Okay, listen. This is how it goes.
A: Homosexuality is wrong!
A: Because it's unnatural!
B: *points out that it occurs frequently in nature*
A: But animals do X, Y, and Z that are bad! That doesn't prove that homosexuality is okay!
Here's the problem. B's counter-argument of "it occurs in nature" is NOT an attempt to argue that homosexuality is okay. What it IS is a refutation of the incorrect statement that it's unnatural, which is an argument A used.
A is attempting to move the goalposts (in other words, change the focus of the argument) and suggest that B's argument is an attempt to justify homosexuality, when in fact it is actually B saying "the reason you gave for being against it isn't true, and here's why." In effect, B shot down A's argument, but didn't make an argument of his/her own. Here's an analogy (a very simple one, but it's valid).
(Using an analogous A and B from above) Imagine that A is arguing that cherries are deadly. B asks what A's reasoning is, and A says it's because cherries are brown. B points out that cherries are red, not brown, and then A retorts, exclaiming that B hasn't proven that cherries are okay to eat because there are poisonous plants that are red.
See how little sense that makes? This is the same kind of reasoning A is using above.'
I suggest you don't attempt this argument in the future--you'll only embarass yourself more.
· 1 decade ago