> I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. I always thought that the argument was just for the sake

> I am always so torn when people make the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore okay. 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.