To all homophobes - are you going far enough?

[Dorian Gray]

Some of you say homosexuality is unnatural and is therefore wrong. I say, why stop there?

Wearing earrings is unnatural, so I think that no one with earrings in or piercings or tattoos should be allowed to get married.

Wearing clothing is also unnatural and wrong, so clothing-wearers are barred from marriage too!

And wearing clothing is also frowned upon in the Bible. Witness the Genesis story where Adam and Eve were initially frowned upon by God for wearing fig leaves. I have both biology AND religion on my side.

Haircuts? Wrong. Technology? Unnatural and Wrong! In fact, everyone reading this right now should be banned from marriage.

Marriage ITSELF is unnatural. Animals, even those who mate for life, don't have weddings, they just stay together for life. They don't need the unnatural and wrong ceremony and piece of paper to make them stay together. So marriage should be outlawed.

Drugs are also unnatural, except for marijuana. And since marriage is outlawed, there is no such thing as premarital sex. Besides, sex is the MOST natural thing of all, so sex is completely NOT outlawed.

We should return to God's grace, return to the state of being naked hairy lovemonkeys.

We've got to get ourselves back to the Garden.

[c0rbin]

I believe that, in this forum, you are preaching to the choir.

No one can damn homosexuality without religion (pun intended).

[LW]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Drugs are also unnatural, except for marijuana.

Too bad that you have wait for a lightning strike to start a fire near you before you can smoke any of it naturally.

[LostAngeles]

I have another one!

Vaccinations, many antibiotics, transfusions, organ transplants, and surgery are all unnatural too!

Therefore anyone who uses those is wrong, especially if they've lived past the age of 35.

Here's some more:

Money's unnatural.
Religion's unnatural.
Science's unnatural.
Education's unnatural.
Buildings are unnatural unless your a termite.
Homeopathy's unnatural.
The Internet's unnatural.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I always felt that watching Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannon having unprotected anal sex as being somewhat natural.

Charlie (they've been doing it to the public for years) Monoxide

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
I always felt that watching Pat Robertson and Pat Buchannon having unprotected anal sex as being somewhat natural.



I vow, on the sword of my father, that until my dying day I will never forgive you for the mental image you have just given me.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Cleon


<inigomontoya>

I vow, on the sword of my father, that until my dying day I will never forgive you for the mental image you have just given me.

</inigomontoya>

I agree.

Gee Charlie, I know it can sometimes be hard to find anything good on TV but if that's the best you can do you might try picking up a book.

I don't even want to know who's on top.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Cleon




I vow, on the sword of my father, that until my dying day I will never forgive you for the mental image you have just given me.



I see you never read the story four years ago about Gore's sloppy seconds with Dubya after Cheney was done. I think Nader might have gotten in on the action too. I've tried to block most of that from my memory.

[Dorian Gray]

Buchanan, Robertson, Coulter, Bush, Rice, Laura, Cheney


Next stop, Pols Gone Wild! Orgygate! Then we defeat the entire Middle East by dropping pictures of the whole affair down on it.

Dorian (they would give up without a fight, Mr. Monoxide) Gray

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Buchanan, Robertson, Coulter, Bush, Rice, Laura, Cheney


Next stop, Pols Gone Wild! Orgygate! Then we defeat the entire Middle East by dropping pictures of the whole affair down on it.

Dorian (they would give up without a fight, Mr. Monoxide) Gray

I actually want to see Coulter in an adult film just for her dirty talk.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
I actually want to see Coulter in an adult film just for her dirty talk. Please, no. I don't presently have the will to muster my "Coulter is the anti-viagra" rant.

[Phrost]

Coulter is HOT. I'd much rather have her as a spokesperson for my ideaology than Michael Moore.

At least she's pleasant to look at.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by c0rbin
I believe that, in this forum, you are preaching to the choir.

No one can damn homosexuality without religion (pun intended).

That's not necessarily true, pun withstanding. Arguments could be made that condoning it is not in the best interest of society in general. I'm not sure they'd be great arguments but...

Also, it's icky unless it's between two hot babes -- say Paris Hilton and that Nicole Richie twit. So long as neither girl looks like Janet Reno, I see no problem.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Some of you say homosexuality is unnatural and is therefore wrong. I say, why stop there?

Wearing earrings is unnatural, so I think that no one with earrings in or piercings or tattoos should be allowed to get married.

Wearing clothing is also unnatural and wrong, so clothing-wearers are barred from marriage too!

And wearing clothing is also frowned upon in the Bible. Witness the Genesis story where Adam and Eve were initially frowned upon by God for wearing fig leaves. I have both biology AND religion on my side.

Haircuts? Wrong. Technology? Unnatural and Wrong! In fact, everyone reading this right now should be banned from marriage.

Marriage ITSELF is unnatural. Animals, even those who mate for life, don't have weddings, they just stay together for life. They don't need the unnatural and wrong ceremony and piece of paper to make them stay together. So marriage should be outlawed.

Drugs are also unnatural, except for marijuana. And since marriage is outlawed, there is no such thing as premarital sex. Besides, sex is the MOST natural thing of all, so sex is completely NOT outlawed.

We should return to God's grace, return to the state of being naked hairy lovemonkeys.

We've got to get ourselves back to the Garden.

C0rbin:
I believe that, in this forum, you are preaching to the choir.

No one can damn homosexuality without religion (pun intended).

Well, if you cruise on over to the PETA thread you will arguments that follow a similar form: eating animals is natural, therefore it's alright. When one infers moral values from from facts, one commits the naturalistic fallacy.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Cain


C0rbin:


Well, if you cruise on over to the PETA thread you will arguments that follow a similar form: eating animals is natural, therefore it's alright. When one infers moral values from from facts, one commits the naturalistic fallacy.

Nice hijack, Cain. Did you all ever decide on what 'morality' was?

Edit to ask: if you can't infer a concept from facts, what good is the concept?

[Cain]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


Nice hijack, Cain. Did you all ever decide on what 'morality' was?

Edit to ask: if you can't infer a concept from facts, what good is the concept?

My Dear Rob,

I realize you have this urgent, irrepressible need to reply rapidly and foolishly on topics such as this one.

I am not "hijacking" this thread. If anything, it's in danger of being held hostage to your impressive stupidity. I am merely presenting an example, a recent example, of a similar non-sequitur. Finally, I am talking specifically about moral values, like the parent post in this thread, not some general, undefined notion of "concepts."


Fraternally yours,
Cain

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Cain


My Dear Rob,

I realize you have this urgent, irrepressible need to reply rapidly and foolishly on topics such as this one.

*** Assumes facts not in evidence(rl).

I am not "hijacking" this thread. If anything, it's in danger of being held hostage to your impressive stupidity. I am merely presenting an example, a recent example, of a similar non-sequitur. Finally, I am talking specifically about moral values, like the parent post in this thread, not some general, undefined notion of "concepts."


I'm glad I impress you. So, did you all ever decide on what 'morality' was?

Edit to ask: If morality is not a concept, what is it?

[Cain]

I'm glad I impress you. So, did you all ever decide on what 'morality' was?

Yes, we decided. Two people are punching up a rough draft that will be circulated and criticized by everyone else. The interim report should be released on our site (www.youdidnotjustclickhere!.com/) some time in early August. Check with me for updates.

Edit to ask: If morality is not a concept, what is it?

Morality is a concept. Equality is a concept. Justice is a concept. The mistake is to derive an "ought" from an "is". When homophobes say that homosexuality is unnatural, and therefore immoral, they're mistaken. It's a non-sequitur, regardless of whether or not being gay is "unnatural." The same even applies to atheists who would rather nature dictate their values than inspire them.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Cain


Yes, we decided. Two people are punching up a rough draft that will be circulated and criticized by everyone else. The interim report should be released on our site (www.youdidnotjustclickhere!.com/) some time in early August. Check with me for updates.


I didn't think so.


Morality is a concept. Equality is a concept. Justice is a concept. The mistake is to derive an "ought" from an "is". When homophobes say that homosexuality is unnatural, and therefore immoral, they're mistaken. It's a non-sequitur, regardless of whether or not being gay is "unnatural." The same even applies to atheists who would rather nature dictate their values than inspire them. [/B]

Using Nature as the basis for morality may or may not be appropiate. Obviously, it isn't the basis I'd chose except perhaps in a tangential sense. Still, did these 'atheists' make these arguments here concerning homosexuality? They might argue your case for you. Since the original argument is, in your eyes at least, a non-sequitur, perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps it is moral because its natural.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Rob Lister

Using Nature as the basis for morality may or may not be appropiate. Obviously, it isn't the basis I'd chose except perhaps in a tangential sense. Still, did these 'atheists' make these arguments here concerning homosexuality? They might argue your case for you. Since the original argument is, in your eyes at least, a non-sequitur, perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps it is moral because its natural.

Ugh. No. Look, Rob, it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural. That has no dierct bearing on the morality of the behavior. I recall a girl in the news smoked a plant thinking it was okay because it was natural (unlike those evil, manufactured drugs). Well, that's not necessarily the case, and she almost paid for it with her life.

If nature has any "goal," it is to propagate one's genes. Does that mean birth control is immoral? Does that mean having lots and lots of children is moral? C'mon.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Cain


Ugh. No. Look, Rob, it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural. That has no dierct bearing on the morality of the behavior.

Fine. But if that is to be your argument, it is a negative argument. You've established, for yourself, what morality is not, not what morality is.

[/quote] I recall a girl in the news smoked a plant thinking it was okay because it was natural (unlike those evil, manufactured drugs). Well, that's not necessarily the case, and she almost paid for it with her life. [/quote]

I think if she is going to use nature as the basis of her morality, her logic is flawed. What would the Naturalists argue?

If nature has any "goal," it is to propagate one's genes. Does that mean birth control is immoral? Does that mean having lots and lots of children is moral? C'mon. [/B]

Nature has no goal so far as I know. It simple is what it is. So that logic too might be flawed.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
[B]

Fine. But if that is to be your argument, it is a negative argument. You've established, for yourself, what morality is not, not what morality is.

Ah, now I see. You wish to burden me with establishing something that I never set out to do. There are many definitions of morality, ranging from colloquial to scholarly. But I suspect even a generalized, relatively non-controversial understanding will not work for you. Instead it sounds as though you want me to set out the principles for a specific type of conduct or life view, perhaps as the "one true morality." If this is true, then your expecations are not just slightly unrealistic but entirely imaginary.

I think if she is going to use nature as the basis of her morality, her logic is flawed.

Bravo!

What would the Naturalists argue?

?? Once again, there is a fact-value gap; descriptive-normative distinction. For example, science might be able to tell us when a fetus can feel pain, or develops X cognitive abilities, but it cannot tell us if those characteristics are morally significant. It informs rather than defines our ethics.

Nature has no goal so far as I know. It simple is what it is. So that logic too might be flawed.

Which is why "goal" appears in "scare" quotes. If a tiny organism cannot reproduce, cannot make a copy of itself, then it disappears. Natural selection, as a sort of first-order step, "chooses" life-forms capable of replication. Indeed, survival can be seen as only an instrumental value for this final "goal" (as in the case of a self-destructive male mantis). This observation, the "importantce" of reproduction for nature/life, is in fact a common argument marshalled out against homosexuality: wouldn't a gay gene disappear relatively quickly?

[Rob Lister]

My edit time limit ran out so I have to post this separately.

Originally posted by Cain
If nature has any "goal," it is to propagate one's genes. Does that mean birth control is immoral? Does that mean having lots and lots of children is moral? C'mon.

I responded:
Nature has no goal so far as I know. It simple is what it is. So that logic too might be flawed.

Nature may have no goal but, from the Naturalist's point of view, a goal for nature could be assumed. I'm not saying it's true but it seems more logical that nature's goal would follow the pattern of nature. Specifically, survival and propagation.

Not of us but of it.

The difference between your presumption and mine is slight but important nonetheless. Nature, specifically the biosphere that is of Earth, 'desires' to survive and multiply. Therefore, any single entity within that biosphere is important only as far as that entity enhances that goal.

If that's the case, and Nature is to be the basis of morality, then birth control pills might be moral if the continued growth of humans is detramental to that goal. And of course, the same argument could be made for homosexuality.

Edit: We just crossed-posts but in this case I'll simply let this serve as my reply for your most recent post.

2nd Edit: I couldn't resist adding that birth control, homosexuality, war and especially nuclear war are all examples, under that paradigm, of nature giving us every oppretunity to do the 'right' thing. :-)

[Cain]

Rob, is this going anywhere?

Though possibly ambiguous at times, I have mostly referred to our nature (no capital 'n') as our innate biological predispositions as a result of thousands of years of evolution.

It is not "natural" to read, yet widespread literacy, I think you might agree, is a goal to strive for.

I am not talking about Nature as a separate entity unto Itself that encompasses all life on earth (possibly including the winds, rain, hurricanes, waterfalls etc).

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Cain
Rob, is this going anywhere?

Though possibly ambiguous at times, I have mostly referred to our nature (no capital 'n') as our innate biological predispositions as a result of thousands of years of evolution.

It is not "natural" to read, yet widespread literacy, I think you might agree, is a goal to strive for.

I am not talking about Nature as a separate entity unto Itself that encompasses all life on earth (possibly including the winds, rain, hurricanes, waterfalls etc).

I think I am willing to let this go in whatever direction you want it to go. It is NOT my assertion that nature (or Nature) is the basis for (human) morality. I'm simply willing to concede, for arguments sake, that it may be. I've stated my position on morality in another thread, as you well know, and though it may be stupid, it is the best I can do without input from others that are, presumably, less stupid.

So the question is put back to you: why is literacy a goal for which we should strive? I think that question best sums my confusion, my positon, my disagreement, and possibly my stupidity.

[Dorian Gray]

Please, no. I don't presently have the will to muster my "Coulter is the anti-viagra" rant. Maybe you should take Viagra, then.

Well, if you cruise on over to the PETA thread you will arguments that follow a similar form: eating animals is natural, therefore it's alright. When one infers moral values from from facts, one commits the naturalistic fallacy. Eating animals that you have hunted for and killed yourself is natural. Eating animals that have been bred for it is not. So there is no fallacy. But don't get me wrong - I like mine medium.

I recall a girl in the news smoked a plant thinking it was okay because it was natural (unlike those evil, manufactured drugs). Well, that's not necessarily the case, and she almost paid for it with her life. Plants are natural, but smoking is not natural. So she commited a 'fatal' flaw in her reasoning (pun intended- ha ha!).

So the question is put back to you: why is literacy a goal for which we should strive? I think that question best sums my confusion, my positon, my disagreement, and possibly my stupidity. Hint: In the middle ages, literacy was at an all-time low, and reactionary overreaching and oppressive Church power was at an all-time high.

The more educated we are, the less mystical magic sky-daddies influence our lives. Hmmm. Could it be because the more we know, the more we realize all the mundane and logical explanations for 'unusual' events like lightning and meteors? Sickness is caused by germs and viruses, not by immorality, witches or demons, for example.

And of course, there is an extremely high positive correlation between literacy and knowledge/education. So there's your answer.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Some of you say homosexuality is unnatural and is therefore wrong. I say, why stop there?

Wearing earrings is unnatural, so I think that no one with earrings in or piercings or tattoos should be allowed to get married.


This is stupid. Unlike tatoos, etc, I didn't choose to be gay. And considering when I was born there's no way I would have made that choice, if I had the choice.

Meanwhile, I can't get worked up over the gay marriage thing. How can I get worked up over being denied a right it never occurred to me I had in the first place?

However, last year's Supreme Court ruling vacating all state consentual sodomy laws is a major victory.

Things are going in the right direction, and of course "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". But there's no need to go nuts right now. W isn't Satan. Really.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
This is stupid. Unlike tatoos, etc, I didn't choose to be gay. And considering when I was born there's no way I would have made that choice, if I had the choice.


Yeah, people ‘choosing’ their orientation is one of the sillier concepts. I’m plain ol’ hetro but I certainly didn’t sit down one day and say, ‘hmmmm, gay or straight?’ he he

I would have to rule out bi-sexuality though because I couldn’t handle rejection from everybody.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray Eating animals that you have hunted for and killed yourself is natural. Eating animals that have been bred for it is not. So there is no fallacy. But don't get me wrong - I like mine medium.

A good observation, but the general construction of the argument goes: "We evolved as meat-eaters, so eating animals is morally fine."

Plants are natural, but smoking is not natural. So she commited a 'fatal' flaw in her reasoning (pun intended- ha ha!).

Another good distinction, and a nice pun. But consider eating dangerous natural plants. The assumption that "good" follows from "natural" is a mistake, but you're already aware of that.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Originally posted by Blue Monk


I would have to rule out bi-sexuality though because I couldn’t handle rejection from everybody.
According to Woody Allen, bisexuals have a 50% better chance of getting a date on Saturday night ....

Charlie (gays up that ratio in my favour) Monoxide

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LW


Too bad that you have wait for a lightning strike to start a fire near you before you can smoke any of it naturally.

Thats why God gave us magic mushrooms! something to keep us occupied while waiting for the lightning! God does morph and melt in mysterious ways!

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide

According to Woody Allen, bisexuals have a 50% better chance of getting a date on Saturday night ....

Charlie (gays up that ratio in my favour) Monoxide

Hmmmm. What's 50% of 0?

Blue (emulating Charlie Monoxide) Monk

[Dorian Gray]

But consider eating dangerous natural plants. The assumption that "good" follows from "natural" is a mistake, but you're already aware of that. Good DOES follow from natural. It's not natural to eat plants that will kill us.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Good DOES follow from natural. It's not natural to eat plants that will kill us.

*sigh*

It's not natural to sit in front of a screen and key messages back and forth. It's not natural to read. Humans have consumed plants and animals that we did not naturally co-evolve with. The fruit you purchase from the grocery store has been sprayed with pesticide. You buy organic? It's still the unnatural product of years of breeding ("natural" fruit is actually much smaller).

Geez, how can this be so difficult for people to understand?

[Dorian Gray]

's not natural to sit in front of a screen and key messages back and forth. No kidding.It's not natural to read. No kidding. Humans have consumed plants and animals that we did not naturally co-evolve with. No KIDDING! The fruit you purchase from the grocery store has been sprayed with pesticide. You buy organic? It's still the unnatural product of years of breeding ("natural" fruit is actually much smaller). NO KIDDING! THANKS for telling us all this, Captain Obvious!

Geez, how can this be so difficult for people to understand?

It's NOT hard, you condescending jackass. Stop putting words in my mouth - it's unnatural.

Anything you get at the store is not natural, and everyone knows it. This is just a strawman you made. No one has said that any of that WAS natural. If you're not picking it off a wild tree, it's not natural, blah blah, we get it.

What part of your entire post has anything to do with my quote? On top of that: good observation, but the general construction of the argument goes: "We evolved as meat-eaters, so eating animals is morally fine." 'Morally fine' doesn't necessarily have anything to do with 'natural'. Another one of your strawmen. It's morally fine to ride a bicycle, for example. Not natural, though.

All the things you put in your most recent post - what was the point, exactly?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
[...]All the things you put in your most recent post - what was the point, exactly?
That good doesn't follow from natural, and neither does bad. Nor natural, come to think of it.

[Dorian Gray]

Good DOES follow from natural. Perhaps it would be better worded as 'Good doesn't necessarily follow from natural' - but they guy came nowhere close to saying that in his last post.

However, BAD doesn't necessarily follow EITHER, and that is my point. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and marriage.

BY THE WAY, marriage is not natural either, so it is absolutely RIDICULOUS to argue against homosexual marriage on unnatural grounds.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Good DOES follow from natural. Perhaps it would be better worded as 'Good doesn't necessarily follow from natural' - but they guy came nowhere close to saying that in his last post.
Cain kind of did, in that if good doesn't necessarily come from natural, then it's kind of futile drawing such a conclusion, and fundamentally it's fallacious because it involves making a normative judgement about nature in the first place. Which is why I added the thought, "Nor natural, come to think of it".

For instance, consider your statement,
Drugs are also unnatural, except for marijuana.
Why is marijuana any more natural than any other (recreational, I'm assuming) drug? Basically, they cause intoxication as a result of chemical poisoning of the body; so to what extent does the (lack of) processing constitute any significant distinction? It's still chemicals.

Here's another example; certain kinds of willow bark contain a substance which is a raw form of aspirin. Which would you prefer, to boil willow bark (the more natural way) or go down the drug store and buy some a packet of aspirin provided in a measured dosage?
However, BAD doesn't necessarily follow EITHER, and that is my point. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and marriage.

BY THE WAY, marriage is not natural either, so it is absolutely RIDICULOUS to argue against homosexual marriage on unnatural grounds.
The argument that homosexuality is bad because it's unnatural is wrong because it's a naturalistic fallacy, i.e. it's based on subjective value judgements about the nature of nature (sic). Which do you prefer, these adorable little lion cubs or their ferocious, man-eating father? They're both natural! :)

[Cain]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
It's NOT hard, you condescending jackass. Stop putting words in my mouth - it's unnatural.

Anything you get at the store is not natural, and everyone knows it. This is just a strawman you made. No one has said that any of that WAS natural. If you're not picking it off a wild tree, it's not natural, blah blah, we get it.

Sweet mother of Jesus. The point is that neither good follows from "natural," nor bad follows from "unnatural." Now, there's a descriptive-normative gap; a difficulty with inferring values from facts. Men who are violent and bullying might naturally have more children. But that doesn't excuse their behavior.

What part of your entire post has anything to do with my quote? On top of that: 'Morally fine' doesn't necessarily have anything to do with 'natural'. Another one of your strawmen. It's morally fine to ride a bicycle, for example. Not natural, though.

Geez, you just misunderstood. My first two replies more or less agreed with you. Then you screeched "Good DOES follow from natural." :rolleyes:

Riding a bicycle, just like eat fruiting, or piercing one's ears, is in itself neither moral nor immoral (although we might look admirably upon a person who peddles to work instead of driving). Similarly, homosexual behavior does not harm anyone, so moral outrage is silly and misdirected.

Or just ignore this post and read Billy's above reply. He has a habit of making me look bad by expressing the same opinion but with crisp prose and few words.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide

According to Woody Allen, bisexuals have a 50% better chance of getting a date on Saturday night ....

Charlie (gays up that ratio in my favour) Monoxide

Technically, it would be 100% better, wouldn't it, as in doubling the chance...

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by gnome


Technically, it would be 100% better, wouldn't it, as in doubling the chance...

Possible but we are talking about Woody (I married my daughter) Allen. 50% might be an overestimate.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cain
[...]

Or just ignore this post and read Billy's above reply. He has a habit of making me look bad by expressing the same opinion but with crisp prose and few words.
You're my mentor, my Yoda, man! And king of the dogpile (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42225&highlight=dogpile#post1870512735).

;)

[Dorian Gray]

Why is marijuana any more natural than any other (recreational, I'm assuming) drug? Basically, they cause intoxication as a result of chemical poisoning of the body; so to what extent does the (lack of) processing constitute any significant distinction? It's still chemicals. Well, why don't you look up 'natural' and 'artificial' and YOU TELL ME. All you are doing (strawman) is noting that the EFFECTS are similar. Marijuana, and the chemicals therein, can be ingested as is with effects coming forthwith. The chemicals in willow bark may exist naturally, but boiling them out is NOT natural. So your other argument (strawman) is also waterholdingless.

The argument that homosexuality is bad because it's unnatural is wrong because it's a naturalistic fallacy, i.e. it's based on subjective value judgements about the nature of nature (sic). After you look up the above terms, why not look up 'sarcasm' and then read the opening post again.

Similarly, homosexual behavior does not harm anyone, so moral outrage is silly and misdirected. Congratulations! You have reached the same conclusion I did at the top of the thread, only you didn't use satire/sarcasm and it took you longer.


Note for the blunt and nonsubtle: Dorian Gray doesn't see anything wrong with homosexuality, gay marriage or bisexuality, be it in public or private, save where he has a problem with the expression of ANY form of sexuality vis-a-vis nudity or intercourse in public.

Thank you.