Yeah, but what are those naturalistic arguments in favour of gay adoption? I don't think I've ever come across a serious one. If anybody's committing a logical fallacy here, I think it's the OP.
(Original post by When you see it...)
I think the OPs point is that there isn't one, so they have to try to discredit naturalistic arguments in general when faced with the particular issue of adoption, but they still use naturalistic arguments for the discussion of whether being gay is okay in the first place.
EDIT: Right, I understand. I'm pretty tired. My bad. But who argues that homosexuality is acceptable simply because it occurs in the animal kingdom anyway?
Last edited by Leon Trotsky; 18-07-2012 at 16:14.