I'm the real conservative here: I see no reason to have anything other than a monogamous model of marriage, and I think the state should intervene as little as possible. Polygamy, penalties for adultery etc. are just forms of exploitation of women.

Polygamy, penalties for adultery etc. are just forms of exploitation of women. — photographer

How are penalties for adultery an exploitation of women considering that men are prone to cheating more often than women? :)

I just wanted to suggest, if nobody has done so yet, a penalty for the crime of adultery. The wearing of a scarlet letter, of course. In this case, "A" would stand for adultery and Ashley Madison.

Yes, I think this would simplify a lot of things. (lol)

I am not married BC.

We all have things we can't tolerate,

From the girlfriends I had in the past, only one cheated on me, and I left her as soon as I found out. — Agustino

True enough, we all do have a string of things we can't tolerate.

So be it then. Sign a prenuptial agreement when or if you get married, specifying that the marriage will suffer sudden death if your partner can be proven to have strayed from the strait and narrow. She may wish to impose conditions too. For instance, "One notice of late payment on the light, water, gas, telephone, mortgage, or credit card bill and you are OUT." That way you'll both know in advance what you (plural) are getting in to.

She might also meter your time on philosophy forums, as well. "Sorry, 5 minutes too long. I thought i made it clear that philosophers are no damn good. Pack your bag and get out."

All through history it worked. Adultery was, in most societies, illegal under most conditions, for most of history. You cannot justify it not working simply because there's a gap in historical time when it's not happening. It will come back, fear not. — Agustino

Maybe in The Handmaiden's Tale, which I suspect you would consider utopia. It must be some solace to you that ISIS and the Taliban are on your side.

In any case, the delusions of the Right become more elaborate the closer it gets to demographic extinction.

True enough, we all do have a string of things we can't tolerate.

So be it then. Sign a prenuptial agreement when or if you get married, specifying that the marriage will suffer sudden death if your partner can be proven to have strayed from the strait and narrow. She may wish to impose conditions too. For instance, "One notice of late payment on the light, water, gas, telephone, mortgage, or credit card bill and you are OUT." That way you'll both know in advance what you (plural) are getting in to. She might also meter your time on philosophy forums, as well. "Oops, 5 minutes too long. Sorry. Pack your bag and get out." — Bitter Crank

I know that. It's only fair that she does. I've learned after my first girlfriend (who was the one who cheated on me) the same strategies you suggest, and so I've used them with my other girlfriends (and yes, they also imposed their conditions lol - I tend to be quite good at following orders though, and I like it. I was raised in a quite military-like environment though). I'm also quite careful with whom I choose to date, so a priori I'm unlikely to date someone who will cheat on me (I was also careful even with my first gf, she was a good person at heart - shouldn't have left her esp. since she only cheated once and I found out about it a long time after - I think she wouldn't have cheated again, but was too embarassed to tell me herself - had she told me first, I probably wouldn't have left - but - history plays out as it does :) ), because loyalty is one of the character traits I value most. I also value loyalty like no other quality in friends. If they are loyal - they are allowed a lot of other defects. So I've always built both friendship and love on a foundation of loyalty.

Anyway, it's less about me. I'm smart enough (I hope at least) to manage this. But I've seen so many people, family members, as well as aquintances suffer because of these issues. It's a pity that society doesn't do anything to prevent them. Not everyone realises what they want until tragedy hits them. Many don't know they want a loyal husband until they find a disloyal one - often it is already too late to change... Not everyone is smart or can otherwise commit the mistakes that I did at an early age to learn. I'm just lucky in this regard.

Maybe in The Handmaiden's Tale, which I suspect you would consider utopia. It must be some solace to you that ISIS and the Taliban are on your side.

In any case, the delusions of the Right become more elaborate the closer it gets to demographic extinction. — Landru Guide Us

I didn't know we were talking about "the Right" in this thread man... I think you made a mistake, you should move the conversation to the other thread :p

I didn't know we were talking about "the Right" in this thread man... I think you made a mistake, you should move the conversation to the other thread :p — Agustino

Pretending your views aren't rightwing won't help you here, boy.

Pretending your views aren't rightwing won't help you here, boy. — Landru Guide Us

What makes you think that I care if they are "right-wing" or "left-wing"? As far as I'm aware, and as far as I made clear all through out the thread, I do not wish to impose a way of life on others that they do not accept (I want to give everyone the possibility to live as they wish), and I do not want others to impose on people ways of life that they don't accept (I want different ways of life to be respected). To my mind, it is you, who like ISIS, like the Taliban, like the Handmaiden's Tale, etc. seek to impose ways of life and force everyone to conform to one standard. I don't. There are people who are different than I, and who deserve to live as they like it so long as they do not harm other people. I've shown in this thread that I am pro polygamism, pro open marriages, etc. if you think these views are similar to those of ISIS, Taliban, or Handmaiden's Tail, what can I say? However, I do think that your ATTITUDE (not your views) is fascist and extremist, and I think other people would agree with me.

You are still making the same error, Agustino. Numbers have no relevance here. The nature of anyone is their nature. Higher numbers doesn't make any being because each one of us is an individual. All a higher number signifies is that, in the given situation, there are more people with a given trait. It doesn't define the presence of any sort of trait as "natural" or "proper" over any other.

This, a version of the"naturalistic fallacy," is one of the more deep-seated ideas of prejudice. It is the understanding someone is a lesser part of the community just because their aren't as many people with some trait and they happen to be different to a larger group of people in some way. People fail all too easily for this bullshit because they mistake it for describing the world. It is not description of the world. "The Truth" of human existence it is not. It is an absolute failure to take states of the world on their own merits and describe them.

You are still making the same error, Agustino. Numbers have no relevance here. The nature of anyone is their nature. Higher numbers doesn't make any being because each one of us is an individual. All a higher number signifies is that, in the given situation, there are more people with a given trait. It doesn't define the presence of any sort of trait as "natural" or "proper" over any other. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The nature of an individual is their unique nature yes. The nature of man in general, is the natural tendency.

This, a version of the"naturalistic fallacy," is one of the more deep-seated ideas of prejudice. It is the understanding someone is a lesser part of the community just because their aren't as many people with some trait and they happen to be different to a larger group of people in some way. People fail all too easily for this bullshit because thyme mistake it for describing the world. It is not description of the world. "The Truth" of human existence it is not. It is an absolute failure to take states of the world on their own merits and describe them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But I do not consider homosexuals, etc. to be a "lesser part of the community". That is a moral judgement on them. I am not making a moral judgement on them. I am just saying that they represent a natural deviation. The human race will NEVER produce the majority of its members as homosexuals. Why? Because there is a tendency towards heterosexuality and bisexuality. It doesn't mean everyone will be heterosexual or bisexual. So the tendency towards heterosexuality+bisexuality is the CAUSE of the fact that the majority of the human race isn't homosexual. It's purely descriptive. It serves to explain why the human race isn't formed primarily of homosexuals.

It passes no judgement, either that this is good, or that this is bad. You could in fact perhaps find arguments that we should all be homosexuals, that it would be more moral for the human race to be formed in majority of homosexuals, and NEVERTHELESS grant that there is a natural tendency towards heterosexuality. Obviously in this case the natural tendency will be evil. Schopenhauer thought our natural tendencies were evil for example. So do not mistake natural tendency with morality. The two don't have anything to do with each other - there is no necessary connection between them. A natural tendency can be either good or bad, or in fact neither, depending on how you judge it.

The fact that you consider a deviation bad is just that - a moral judgement. I don't make that moral judgement. For me, a deviation can be either good, or bad, or neither. In many regards, I too represent a deviation of mankind. Most people are not like me in many regards. Is this good? Is this bad? These are all secondary questions, which are moral in nature. I do not make that moral judgement - I am doing descriptive philosophy now.

Will the village idiot disconsider homosexuality if he is told they are a deviation? Probably - but that just represents his distortion and misuse of language, and the unquestioned assumption that what is natural is good, and deviations are always bad. So perhaps the village idiot shouldn't be explained homosexuality in these terms. He doesn't have the capacity to understand it in these terms. Perhaps your terms are better, and are more likely to produce the desired effect. But these are questions of rhetoric, not truth. My description is superior to yours, strictly from an intellectual point of view because it accounts for why the majority of mankind is not and will never be made up of a majority of homosexuals.

No. It's not. For there is no "nature of man." Humans are always individuals. The nature of person cannot be "universalised" to act as a descriptor of them all. There is no "general human nature," for there is no "general" human." Being gay is no less a "natural tendency" than being heterosexual or bisexual : both are what, by there nature, humans are. Gay humans certainly don't have a tendency to heterosexual and bisexual.

You do consider gay people to be a lesser part of the community. Your basic understanding of them is that they are deviant. They aren't what a (larger) mass of human is, so you consider them to fall outside the truth of what makes are human. In your understanding they fly against what "makes" a human, that "universal" generality which (supposedly) represents the nature of all humans. It's not purely descriptive. It's normative all the way down. You think being gay ought to fall outside the representation of what makes a human just because their aren't so many gay people. You aren't willing to accept that some humans have a "tendency" to be gay merely because there are less of them.

You do consider gay people to be a lesser part of the community. Your basic understanding of them is that they are deviant. They aren't what a (larger) mass of human is, so you consider them to fall outside the truth of what makes are human. In your understanding they fly against what "makes" a human, that "universal" generality which (supposedly) represents the nature of all humans. It's not purely descriptive. It's normative all the way down. You think being gay ought to fall outside the representation of what makes a human just because their aren't so many gay people. You aren't willing to accept that some humans have a "tendency" to by gay merely because there are less of them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nonsense - facilitated by your misunderstanding of Aristotelian philosophy.

No. It's not. For there is no "nature of man." Humans are always individuals. the nature of one cannot be "universalised" to act as a descriptor of them all. There is no "general human nature," for there is no "general" human." Being gay is no less a "natural tendency" than being heterosexual or bisexual : both are what, by there nature, humans are. Gay humans certainly don't have a tendency to heterosexual and bisexual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You think there is no nature of man. But I DO need a nature of man to explain why most people aren't homosexuals. They aren't homosexuals because there is a natural tendency towards heterosexuality. Why is there such a natural tendency? Because of evolution which encourages reproduction overall. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, therefore, evolutionary speaking, there will be less of them, because evolution ensures that over time the majority of the species can contribute to the reproduction effort.

If you deny there is a nature to man you CANNOT explain the above. It's a shortcoming of your worldview. And yes - it's a DESCRIPTIVE short-coming of your worldview.

Nonsense - facilitated by your misunderstanding of Aristotelian philosophy. — Agustino

Nope... I'm merely identifying the Platonic error of Aristotelian philosophy: the mistake of thinking of things as an expression of logic, as opposed to individual things expressing logic.

You think there is no nature of man. But I DO need a nature of man to explain why most people aren't homosexuals. — Agustino

I know you do. And that's your error. You are unwilling to accept humans in-themselves. Unwilling to merely understand that some people are gay and other people or not. There is no "natural tendency" towards anything here. Just humans as they are. Rather than accept that, you look high an low for "justification," for a reason for humans to exist as the do, to the detriment of your understanding of humans and what they mean. It's the desire for God, the logically necessary as a state of the world, all over again.

You're even making basic errors of biology here. Gay people can reproduce. They don't even need any sort to modern reproductive technology to do so. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are limited to sleeping with people of the opposite sex. Gay people can and have, whether it be by choice or by the social obligations of the time, reproduced throughout history.

There is no reason some people are gay and other are not. Yes, it's true, that exclusively (cis gender) gay sex doesn't lead to reproduction and this may have a casual effect the passing down of genetic traits. It's not logically necessary though. We might have had a world where gay people were so interested in reproducing that they always had some sex with someone of the opposite sex to do so. We might have had a generation where everyone is gay and not interested in reproducing, and so it died out. Any such state is an expression of human existence, not aa "rule" which determines the logically necessary state of humans and all their traits.

What you are looking to explain doesn't need explanation. It's a failure to understand the contingent nature of states of the world, of the existence of humans.

And this is why your position is prejudiced against gay people: you are unwilling to accept they are just human like anyone else. Rather, you insist, there must be some reason these deviant mistakes of a human have appeared, why these people are different to the "proper" humans who follow the "natural tendency."

The lack of the "explanation" in my view is not a shortcoming. It's why it is accurate. It's the view that finally dispenses with the nonsense of trying to define humans by something other than their own existence.

What makes you think that I care if they are "right-wing" or "left-wing" — Agustino

Because you denied they were rightwing, and you keep promoting a typical vapid rightwing agenda

Where did I deny they were? I just said that a discussion about whether they are right-wing or left-wing doesn't belong here, and I suggested the other thread :)

You're even making basic errors of biology here. Gay people can reproduce. They don't even need any sort to modern reproductive technology to do so. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are limited to sleeping with people of the opposite sex. Gay people can and have, whether it be by choice or by the social obligations of the time, reproduced throughout history. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Then they are bisexual?

you are unwilling to accept they are just human like anyone else. Rather, you insist, there must be some reason these deviant mistakes of a human have appeared, why these people are different to the "proper" humans who follow the "natural tendency." — TheWillowOfDarkness

I do accept they are human like everyone else. I also don't consider them "mistakes", nor have I ever used that word, which implies a moral judgement of the condition. Nor do I identify everyone else as "proper". Those are all your designations which you input on me.

There is no reason some people are gay and other are not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Did I say there was? Read carefully please. I said there is a reason why the majority of people are not, and will never be gay. If you say there is no reason, you're welcome to believe so. Then it's just a brute fact that the majority is not gay, and there is no explanation. But it doesn't change the fact that you refuse an explanation for it... because in truth, there is an explanation. I just gave it to you.

In science there is also a reason why given a box full of gas molecules, you can expect those molecules to be randomly distributed instead of concentrated at one point in the box. There is a reason for such things. And it has to do with natural tendencies. Gas has a natural tendency to distribute to fill its container. Why? Because of so and so law. Of course you have the right to tell me that every gas molecule is an individual, and it's just a brute fact that individuals are positioned as they are. But that is just refusing to see a necessary pattern, where a necessary pattern exists :)

Then they are bisexual? — Agustino

Nope. For sexual identity isn't determined by who one has sex with. A gay person, for example, my choose to have sex with someone to a person of the opposite to which they have no sexual attraction, to reproduce. A gay person may be pressed into having sex with someone they are not sexually attracted by social expectations.

Even sexual attraction isn't relevant sometimes. There are instances of sexual identity is question of politics, such as with Lesbian Feminism or those who refuse a sexual identity, regardless of who they are attracted to, because they think it unnecessarily sense to back people in and is actually disconnected from describing human sexual behaviour.

I do accept they are human like everyone else. I also don't consider them "mistakes", nor have I ever used that word, which implies a moral judgement of the condition. Nor do I identify everyone else as "proper". Those are all your designations which you input on me. — Agustino

You don't I'm afraid. You might have not used the word per say, but that doesn't mean you aren't thinking it. I have, indeed, put the designation on you, but that is because, as in many instance of the "naturalistic" fallacy, you are utterly incapable of doing it yourself. That's why the "naturalistic fallacy" is so dangerous. It works on the idea that a prejudiced and normative stance is doing nothing but describing the world as it is.

You might have not used the word per say, but that doesn't mean you aren;t thinking it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well if you refuse to believe me, I think there is no point in having a conversation. If this is your premise, what point is there in me responding to you? You won't believe me anyway. You will keep on saying that I am thinking it, even if I am telling it to your face that I'm not.

Us having an intellectual conversation presupposes that we trust that each other thinks what he says he thinks. If you're not going to trust what I say I think, then the conversation must end here, as a fundamental underlying assumption of our conversation has been severed. I basically am put in a position where I can no longer communicate with you regardless of what I do.

Let me remind you Willow, that I am one of the first people to stand down on something if I am wrong. Very rarely have I seen people admit they are wrong on these forums. But I do it all the time when reason demands that I do it. I did it to you for example: (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/5633#Post_5633)

I also did it in this very thread to discoii once. I did it to Thorongil in the other thread. If you were right on this, I would admit it. But you're just not. You're not even close. I think you should have the intellectual integrity to at least admit it. It would make these forums an even better place than they are :)

Indeed. It's brute fact the majority of people aren't gay. Just as it is brute fact the Earth is the third planet form the sun, the sun rose this morning and that object fall to the ground when dropped. Some people are gay. Other people are not. None of these have an explanation, causality included. They just are what they are. (and may change at any time. Everyone could, in fact, for example, wake-up gay tomorrow morning).

"Explanations" are neither accurate (as each states is defined in-itself) nor is it necessary, as merely pointing out, for example, that a greater number of non-gay people exist because of some cause be it (genetics, environment or anything else) gives a full account of the situation. There is no need to have an "explanation" of why some people aren't gay, for their existence accounts for that entirely.

↪Agustino Indeed. It's brute fact the majority of people aren't gay. Just as it is brute fact the Earth is the third planet form the sun, the sun rose this morning and that object fall to the ground when dropped. Some people are gay. Other people are not. None of these have an explanation, causality included. They just are what they are. (and may change at any time. Everyone could, in fact, for example, wake-up gay tomorrow morning).

"Explanations" are neither accurate (as each states is denied in-itself) nor is it necessary, as merely pointing out, for example, that a greater number of non-gay people exist because of some cause be it (genetics, environment or anything else) gives a full account of the situation. There is no need to have an "explanation" of why some people aren't gay, for their existence accounts for that entirely. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay I understand that you personally don't see a need for having explanations. I'm saying, however, that there are explanations for some things in reality - even if you refuse to see them or acknowledge their existence.

And I can't let you get away with that: it's wrong.

And it is the philosophical idea which grounds a whole host of prejudice because, supposedly, any humans is meant to fit the "explanation" by their nature.

Logically, we are given by nothing but ourselves. These "explanations" are a category error. They are a substitution of our words and ideas, our fantasies, for understanding and description of the world. An unwillingness to look at the world any understand it for what it is, drawn out a desire to consider ourselves the logically necessary result of a governing origin force (e.g. God, PSR, reproduction, etc.,etc..).

I also did it in this very thread to discoii once. I did it to Thorongil in the other thread. If you were right on this, I would admit it. But you're just not. You're not even close. I think you should have the intellectual integrity to at least admit it. — Agustino

So says every user of the naturalistic fallacy.

I know what I'm talking about here, Agustino. This form or prejudice goes unnoticed by it proponents and takes a long while to die, for they are under the illusion they are merely telling the truth about the world and so feel compelled to protect the task of accurate description. I can tell you now, you will not admit are wrong because you can't even see the mistake your making. So concerned about the "natural tendency," you aren't even stopping to think about people, who they are and what you are saying about them when you suggest they are deviants from the norm.

Us having an intellectual conversation presupposes that we trust that each other thinks what he says he thinks. If you're not going to trust what I say I think, then the conversation must end here, as a fundamental underlying assumption of our conversation has been severed. I basically am put in a position where I can no longer communicate with you regardless of what I do. — Agustino

I should say that I do trust what you are saying: I know what you are thinking and arguing, as you have said. My point is in addition to that. What is at stake it not your ability to communicate or what you mean in your claim, but rather your knowledge and understanding of your thoughts and words in relation to society. I am saying you a missing something very important about the relationship of your thoughts and words to the world.

It isn't a question of trust. I'm not stuck in an unknowing state where I am unsure about of what you really mean, what you are thinking and what you are doing. Here I'm not speculating in the face of an unknown. Rather, I am talking about something you are doing, a feature of your understanding of the world. One which you haven't noticed.

No doubt you don't, yet, have the understanding to talk in terms of this argument. But that's the whole point me making the comment: to point out something you missed, that you haven't understand.

My take on homosexuality is a bit different than WOD's. Maybe my views are a a bit old fashioned.

Personally, I don't have a problem with deviance. Where there is a norm, there is deviance. Viva le Déviance!

Kinsey (this goes back to the 1940s, 1950s) proposed that human sexuality was a continuum between exclusive homosexuality and exclusive heterosexuality. In between are an unknown number of the male population who are quite capable of performing in a homosexual encounter. (This is not to say that... oh, maybe 1/3, of males are willing to be receptive partners in anal intercourse, or are indifferent to being the receptive partner in oral sex. Getting a blow job is less of a challenge than giving one, and being expected to swallow semen.) Most straight men don't engage in gay sex.

However, a smaller share of the otherwise straight male population (6%? 8%? X%?) are capable of assuming all 4 homosexual roles (not all at once--they should be so lucky) for a period of time. An unknown portion of males can perform equally well with men and women. AND some otherwise essentially gay men are capable of performing heterosexually, and fathering children, without being bisexual. They just can. It depends, I suppose, on how specific their arousal system is.

I disagree a bit with WOD: I don't just happen to be gay, just like black people don't "happen to be black." Black people are black because their parents are black. Gay people aren't gay because their parents were gay (they almost certainly weren't) but something shifts the distribution of sexual preference from 100% straight to something less than 100%. I'm interested in what that something is.

You can rest secure in the immense remoteness that you will wake up gay tomorrow. 99.999999% of the time, people who go to bed straight, wake up straight. (If your partner's adultery makes you unhappy, you'd be a lot unhappier waking up as a gay man. Why don't straight men behave like gay men? Because straight women don't let straight men behave that way.)

That is, shall we say, old fashioned, but this difference has more to do with the what's discussed and what's hasn't been talked about than it does disagreement per say.

People are black because their parents are black. Some gay people may be gay because their parent s were gay. (or rather, their is a genetic trait passed down the generations which results in someone being one thing rather than something else). These are just descriptions of causality.

Agustino isn't taking about causality though. They are talking about identity, about definition, about what defines someone as a "natural" person. What they are doing (and you are to a lesser extent) is trying to define humans through some notion of what they are meant to be, rather than through describing how they exist.

The assumption begins that, by their nature, humans are white or heterosexual by default, such that something is causing a "shift" that turns someone black or gay, as if the people in question were white or heterosexual when they began their lives, only to be "shifted" away from human nature by those "deviant" genes.

There is no such thing as "the shift." If someone has genetics which result in them being black or gay, they never existed as a person without that genetic code. Their genetics haven't shifted them from a "natural default" of white (i.e. white skin with other genes) or heterosexual (i.e. heterosexual with other genes), they've been that way so long as they've existed with those genes.

What is at stake here is the possibility of gay people and how that relates to humanity. The "deviance" of being gay is a failure to understand that humans are sometimes gay. It's defined on the assumption all humans are, by default, not gay and that something "shifts" them into the improper, for humans, state of homosexuality. Understanding that some humans are, by their nature, gay is missing.

And it is the philosophical idea which grounds a whole host of prejudice because, supposedly, any humans is meant to fit the "explanation" by their nature. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, it's just that you're irrationally afraid of any idea which you perceive could possibly ground any "prejudice". I'm not. If there was an intellectually sound case for homosexuality being wrong, then I would have no choice but to believe it. This is intellectual integrity. It is looking with open eyes for the truth, instead of rejecting stuff a priori, as you do, because they insult your personal sensibilities. You probably would a priori refuse any idea which judged homosexuality to be wrong. I don't. I look with clear eyes to see what is there. So far I have not found an idea justifying homosexuality to be wrong, therefore I do not believe it is wrong. But I'm not afraid of looking.

Logically, we are given by nothing but ourselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this is just laughable. We are given by our parents. Logically.

An unwillingness to look at the world any understand it for what it is, drawn out a desire to consider ourselves the logically necessary result of a governing origin forc — TheWillowOfDarkness

How quaint that you assume I consider myself logically necessary, while you are the one who implies each being is logically necessary. To wit: "Logically, we are given by nothing but ourselves".

So says every user of the naturalistic fallacy — TheWillowOfDarkness

Okay, we will analyse this together, and I will show you that you are absolutely wrong, beyond any possibility of doubt. What is a naturalistic fallacy?

Well it could be three things:

I. Deriving an "ought" out of an "is" -> "John is black, therefore he ought to be black"
II. Assuming that if a quality necessarily accompanies another, the two must be identical -> "Pleasure is equivalent with goodness, because the latter is always associated with the former in nature"
III. Appealing to nature -> "Heterosexuality is the correct sexuality (and homosexuality is wrong) because it is the natural tendency"

Now, notice that this only applies to syllogisms. For example, the following syllogism commits the naturalistic fallacy:

1. Homosexuality is a natural deviation.
2. Therefore homosexuality is wrong.

This commits the naturalistic fallacy (of type III). Why does it commit the naturalistic fallacy? Because it's a non-sequitur. It requires another premise to draw that conclusion.

1. Homosexuality is a natural deviation.
2. Natural deviations are unwanted or wrong.
3. Therefore homosexuality is unwanted or wrong.

Now, if the premises above are true, then there is NO NATURALISTIC FALLACY. Most moderns fail to realise this, and scream fallacy of composition, naturalistic fallacy, etc. without even realising what they're saying. Again - most moderns are not intellectuals. Most moderns have strong moral convictions which come before any intellectual investigation, and hence all their intellectual investigation is necessarily biased as it aims to defend their a priori convictions. They are not honest.

Now - there is no way for you to show that I commit a naturalistic fallacy. Absolutely no way. Why?

1. Homosexuality is a natural deviation.
2. Therefore homosexuality is wrong.

I accept 1 and deny 2. Therefore there is no possibility of a naturalistic fallacy whatsoever. It is you who is seeing a naturalistic fallacy there, because you are the one making it. Out of your irrational fear that there could be an argument showing homosexuality is wrong (and how dare there be, because a priori you have decided there's nothing wrong with homosexuality), you want to deny even this possibility. But you can't. Because to do it, you have to establish a necessary connection between 1 and 2. And if you manage to do that, then you yourself commit the naturalistic fallacy.

I know what I'm talking about here, Agustino. This form or prejudice goes unnoticed by it proponents and takes a long while to die, for they are under the illusion they are merely telling the truth about the world and so feel compelled to protect the task of accurate description. I can tell you now, you will not admit are wrong because you can't even see the mistake your making. So concerned about the "natural tendency," you aren't even stopping to think about people, who they are and what you are saying about them when you suggest they are deviants from the norm. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, and you are so concerned to make sure that homosexuality isn't wrong, that you will not even look at the truth, because the truth admits the possibility that it could be wrong.

but rather your knowledge and understanding of your thoughts and words in relation to society. I am saying you a missing something very important about the relationship of your thoughts and words to the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No I am not. I have stated that in men of inferior intellectual capabilities, the idea that homosexuality is a natural deviation will lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is therefore wrong. But this is just because most people, unquestioningly and unknowingly (just like you), hold the assumption that what is natural is good. A naturalistic fallacy, as you like to say :)

No doubt you don't, yet, have the understanding to talk in terms of this argument. But that's the whole point me making the comment: to point out something you missed, that you haven't understand. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Me too. I am pointing out the irony that you are the one committing a naturalistic fallacy and then projecting this unto me. Why are you committing it? Because you are afraid of what you may find.

Gay people aren't gay because their parents were gay (they almost certainly weren't) but something shifts the distribution of sexual preference from 100% straight to something less than 100%. I'm interested in what that something is. — Bitter Crank

Genetic variation? Genes don't copy exactly from parents to children, so I expect that homosexuality is always the effect of genetic variation, that's why it is ultimately unavoidable, and a necessary feature of the world. What I mean is that the existence of homosexuality as a natural deviation is logically necessary (or otherwise inevitable) given evolution and the biological constraints that exist on reproduction.

What is at stake here is the possibility of gay people and how that relates to humanity. The "deviance" of being gay is a failure to understand that humans are sometimes gay. It's defined on the assumption all humans are, by default, not gay and that something "shifts" them into the improper, for humans, state of homosexuality. Understanding that some humans are, by their nature, gay is missing. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is most peculiarly false. There is no assumption that humans are 'by default" not gay. In fact a particular human is "by default" not anything - it cannot be said a priori, since it is an empirical matter.

You just shifted the goal-posts back in your previous post as well. Fine. Then I'll shift my argument to there is a natural tendency for the proliferation of non-gay genes. Happy? You don't realise perhaps. It is a priori impossible for you to show what you are seeking to show without committing a naturalistic fallacy. You can go on, but you'll just be making a fool out of yourself.