Homophobic logical fallacies mash-up

Another short one today due to rainy weather but we still managed to get a good discussion in.

Given that our last few sessions were about logical fallacies and gay rights, one of my kids wanted to look at some typical anti-gay arguments and take them apart. We only got through one(!) due to the massive discussion it created.

“Being gay is unnatural.”

So what’s the issue there? The fallacy being committed is the ‘appeal to nature‘, albeit slightly in reverse. The appeal to nature is the claim that something is ‘natural’ therefore it is good. In this instance the claim is that being gay is unnatural therefore it is bad.

This fallacy can easily be counted with examples of bad natural things (poison ivy, earthquakes, uranium) and good “man-made” things (aspirin, the internet, trains). The fallacy itself is usually used to promote herbal remedies and the like. I like to use it to promote cyclones.

It was also suggested that what’s natural for one person might not be for another. To a gay person, being gay is presumably very natural for them. To one person a standard banana might be ok whereas another would only touch an “organic” fruit. It seems that we can’t use the word natural to mean ‘good’, but we can’t even use the word natural to mean ‘natural’!

There is a fuzzy line between natural and artificial. Willow bark is a natural pain remedy and aspirin is an artificial one. However aspirin was originally derived from willow bark so where do we stand? I guess being totally natural means living nude in caves and eating raw animals whereas totally artificial involves being a brain in a jar.

On a side note I will be speaking for the Mordi Skeptics in the Pub tomorrow evening at 7:30pm. I am really looking forward to facing a room full of drunken sceptics, plus my wife is coming along so I’ll have to watch my language.

See you there!

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under McKinnon Secondary Sceptical Society

3 responses to “Homophobic logical fallacies mash-up

  1. It could also be pointed out that homosexual behavior has been observed in nearly every mammal species known, and definitely in every species of primate. Seems pretty natural, and may actually trace back to an adaptive benefit for a portion of the population to be gay.

    • Adam vanLangenberg

      That’s another point that we discussed. Interestingly, one girl suggested that even if we can prove that homosexuality is natural, so what? Aren’t we just committing the naturalistic fallacy ourselves if we say that “animals do it so it’s ok?”

      We can use this fact to counter the “you don’t see it nature” argument but we can’t use it as an argument on its own

  2. poseidon88

    That is to say, if one defines “natural” as “something that occurs in nature,” then you can hardly call homosexuality “unnatural.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s