natural".

[Martinus]

is/ought

This is the Naturalistic Fallacy in action.

The supposed fact that homosexuality is un-natural neither makes it immoral or bad. Pretty much everything that is good about modern life is not natural (vaccines, mobile phones etc.) imho.

Yeah, this is my point. I am more perplexed by the fact that people still use this argument as it seems to obviously fallacious to me.

The best part is when a celibate man leading an organisation of celibate men, whose job is to worship an invisible deity, claims that something is unnatural.

[Viking]

Conversely, many arguments have been made in favor of homosexuality because it is "natural".

The Gay Penguin argument is equally stupid.

[Martinus]

Conversely, many arguments have been made in favor of homosexuality because it is "natural".

But my question is - why even go there, considering this is such a completely idiotic argument.

To a lesser degree I feel the same about the "inborn" vs. "acquired" debate. To me this is another intellectual red herring. Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Whether they were born that way or got that way later on should not matter in the slightest.

[Razgovory]

is/ought

This is the Naturalistic Fallacy in action.

The supposed fact that homosexuality is un-natural neither makes it immoral or bad. Pretty much everything that is good about modern life is not natural (vaccines, mobile phones etc.) imho.

Raz makes a note of your apostasy from new Atheist morality.

[Martinus]

is/ought

This is the Naturalistic Fallacy in action.

The supposed fact that homosexuality is un-natural neither makes it immoral or bad. Pretty much everything that is good about modern life is not natural (vaccines, mobile phones etc.) imho.

Raz makes a note of your apostasy from new Atheist morality.

Not really. In fact - which is quite funny - it's the religious people who are the biggest proponents of the naturalist fallacy these days.

[Razgovory]

Conversely, many arguments have been made in favor of homosexuality because it is "natural".

But my question is - why even go there, considering this is such a completely idiotic argument.

To a lesser degree I feel the same about the "inborn" vs. "acquired" debate. To me this is another intellectual red herring. Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Whether they were born that way or got that way later on should not matter in the slightest.

Free to do anything they want?  Can they sell themselves into slavery?

[Viking]

Conversely, many arguments have been made in favor of homosexuality because it is "natural".

But my question is - why even go there, considering this is such a completely idiotic argument.

To a lesser degree I feel the same about the "inborn" vs. "acquired" debate. To me this is another intellectual red herring. Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Whether they were born that way or got that way later on should not matter in the slightest.

Confirmation Bias. People will consider arguments which support their own previously held conclusions to be stronger than the actually are.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Viking]

is/ought

This is the Naturalistic Fallacy in action.

The supposed fact that homosexuality is un-natural neither makes it immoral or bad. Pretty much everything that is good about modern life is not natural (vaccines, mobile phones etc.) imho.

Raz makes a note of your apostasy from new Atheist morality.

There is no such thing as Atheist morality. We don't have not-God's not-book of not-silly not-arbitrary not-rules.

[Martinus]

Conversely, many arguments have been made in favor of homosexuality because it is "natural".

But my question is - why even go there, considering this is such a completely idiotic argument.

To a lesser degree I feel the same about the "inborn" vs. "acquired" debate. To me this is another intellectual red herring. Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Whether they were born that way or got that way later on should not matter in the slightest.

Free to do anything they want?  Can they sell themselves into slavery?

Yes, as long as they can withdraw from it at any time. Otherwise they would no longer be free to do whatever they want, which would contradict the original principle.

[Razgovory]

is/ought

This is the Naturalistic Fallacy in action.

The supposed fact that homosexuality is un-natural neither makes it immoral or bad. Pretty much everything that is good about modern life is not natural (vaccines, mobile phones etc.) imho.

Raz makes a note of your apostasy from new Atheist morality.

Not really. In fact - which is quite funny - it's the religious people who are the biggest proponents of the naturalist fallacy these days.

Er, no.  It's 4:22 in the morning, but so I'll go explain this tomorrow maybe.

[Razgovory]

Conversely, many arguments have been made in favor of homosexuality because it is "natural".

But my question is - why even go there, considering this is such a completely idiotic argument.

To a lesser degree I feel the same about the "inborn" vs. "acquired" debate. To me this is another intellectual red herring. Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Whether they were born that way or got that way later on should not matter in the slightest.

Free to do anything they want?  Can they sell themselves into slavery?

Yes, as long as they can withdraw from it at any time. Otherwise they would no longer be free to do whatever they want, which would contradict the original principle.

So then the answer is no.  You can't.  If you are a slave, you can't decide one day not to be a slave.  If you can't sell yourself as a slave then you can't do whatever you want so long as you aren't hurting anyone else.

[Viking]

Conversely, many arguments have been made in favor of homosexuality because it is "natural".

But my question is - why even go there, considering this is such a completely idiotic argument.

To a lesser degree I feel the same about the "inborn" vs. "acquired" debate. To me this is another intellectual red herring. Consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they are not harming anyone else. Whether they were born that way or got that way later on should not matter in the slightest.

Free to do anything they want?  Can they sell themselves into slavery?

Yes, as long as they can withdraw from it at any time. Otherwise they would no longer be free to do whatever they want, which would contradict the original principle.

That would be more a case of renting oneself into slavery rather than selling oneself. Renting oneself into slavery is usually called employment.