the argument is that homoloveuality is unnatural. the natural counter argument is 100% valid because homoloveuality is found commonly in nature, therefore it factually cannot be deemed unnatural.
rape is bad, yes. however it is objectively bad especially when it presents itself in a human society. homoloveuality is subjectively bad because people think it's unnatural when in reality they are just ignorant. and this isn't really a rhetorical question directed at you, but just a general idea: other animals can freely explore their loveuality but humans can't explore their own via consensual and safe means because of this ancient-founded notion that it's unnatural?
no i'm not saying being gay is bad
im saying an appeal to nature is a bad argument
saying:
That which is natural, is good.
N is natural.
Therefore, N is good or right.is the equivalent to saying
That which is unnatural, is bad or wrong.
U is unnatural.
Therefore, U is bad or wrong.both are wrong.
deus ex was arguing that it was wrong because it's "its natures response to overpopulation" whatever that means
and the other guys counter-argument was it's right because it's seen in nature. I see where you are coming from in that the logical counter-argument to "it's unnatural therefore it's wrong" would be "here's examples of it in nature" but that's implying that "what is natural is right" which is not necessarily true.
both "it's unnatural therefore it's wrong" and "here's examples of it in nature, therefore it's right" appeal to nature which is not a sound argument on it's own, there are other waaaaay more convincing arguments for homoloveuality.
now if the argument is "homoloveuality is unnatural" then you open up a whole other can of worms and I agree with you that a counterexample to disprove this would be "here's homoloveuality in nature" but this conversation includes nothing about whether homoloveuality is morally right or wrong, which was the point of the conversation in the first place. Proving homoloveuality can be seen in nature brings nothing to the table in terms of proving it's ethical or not or if it should be allowed or not and it's a stuffty argument.
it isn't a naturalism fallacy though?
you're right I confused it with an appeal to nature