Naturalist argument against homosexuality

[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.

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

Err, yes. This is a paradox but I think this is the response that works within the system. People sell themselves into all kinds of slavery all the time - this includes some long term contracts, or more literally, BDSM sexual slavery, but the system cannot support this being permanent and irreversible.

[Razgovory]

Freedom by it's nature is paradoxical.  There always has to be limits to freedom.  You began with one, "so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else".  That is a limitation.  It is a necessary one, but it is still is a limit.

[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.

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

Exactly. I think this is an answer consistent with the system.

It's not that you cannot do it, but immediately after you do it, your free person status gets "refreshed" so to speak by the principle stating that everyone is free to do whatever they want.

[Martinus]

Freedom by it's nature is paradoxical.  There always has to be limits to freedom.  You began with one, "so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else".  That is a limitation.  It is a necessary one, but it is still is a limit.

Fine, but I think the "selling oneself into slavery" does not require a limit, because it works within the system.

[Josquius]

It is true that most gay animals aren't actually gay in the human sense. Even with people being 'gay' is a pretty modern concept.
But yeah, what Viking says. Unnatural is good.

[Razgovory]

Why would a person's status become "refreshed"?

[garbon]

Look at all of these Languish luminaries in one thread.

[Maximus]

What would make something natural or not? That seems like a silly arbitrary classification if I ever heard one.

You could make the argument that everything is by definition natural since everything exists within nature and is bound by the laws of the natural world. This renders the classification meaningless.

Alternately you could define it such that everything touched by the taint of humanity is unnatural. This renders the classification meaningless in regards to human behavior.

If there's a non-silly definition I'm unaware of it.

[Neil]

Wouldn't it make sense to simply argue that homosexuality is bad because it's gross?

[OttoVonBismarck]

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?

There's problems with both the argument and counterargument.

As you say, we aren't bound by what occurs in the rest of nature because we're the most intelligent species and have developed the most sophisticated society and that does change some of the rules. At the same time, most of what you say (caring for elders etc) isn't inherently unnatural, and there is evidence for it both in early modern humans (cro-magnon man) and close human relatives (Neanderthals.) Monogamy and celibacy also could and probably did occur naturally in humans long before civilization. For example for various reasons maybe a member of a tribe was simply unacceptable to any of the female members, and/or all the stronger male members of the tribe had already "staked a claim" and as the weakest male he had no realistic opportunity to mate. Thus he was pushed into de facto celibacy. Most likely since early modern humans operated in groups as small as a dozen or so and never larger than 250, there would have been thousands of such groups and all kinds of differing behaviors.

I do think a slightly different argument has some relevance. Historically I do think homosexuality didn't exist, and that it's a modern construct. Not that men didn't exist that preferred other men, I'm sure that's existed as long as we've had the species. But rather, I think in the past for various societal reasons and simple necessity people mated with the opposite sex even if they didn't particularly want to do so. Even in cultures where homosexuality wasn't at all stigmatized, there are very important reasons you need to have a wife and children. If you're poor, you need children for the labor and support system, because government was not going to take care of you when you were sick or old. If you were wealthy, typically you had familial interests that demanded marriages and offspring. So I think in earlier human civilizations there was not a good argument for homosexuality as an exclusively lifestyle choice, because it wasn't ideal for the good of individuals or society. But probably at least since the 19th century in the West we've had a modern enough infrastructure and governmental support systems such concerns are simply irrelevant, and thus there is no real problem with people choosing to exclusively pursue same sex relationships.

[The Brain]

Any attempt to have sex with Mart will meet with defeat.

[Ed Anger]

Any attempt to have sex with Mart will meet with defeat.

'Defeet'

[mongers]

No idea about the OP, but it does seem unnatural to post about it so much; it's like it's the only thing in the universe.

[fhdz]

So am I missing something?

No, I don't believe so.

[PDH]

Wait a minute...did mart start another useless gay thread?