Blog 9: Darwin

We talked in class today about the concept of naturalistic fallacy. As I thought about it, I realized that I just recently experienced (rather indirectly) an instance not only of naturalistic fallacy, but also of the "is-ought problem." It began with a conversation between a friend of mine and his Grandfather. They were discussing two opposing stances on homosexuality, and the Grandfather, a strict Catholic, deemed homosexuality a sin because it is "unnatural" and in some way intrinsically wrong. He claimed that homosexuality is unnatural because man and woman were obviously designed to be together. I see this as a naturalistic fallacy because being gay can and does happen, thus disproving its supposed "unnaturalness." As we discussed in a previous class, if humans do and can do something, then it is natural. It is only unnatural if it cannot or is not performed by humans. Within this same conversation, i recognized the "is-ought problem." It is a fact that man and woman each have a reproductive system that requires the other to carry out its intended purpose. However, one cannot assume from this "is" statement that one ought to be heterosexual. The compatibility of male and female genetalia reveals no intrinsic goodness or badness about any sexual orientation.
Q: How do you feel about homosexuality and how do you defend your stance when questioned?