Quote:
Originally Posted by nate2512
Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.
|
You're not really following the argument well.
Rudey and I were discussing the ethical basis for laws earlier in the conversation, and his comparison with eating your mate was a callback to that. He conflated two wholly different arguments - as did you - which is a legitimate logical fallacy.
Something can be "natural" and wrong - eating your mate is clearly wrong under any ethical standard, so we don't have to rely on a narrow, Christian standard (as we shouldn't, I feel, for lawmaking - apparently the Court agrees). My argument, in its entirety, is that laws banning gay marriage are generally based on religious views, and thus shouldn't hold up to judicial review.
Arguing against gay marriage because it is "unnatural" is demonstrably false - you can argue it is wrong for a litany of other (primarily religious) reasons, but "unnatural" simply doesn't work.