Thread: Gay Marriage
View Single Post
Old 04-21-2009, 10:54 PM   #152
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
EnderWiggin's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran  LF Jester 
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that from a natural standpoint it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, if one or both are sterile so be it, and with the fertility clinics you seem to advocate, they can produce children via artificial means from both parents, still semi-natural.
1. They cannot produce children in all cases. Some people are just sterile.

2. Saying something is wrong because it is unnatural is wrong in multiple ways, which I will now prove using a logical syllogism:

FTR, saying something is unethical because it is unnatural is a fallacy unto itself, but I'll explain an actual counterargument for you since you seem to gloss over any posts talking about fallacies.

I. What is natural?

A. Definition: 'Natural' can be defined in one of many ways: something normal in nature, or something that is not man-made (ie grass instead of clothing), or something that occurs within the laws of nature (ie conforming to Newtonian physics).

1. Natural in the 'law' sense
a. Since these laws merely describe events and do not prescribe behavior, homosexual behavior can in no way break natural 'law.' Any scientist will tell you that if it is observable, then it conforms to a law. Gases do not act as Boyle's Law commands; Boyle's Law describes how gases act. If homosexuality in fact did break a law, the law would be proven false, and thus, rewritten to include the observable phenomena.

2. Natural in the 'not artificial' sense
a. This is a rather easy one. You would never say that clothing should not be used because it needed man's influence in order to exist. You would not actually be typing anything, since in this sense, computers and even the running of electricity to houses would be artificial and thus unethical.

----Obviously, people arguing this do not believe one of the first two. They usually are referring to this:

3. Natural in the 'normal' sense (or, as a corollary, that any use of organs in a way contrary to their primary purpose is unnatural)
a. If you are saying that homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn't happen in nature (or is not required by nature for a purpose) then I'd like to first direct you to the list of species that sometimes practice homosexuality. You can find this list on Wikipedia, or by simply using Google. Also, the uncommonness of an action does not make it any more or less ethical. Shakespeare's works were of uncommon quality - they are usually praised for this very same reason. Same holds true for breaking a world record, etc.
b. If you are saying that homosexuality is against primary natural purpose, ie no child is developed, you've opened a can of worms. Things that fall into this category include: sterile people having sex, old people having sex, sex for pleasure, oral sex, masturbation, and etc. I hope that you're not going to tell us that you feel all sex that does not result in the formation of a zygote is immoral? Therefore, if you do believe this, you would also view IVF as moral, since in that case, a zygote is formed? Do not fail to see all of the repercussions of this argument. A woman's eyes are for seeing. Is it unethical for her to use them for flirting? or for her profession, as in modeling?

Summary: Things that are unnatural (in the second and third definitions) can actually be more beneficial than the things that are natural. Thus, saying that Gay Marriage is "unnatural" is a specious argument.


Some pieces of argument based off of the following:

Leiser, Burton M. "Is Homosexuality Unnatural?" Liberty, Justice, and Morals: Contemporary Value Conflicts, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1986. pp. 51-57.

Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: