Appeal to Nature Fallacy: Is Homosexuality Natural?

     In regards to arguments bought up over homosexuality there seems to be quite a common question that pops up. "Is homosexuality natural." At first this seems like a very important aspect, however if you look at this objectively whether homosexuality is natural or not has nothing to do with anything. It is an appeal to nature fallacy that needs to be forgotten.

     Labeling something natural or unnatural seems to cause people to change their mindsets about something. Natural products are seen as good, which is why advertisers jump on promoting their "All-natural" products(which most of the time isn't the case anyway). Likewise anything that is unnatural is demonized. Without wasting further time let us examine this in detail.

The fallacy seems to go like this (For the purpose of making this easy to understand, let X be represented by homosexuality.)

Premise 1 - X is unnatural
Premise 2 - Unnatural things are bad
Conclusion - X is bad

This seems to sound rational, However, we can immediately see that this is illogical. Look at the second premise very closely. What proof is there that anything unnatural is bad? In fact the very definition is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal." Nowhere does the definition suggest that things that are unnatural are bad. In fact, to better demonstrate to you why premise 2 is unfounded, I will use the same logic in other issues

Let X represent medicine, condoms, technology, birth control, and clothing.

Premise 1 - X is unnatural
Premise 2 - Unnatural things are bad
Conclusion - X is bad

The same logic applies. However technology, medicine, condoms, birth control, clothing, etc. are thought to be as beneficial or "good" for the most part. So therefore this unnatural argument makes no sense, and it can't promote further discussion. I will point out the next flaw in this argument. If unnatural things are considered to be bad, then it should inversely mean that anything natural should be considered good

Let X represent flesh-eating bacteria, viruses, maladies, poisonous animals, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. We can then apply the following logic

Premise 1 - X is natural
Premise 2 - Natural things are good
Conclusion - X is good

However all of these are thought of as bad or harmful to humans. So therefore this logic is flawed. Something being natural does not necessitate that it is good. 

Natural =/= Good
Unnatural =/= Bad

So the next time you notice an appeal to nature fallacy be sure to point it. It is a fallacy that can add nothing to the discussion and has no logical basis.