Cannibalism is seen in animals too. Does that make it right?
Just because something is seen within animals too, doesn't make it right. Don't use it like an excuse for something.
Also for those that will undoubtedly say something along the lines of "Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, Cannibalism does" type of thing, let's just say that all Cannibals ate people when they were already dead. That doesn't harm anyone, right? It's still wrong though.
Main point here: Homosexuals and its supporters should NOT use this (you shouldn't use any argument as a matter of fact, but that's for another stamp) because it's faulty logic.
Isaiah 5:20
22 comments
The argument of "animals do it too" is always used in response to "homosexuality is not natural." I've never seen it used in the context of "anything animals do, we should do too."
But at least this one admits that homosexuality is present in nature.
The fact that homosexuality is observed in other species is not used to 'excuse' anything, it is typically brought up when one of your fundie chums drags up the 'homosexuality is unnatural' line.
Also, I suppose it would make things easier for you if people stopped using any arguments to oppose your position. It is not going to be that easy for you, though, no matter how pithy your next 'stamp' is worded.
Thats funny, you start to end your argument by saying homosexuals shouldn't use a certain argument because it has faulty logic, and then end yours with a Bible quote. Ah, self awareness, why must you be so elusive to fundies?
When used as a counter to the claim that homosexuality isn't normal, it's damn good logic. The "rightness" of something does not preclude its existence in nature. If you want to have a talk about the morality of homosexuality and cannibalism, fine, but that's not what is being discussed when this argument appears.
Keep on running with those goalposts.
To a certain extent there is something to this, because it's essentially an argument against the naturalistic fallacy ("it's natural therefore its good" is a fallacy because the natural world is cruel and horrible if you actually understand it in detail.)
Where it goes wrong is that it's based on the strawman claim that "it's natural therefore it's good" is what the other side has been saying. It's not. What they've been saying is "It naturally occurs therefore its an instinct not a choice."
The moral argument about whether it's good or bad is utterly divorced from the scientific argument about whether it's by choice or by instinct.
The "it's observed in animals, too" argument isn't about whether the act is right or wrong. It's about showing you nitwits that it is indeed a natural urge rather than a choice. Whether a natural urge is acceptable to act upon or not is a different matter. Unfortunately for lot the argument is heavily stacked against you on that front, too.
And for all I care, if you sign your corpse away to another person for them to eat then that should be your and their right. It's just the brain that should be off the menu on account of prion diseases.
Informed consent.
You lose.
Cannibalism causes the spread of diseases like kuru. Homosexuality doesn't.
Also, informed consent. Why is that concept so difficult for fundies to grasp?
@Ebon - You only get kuru and other prion diseases from eating neural tissue, so next time you're stranded somewhere without food and one of your group dies, hack off the muscle tissue carefully and chow down! If you're a senior, what the hell, eat the brains, too; the incubation period is at least 5 years.
Cannibals ate people when they were already dead... FROM HAVING BEEN MURDERED BY THE CANNIBAL.
You, "sir," are the one with the faulty logic.
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"
There's a lot of woe coming your way.
let's just say that all Cannibals ate people when they were already dead. That doesn't harm anyone, right? It's still wrong though.
I wonder if this twerp has ever heard of Long Pig...
Just because something is seen within animals too, doesn't make it right. Don't use it like an excuse for something.
And thus anything that is done in nature is now something humans shouldn't do... how's that faulty logic working out?
I'm not fond of the naturalistic argument for tolerance of homosexuality. It being found in nature has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong.
The harm argument, however, is a good one. And why is funerary cannibalism done with the consent of the deceased, as was traditional in a variety of cultures around the world (most notably, the Fore people of Papua New Guinea) wrong? Not because the bible said so, but because it spreads a nasty brain disease called kuru.
The same can not be said of homosexuality. Homosexual activity can spread STDs - but so can heterosexual activity, and both can be avoided through monogamy and/or condoms.
Damn, just gt done commenting on the above post by danielbauwens, if I read this I would have been alot less diplomatic.
Daniel, go fuck yourself with a rusty Icthys. Appropriate given its original symbolic meaning. Make sure to wedge it in real deep.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
