Galactic Chimp

All I want in the next Game Maker is smooth skinning of 3D models, where a vertex's position can be interpolated by the positions of two or more bones/joints. I would be happy with just 2. (Even a rigid bind where vertices obey just one bone/joint would be a step in a good direction.)  :3

The funniest example of the Streisand effect I've seen was when Deven Green spoofed a glamorous "Welcome to my Home" video put out by Brenda Dickson of The Young and the Restless. Brenda tried desperately to have them removed from YouTube, which only made people repost them en mass - making Deven Green famous.  I can't link to the videos because of adult language, but they're tucked away where Brenda hasn't found them for years.

I think when it comes to an opposition of homosexuality, by "natural" most people mean it on the basis of:

 

Penises and vaginas have formed through evolution because they are organs used to reproduce, not organs for creating pleasure and attachment. Using something like a hand, mouth, or anus as a way of maintaining sexual pleasure is "unnatural" in the sense that those orphaces aren't used for their "natural" function, having in no way a goal to reproduce with reproductive organs.

Be that as it may, it is a mistaken argument based on a misunderstanding of how biology works. Sexual organs promote reproduction by rewarding the bearer with pleasurable sensations upon stimulation - any stimulation. So, since there is no way to descretely reward reproductive sexual behaviour while not rewarding masterbatory sexual behaviour, the sexual organ evolves with BOTH behaviours as an outcome, simultaneously. The shape of the sexual organ may be sculpted by its reproductive utility, but its function is plural from the get go.

hough I think the argument for nature is silly... there are plenty of natural things that happen in nature: cannibalism, murder, addiction, war, etc.; being natural doesn't make it any more or less moral.

More than silly it is a logical fallacy, for the reasons you listed. But to point out that homosexuality is prevalent in nature and that we should take it into serious consideration when shaping social policy is not an argument from nature, any more than an argument for maternity leave is an argument from nature. To be an argument from nature, the argument would have to rest entirely on the premise that because X is found in nature, it must be morally supported. But the argument that I see bieng made in this thread incorporates other premises (derived from sociology, psychology, philosphy, etc).

A simple argument for maternity leave, which is not an argument from nature, maight state that A] mammals in nature depend on parental care, and B] it is cruel for the workforce to separate parents from their newborns, and C] parents can not care for infants without an income - Therefore parents should get paid leave to raise their infants.

A simpel argument for homosexual marriage, which is not an argument from nature might state that A] mammals in nature do form devoted homosexual pair bonds for life, and B] it is cruel to deny homosexual humans the legal avenues through which they can care for each other, as heterosexual humans do, and C] the cultural ethos of equality is compromised  when we treat equally devoted relationships as "less than" - Therefore homosexual marriage should be supported.

Incorporating evidence from nature does not make an argument an argument from nature. Resting the entire argument on evidence from nature is what makes an argument an argument from nature.

Except that animals to gay things all the time, and form gay pair bonds depending on the situations that they're in. Oops.

http://youtu.be/VUwza5Grxos

http://youtu.be/Q8gttC6P3bE

http://youtu.be/Vvqf8etpqms

Animals don't get married, most male animals impregnate as many females as possible and don't even try to help take care of the offspring.
Really if you are looking at things from a non-christian perspective marriage is unnatural.

So yeah, just because animals do it, doesn't mean it's natural or moral for humans to do it.

You're stewarding a very confused argument. On one hand you're saying that marriage is unnatural. On the other you're saying that gay marriage is unnatural, and therefore shouldn't be allowed. That doesn't hold together under scrutiny.  The only point I was making is that what's natural, really, is what happens in nature - and in nature animals form homosexual pair bonds prety frequently. Of course that's not marriage. But it's natural, and we should take into account our natural tendencies when forming social policy. It's not an argument from nature. It's an appeal for science-informed decision making.

Ultimately this is a social issue and it will be settled on those terms. matthewac95 Makes a cogent argument which you won't be able to refute with an argument from history (that marriage is a Christian union of one man and one woman) which in addition to being untrue (already pointed out by others) is also a logical fallacy.

Except that animals to gay things all the time, and form gay pair bonds depending on the situations that they're in. Oops.

http://youtu.be/VUwza5Grxos

http://youtu.be/Q8gttC6P3bE

http://youtu.be/Vvqf8etpqms