Homosexuality in giraffes and other non-human animals

But then again I have seen the terrible devastation that was brought upon some less fortunate friends when they realised they were gay: teenagers driven into isolation (and, once, suicide) by their former "friends"; beloved members of their respective communities and/or families having to start from scratch, just because those communities happened to be "conservative".

I'm having a hard time believing anybody would choose such suffering with anything approaching a sensible definition of the term "free choice".

It's also important to remember that "born that way" is mostly just the headline of a more complex story of how sexuality is understood, one that even progressive activists wouldn't oppose. This sees homo/hetero-sexuality not as a binary choice, but as a spectrum. There's a set point you're born with. Then there's an overlay of culture–just think how much more acceptable it is for women to kiss than it is for men. Finally, there is some wiggle room any individual may experience over the span of their lives, or even just the span of a day given the right intoxicating substances.

This doesn't contradict the idea of inborn sexual orientation, because (see above) cultural and experiential factors are almost definitely not able to overcome biology for many. But it may help to overcome any cognitive dissonance you feel.

The "naturalistic fallacy" is therefore a fallacy because it proofs too much: "nature" doesn't want us to go to the moon; it doesn't want us to vaccinate; it sees absolutely no point in rewriting a browser in Rust.

It doesn't make one bit of difference whether its "natural" or not. Its like manufacturers putting "natural" on yogurt.

Everything is "natural" or not, because someone decides.

I came across someone that didn't think sodium bicarbonate was natural, when in fact its found dissolved in many mineral springs.

Calcium carbonate? That can't be natural.. Its just chalk.

Magnesium chloride.. Its just a magnesium rich salt evaporated from the dead sea.

>Why? This strikes me as a very shallow moral principle.

that is a circular argument as morals are the behaviors that society allows consenting adults to engage in.

Wrt. [un]naturality based arguments - there is nothing natural about humans using smartphones, flying in airplanes, etc. yet billions of people shamelessly engage in those unnatural activities everyday. We're way past natural... Why are we so hellbent about whether it is natural or unnatural of how some people enjoy each other company?

I always thought that the argument was just for the sake of proving that this natural/unnatural thing is worthless. Homosexuality is natural and nonetheless someone opposes it on the grounds that it's not. Illnesses are natural but nobody is opposed to curing people.

Anyway, it's the old observation that conservatives tend to confuse the is with the ought to be- in other words, to argue that because something is natural or common then it is morally justified and should be enforced.

I've noticed what could be an exactly opposite tendency in liberals though, and I think it's interesting: confusing the ought to be with the is. It's not used as an argument, but it seems to inform some reasoning. For example:

(these are just some examples and I'm thinking out loud, so please don't crucify me)

- there shouldn't be any racial or sexual discriminations -> there are no differences whatsoever between ethnic groups and genders;

- gay couples should be allowed to raise children -> there is absolutely no difference between a heterosexual family and a homosexual family;

- there shouldn't be rich and poors -> money can be removed from society and everybody will be equal;

Etc.