[tufc]

Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

[prog2djent]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

Some gay rights people are idiots. They are like religious fanatics in that they either use circular logic, ad homs, scary words, or contradict themselves.

They need to use the arguement "people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they harm no other person". Which most people agree with (apart from religious fanatics and socialists haha) and that should topple any anti-gay marriage or anti-adoption argument.

[Clare~Bear]

They obviously don't support gay rights, but haven't got a proper arguement . . . Probably because they only believe being gay is immoral because a book says so, but they need more of an arguement than that.

[tufc]

(Original post by Clare~Bear)
They obviously don't support gay rights, but haven't got a proper arguement . . . Probably because they only believe being gay is immoral because a book says so, but they need more of an arguement than that.

That's got nothing to do with the question, though. The issue I want to bring to the forefront in this thread is that gay rights campaigners are perfectly happy to use the "It's natural so it's OK" argument when it suits them, but then reject it as a fallacy when it doesn't.

[Redolent]

Gay rights people often have to use the naturalistic fallacy themselves in order to refute those who oppose gay rights for naturalistic reasons on their own terms, because just saying "you're committing a naturalistic fallacy" is never enough for these people.

I don't think there are many gay rights people at all who only support gay people because they think being gay is natural, they just have to resort to saying it to disprove another's points about how it's unnatural.

[krishan369]

i think its the gay rights people dont really care whether something is natural or not- but one of the first arguments against gay rights is that its not natural, so rather than argue that this isnt a problem they try first to show that it is natural (in the hopes that it is easier to convince someone that something is natural because it occurs in other animals rather than change their opinion/moral view on whether natural is best). but this is speculative.

[lolipanda]

(Original post by Redolent)
I don't think there are many gay rights people at all who only support gay people because they think being gay is natural, they just have to resort to saying it to disprove another's points about how it's unnatural.

Precisely! Usually, when a person arguing for gay rights brings up the 'it actually does happen in nature', it's generally a rebuttal to someone who has brought out the old 'being gay is not natural, so it is wrong' argument.

I don't think they are saying 'because being gay is natural, it is right'; rather, they are countering the argument that 'because being gay is unnatural, it is not right'.

Edit: so the point is, they are actually highlighting the fact that the naturalistic fallacy has no place in a gay rights opposer's argument anyway.

[callum9999]

(Original post by tufc)
That's got nothing to do with the question, though. The issue I want to bring to the forefront in this thread is that gay rights campaigners are perfectly happy to use the "It's natural so it's OK" argument when it suits them, but then reject it as a fallacy when it doesn't.

Why... If that indeed takes place, it happens rarely and virtually always as part of a different, better argument - so why on earth would you care...

In fact, the only time I've ever seen that used as an argument at all is in response to people calling it unnatural...

[DaveSmith99]

Just because something is natural doesn't make it inherently right, but there is not one good reason to oppose gay rights. Not one. As for gay adoption, there is a shortage of couple willing to adopt children in this country and I think that it would be much better for a child to live in a home with two loving parents, regardless of gender, than living in a childrens home.

Please point out how that is hypocritical?

[tufc]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Just because something is natural doesn't make it inherently right, but there is not one good reason to oppose gay rights. Not one. As for gay adoption, there is a shortage of couple willing to adopt children in this country and I think that it would be much better for a child to live in a home with two loving parents, regardless of gender, than living in a childrens home.

Please point out how that is hypocritical?

I'm not saying that that argument per se is hypocritical, I'm saying that many pro-gay rights people on here support general gay rights and gay adoption despite their arguments defending each contradicting each other.

[Chlomc]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Personally, i think adopting a child and looking after them as your own is the epitome of goodness of human character.

And in my opinion whether something is "natural" or not doesn't decide whether it's right or wrong. Humans are very "unnatural" creature. Concrete buildings cover the world. They aren't "Natural". So who is anyone to use that as an argument against something.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by tufc)
I'm not saying that that argument per se is hypocritical, I'm saying that many pro-gay rights people on here support general gay rights and gay adoption despite their arguments defending each contradicting each other.

Fair enough, but I doubt anyones sole reason for supporting gay rights is that its natural. Anyway that still doesn't change the fact that there are no good reasons to oppose gay rights and the only good reason to oppose gay adoption is the prejudices that still remain in our society.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

When people use the 'homosexuality occurs in nature' argument, it is usually to refute a 'homosexuality is unnatural' argument made by a conservative - the gay rights people aren't the ones starting the 'nature' debate they are merely humouring the opposing argument and showing why it is wrong. Of course, it would be more consistent to just say 'nature fallacy' or whatever in both of the scenarios you described, but I don't think it is hypocrisy to try to argue in the opponents terms in one scenario and reject the opponents terms in another.

[tufc]

(Original post by When you see it...)
When people use the 'homosexuality occurs in nature' argument, it is usually to refute a 'homosexuality is unnatural' argument made by a conservative - the gay rights people aren't the ones starting the 'nature' debate they are merely humouring the opposing argument and showing why it is wrong. Of course, it would be more consistent to just say 'nature fallacy' or whatever in both of the scenarios you described, but I don't think it is hypocrisy to try to argue in the opponents terms in one scenario and reject the opponents terms in another.

Often that is the case; but it's not exactly rare that I see an as of yet unopposed poster saying, "10% of life on Earth is gay, it's natural, get over it."

I agree, even if you think it is a fallacy, you can try to defeat it as an argument. But I still see so many people using it as an actual argument, rather than a counter-argument.

[Gremlins]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

Apart from the fact you think gays should be discouraged from making public displays of affection and you think you can't leave your house without seeing gay people holding hands

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

No, you're right. Anything humans do is ipso facto natural so using that as the basis for an ethical argument seems kind of pointless. I think the more specific fallacy you're committing here is the is-ought one - in these people's opinions gay adoption ought not to be natural because you see a child as needing a mother and a father. This in turn stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of sex and gender and is of course *******s because the modern nuclear family is incredibly young as a concept anyway.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by tufc)
Often that is the case; but it's not exactly rare that I see an as of yet unopposed poster saying, "10% of life on Earth is gay, it's natural, get over it."

I agree, even if you think it is a fallacy, you can try to defeat it as an argument. But I still see so many people using it as an actual argument, rather than a counter-argument.

There are some hypocrites on both sies of any argument. Just as there are those who bring up the nature argument on the pro-homo side, there ae those who bring it up on the anti-homo side and within both of those two groups, there are some people who condemn the corresponding argument of the opposing side for being a fallacy.This thread could well have had the title 'anti-Gay Rights Hypocrisy' and the above posts would have been nearly identical. It just seems strange that you are focussing on gay rights people.

[DaveSmith99]

Have you accepted that homosexuality is natural now then? Because only a day or two in another thread you were using it being unnatural as one of your main arguments to oppose it.

[lambert1]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Have you accepted that homosexuality is natural now then? Because only a day or two in another thread you were using it being unnatural as one of your main arguments to oppose it.

I think the natural debate is just a silly creationist argument because they believe God created everything thus if it were natural it had to have been created by God.

[tufc]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Have you accepted that homosexuality is natural now then? Because only a day or two in another thread you were using it being unnatural as one of your main arguments to oppose it.

I don't oppose it. I just think it should be discouraged.

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by tufc)
I don't oppose it. I just think it should be discouraged.

What do you mean by discourage? Tell gay people not to be gay? I don't know if you have ever tried to stop being attracted to someone you are attracted to, but I can tell you that it doesn't work.