Quite frankly, I suppose this comes down to personal taste. Assuming “their” argument is neither valid nor sound, you’d rather point out it’s not sound, whereas I’d rather point out it’s not valid. Why? I suppose there are two reasons, for me.
Attacking the premise can easily be construed as tacit acceptance of the validity of the argument. This leads to wildly absurd results, as I hope to have demonstrated already. I think it’s a ridiculous waste of time to have to document male bonobos screwing each other to refute this argument when you could simply point out that if we accept their argument, then it must be immoral to drive a car, brush our teeth with a toothbrush, or engage in any other millions of activities that are observed in humans only.
Calling something “natural” is in itself problematic because it is open to so many different interpretations. (Although, I concede that if we define “natural” as “observable in non-human animals” this point goes away.) Rather than engaging in a philosophical debate over what is “natural”, it’s far easier to render such a debate unnecessary by illustrating that the argument is invalid whether the premise is sound or not.
I think that attacking the soundness uses their own stupidity against them. It forces them to either conced everything, or to conceded invalaidity themselves.
It’s not about calling homosexuality “natural,” it’s about pointing out the absurdity of trying to claim that “natural” and “unnatural” mean anything at all.
I get your point but I think that the counter is simply to useful to put aside in everyday conversation on this topic.
It is a factual correction to a bad argument, and thus should be used as often as possible when this kind of garbage is heard. Other posters have elaborated on this point above so I don’t need to go into it.
The implication of the argument being countered is almost always that humans are special. That argument nearly always stems from a religious stance. While we may not NEED to look to the natural world to compose a cohesive and logical argument for the toleration of homosexuality, there is NO reason to give away any ground to the idea that humans are special. It only encourages that thought pattern. It is more logical and of greater value intellectually to make the comparison to the natural world, and strip away the special status before elaborating upon the additional arguments that stand alone on their own merits.
The idea is not to dehumanize homosexuals, but rather to dehumanize everyone, and rebuild that humanity in a manner that does not need, nor refer to superstition and bigotry to find its way. It is setting the stage so to speak. That is of extreme value when debating people who do not make a regular habit of critical thinking or deep thought on any particular issue. It is the first, most important step of refuting their silly argument and walking them through the facts and well thought out one.
Diogenes is correct.
There are a ton of behaviours that humans do that have no parallel in nature and so could be argued as “unnatural” and yet are completely accepted or desired by humans.
Marriage
Hair cuts
Wearing clothes
Brushing teeth
Body Modifications
Vision Correction
Surgery
Writing
…
The fact that homosexuality is unnatural or not is insignificant unless you are arguing with someone who has given all these and more up.
Except the bad argument is that whether is is natural or not is insignificant. See my post directly above.
Again the fact that is is natural or not is insignificant.
I agree we should demolish all discrimination and bias, but we are a species that does so many specific things that are not found in nature that the argument is bad in general and countering it is not countering the route of the bad argument.
I absolutely agree. A subset of this argument is “homosexuality is innate” or “they’re born with it”, with the subtext of “so they can’t help it and we shouldn’t persecute them for it.”
To which I say, “fuck that noise”. It’s not harming anyone, and so *therefore *we shouldn’t persecute them for it.
What’s the danger? The danger is that “born gay” or “homosexuality occurs in nature, it’s not an exclusively human behavior” as a defense* leads one to a quagmire when we eventually reach the point where technology will allow us to examine the genome, control the uterine hormonal environment, or otherwise modify whatever biological mechanisms are eventually found to “cause” homosexuality. If we base an argument for accepting homosexuality on biology, we’ve got issues when we reach the point when homosexual biology can be averted. We’ve allowed ourselves to be backed into the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate, leaving us wide open for accepting or even demanding medical intervention when it’s practical.
It’s *still *saying, “gay people are broken”. Worse, it’s implying that, were there a cure or prevention, of course gay people would want it, because they’re suffering a malady. “Gay people are born that way, they can’t help it. You can’t change your sexuality,” implies that they *should *change if they could. The judgement against homosexuality is implicit in the logic, even when the argument is used to support gay rights.
*As a mere clarification and educational point, sure, I don’t have a problem with it. But as a tool, it’s bunk.
smileybastard, did you read my OP or any of my subsequent posts? You’re saying exactly what I’ve been saying the whole time, without adding anything new. Which I don’t mind per se, except insofar as your statement “Diogenes is correct” implies that I am incorrect.
You are missing an unstated premise of the homophobe argument. “Natural” is a code word for god-created and approved. The (incorrect) argument that animals don’t do it implies that people do by choice and from free will, and are thus disobeying God’s will as expressed in his creation. Showing that animals do do it refutes this without getting into arguments about the existence of God and analysis of what the Bible says about it. No one is saying that the natural world shows that God does approve.
BTW, Charles Beaumont had a story, in the late 1950s, about a world where gayness was normal and heterosexuals had to sneak around. One of the arguments of the majority was that animals practiced heterosexual sex, and so it was disgusting.
I’ll grant the existence of God for the sake of argument. The argument is still internally full of shit, unless the person who advocates it, religious or not, seriously looks to nonhuman animals for justification every time they want to decide whether a behavior is acceptable. Actually, the religious version of the argument is doubly full of shit because it implies that everything done by choice and from free will is a way of disobeying God, a position I don’t think anyone is prepared to advocate. I still say that the unsoundness of the argument pales in comparison to its mind-boggling invalidity.
To understand the argument we have to assume the existence of God, because otherwise the answer is “so freakin’ what?” Which is more or less your point, one I agree with.
I don’t think they say that free will automatically causes disobedience, just that disobedience in the moral sense is impossible without it. Animals are not moral actors. So, if we had no free will, we’d more or less be constrained to do what god wants, which is what animals do. So, by this argument, if no animals were gay that would mean that god does not want us to be gay. But some animals are, and some aren’t, so we actually don’t know what God wants. So, back to the Bible and those who claim a special channel to god.
I just think people are more willing to accept that their premises are wrong than that their reasoning is faulty. And one should lead with the argument that is easier to accept.
Also the heavy philosophical arguments against homosexual sex come from a belief in what is called Natural Law. The Catholics are really into this concept, the belief that God’s true intentions and morality can be found in nature, properly understood through the interpretation of the church of course.
If we accept that homosexuality is natural and that they didn’t really have a choice in the matter, then it can become a very important argument and shouldn’t be abandoned. When it comes to treating sexual orientation as a protected class (should already be the case, but that’s a different thread), immutability of the trait is important.
Immutability is only important if we start from the assumption is wrong with it and need to defend that it is not wrong. For example I enjoy reading books and I don’t think any animals do so is it unnatural? By that argument yes it is. Should we then ban book reading? That is crazy as is this argument. Homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone. It doesn’t need to be natural to be okay. The fact that it is really insignificant. Animals ill each other but we don’t think killing is acceptable.