[Jason2]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
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.

So why do psychologists try to change a pedophiles mind-set with therapy?

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by Jason2)
So why do psychologists try to change a pedophiles mind-set with therapy?

Are you actually suggesting that being harmlessly attracted to someone of the same gender is the similar to being attracted to small children? Anyway I know very little about the therapy that people with pedophiliac thoughts receive, but I would imagine that it is geared towards and more successful at trying to stop people acting on their thoughts. I could be wrong though, but if I'm not there would be no benefit in using the similar therapy on homosexual people.

[Jason2]

(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Are you actually suggesting that being harmlessly attracted to someone of the same gender is the similar to being attracted to small children? Anyway I know very little about the therapy that people with pedophiliac thoughts receive, but I would imagine that it is geared towards and more successful at trying to stop people acting on their thoughts. I could be wrong though, but if I'm not there would be no benefit in using the similar therapy on homosexual people.

Can a leopard change its spots?

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by Jason2)
Can a leopard change its spots?

What's your point?

[Libertarian_Walrus]

I hate all this collectivism, why can't we just all have the same individual rights?

[DaveSmith99]

(Original post by Libertarian_Walrus)
I hate all this collectivism, why can't we just all have the same individual rights?

Because unfortunately some people think that their prejudices are more important than equality.

[blueray]

(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?

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2057965

(Original post by tufc)
No, but it should be discouraged.

Read post 2.

I think you are a hypocrite. And this thread is a bit colorful, considering your own hypocrisy.
Make your ****ing mind up, either your for or against it, don't play to the tsr crowds.

[nombo]

I think some things can support contradicting arguments, and this is one such case.

[Emaemmaemily]

In my experience people only refer to the "homosexuality is natural" argument when people have already said that they think homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. It's not usually an argument for homosexuality being right, but just proof that people saying it's unnatural are wrong.

[Sime]

(Original post by tufc)
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?

Well let's look at the naturalistic fallacy first: this states that something is 'good' or 'better' simply because it is, or believed to be, natural.

So when a person is saying that homosexuality is not 'wrong' or 'immoral' because it is natural or genetic, this isn't actually a usage of the naturalistic fallacy. Instead it is saying that homosexuality is not cannot be subject to judgements of 'right or wrong' or morality because it is something over which the person has no control.
If I were to say that 'people shouldn't engage in homosexual sex because it is unnatural', then this would be an employment of the naturalistic fallacy and I would be doubly false as homosexual sex does occur in nature.

Looking at the second argument by some people that parenting by two same-sex persons should not be acceptable because it is unnatural is an employment of the naturalistic fallacy. They are saying that heterosexual parenting is inherently 'better' because it is the typical state of affairs, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Not only this, but it doesn't even have any basis in nature as there are numerous instances of same-sex couples raising orphaned or abandoned babies of their species, so the use of the naturalistic fallacy here is doubly false.

Does that clear things up?

[Leon Trotsky]

What is the naturalistic argument in favour of gay adoption? Is it those two gay penguins?

[minimarshmallow]

(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.

The argument that is made is a two part defence to 'homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural'. It is both a fallacy to say it's wrong because it's unnatural, but even if it wasn't a fallacy to argue like that, it's natural anyway.
Therefore the argument fails on two points.

This has been explained to you and several other TSR users several times, so I don't know why you keep going on about it.

[When you see it...]

(Original post by Addzter)
What is the naturalistic argument in favour of gay adoption? Is it those two gay penguins?

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.

[Leon Trotsky]

(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.

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.

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?

[NYU2012]

(1) A lot of people like to use the argument 'homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong'. People in the LGBTQ rights movement then indicate it is not unnatural -- it can be observed in nature. Does this make it right? Of course not, it simply disprove only part of the given premise.

From there, we can indicate that it's not, on any reasonable grounds, 'wrong' because it doesn't cause undesired, etc. harm to anyone.

(2) We can show that it's 'normal' by using psychology (and sociology), which have been studying the subject for a number of decades and have found, unanimously, that homosexuality is a natural and normal expression of human sexuality and sexual identity and does not meet the requirements for any sort of 'mental illness' or other such nonsense.

(3) People who object to same-sex parents usually like to say a number of the following: (A) It's unnatural! Which we know is not relevant due to the naturalistic fallacy. (B) Kids need two parents of opposite sexes! Which we know is not true due to the numerous studies conducted on same-sex parenting over the last few decades. (C) Children of single-parents homes are less well-off than their non-single-parent home counterparts! This isn't applicable to same-sex parenting because two parents are, in fact, present. (D) A child needs a role model of both sexes! Well, actually role model is gendered, not sexed; anyone can fill any role model, welcome to the gender. Not only that, a role model need not come from within the immediate family unit.

[tufc]

(Original post by minimarshmallow)
The argument that is made is a two part defence to 'homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural'. It is both a fallacy to say it's wrong because it's unnatural, but even if it wasn't a fallacy to argue like that, it's natural anyway.
Therefore the argument fails on two points.

This has been explained to you and several other TSR users several times, so I don't know why you keep going on about it.

I keep going on about it because you're claiming that it's only ever used in that context. I often see people use it as an individual argument, to support their claim(s) that homosexuality is moral.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by tufc)
I keep going on about it because you're claiming that it's only ever used in that context. I often see people use it as an individual argument, to support their claim(s) that homosexuality is moral.

Well I have never seen anyone use it as an argument for its morality. It's usually used in response to people saying it's unnatural. If none of us have come across it, then we can't really debate about it to be honest.

[Thebigfudge85]

(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.

It's not an actual argument for gay marriage it's just an opposition to the age old being gay is unnatural nonsense hat gets thrown out a lot.

[Vinchenko]

(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?

I argue for both on utilitarian, not naturalistic grounds. Both lead to net gain, no substantial evidence of any harm from either gay relationships or adoption, and significant gains to the well-being and happiness of gay couples and the adopted child respectively.

[Kiss]

To me the bigger hypocrisy comes from the rights given to minorities such as the LGBT society. Same for blacks and women. I´m refering to ´Black History Month´, Ínternational Women´s Day´ and ´Gay Pride´.

Now I know someone will come on to my post to say its all about remembering and overcoming hardships suffered by those groups and any attempted ´White History Month´or ´Straight Pride´would be unecessary and probably perceived as offensive, but if we are supposedley in an ´equal´ society then every group should have some special day or recognition, or nobody should at all.

At the end of the day we´re all humans, making such a fuss over the little differences is sad and arrogant.