tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post5326059767644955598..comments2023-10-10T05:07:13.577-07:00Comments on En Tequila Es Verdad: Hilzoy Schools the PopeDana Hunterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00890312745525306991noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851578517872251953.post-46928664525454828412008-12-28T07:07:00.000-08:002008-12-28T07:07:00.000-08:00Aside from being a textbook example of the natural...Aside from being a textbook example of the <A HREF="http://issuepedia.org/Appeal_to_nature" REL="nofollow">naturalistic fallacy</A>, the whole "homosexuality is unnatural" argument is <I>fucking irrelevant</I>.<BR/><BR/>We do a lot of things that are "unnatural". How about making and wearing clothes, for starters? Driving cars, flying around in airplanes? Digging up nasty chemicals and burning them? I should think civilization is, pretty much by definition, "unnatural" – but how many of the same righteous morons who attack gay people for being "unnatural" are willing to defend other "natural" activities, like skinny-dipping or public breastfeeding? (Liberals have principles, conservatives have rules -- another case in point.)<BR/><BR/>The <I>only</I> valid argument against homosexuality (or transsexualism, or polyamory, or water-skiing, <I>whatever</I>) is one which addresses this question in detail: <B>Is it harmful?</B> (And <I>how</I> is it harmful, and <I>what</I> do you propose doing about this, and <I>why</I> do you think your proposal will be more helpful than harmful if implemented?)<BR/><BR/><I>This has been a public service message from the Department of Stating What Bloody Well Ought to Be Obvious.</I>Woozlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948248776908775080noreply@blogger.com