Tony Lavis:
It was a simple question with two options. Do you put your food in your mouth or in your ear and if so why?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

I have't made an argument yet. I just asked you how you determine the best way to decide what course of behaviour to follow when it comes to satisfying your hunger.

You seem content to ridicule how others make their decisions but very reluctant to tell us your way.

Well this thread’s going well so far. This article, with its invalid equating of same-sex marriage with polygamy and incest and God-knows-what, was only posted today and has already inspired four Appeal to Nature fallacies from Is Mise, onthebeach, ttbn and Phanto, and the argumentum ad antiquitatem from Is Mise. All we need is the Slippery Slope fallacy now and that's a full set.

Some people never learn.

Phanto,

There is such a thing as the implicit and the explicit. You may not have explicitly made and argument one way or the other, but you certainly have done so implicitly. Or do you expect others to believe that your question may actually be leading to an argument in support of same-sex marriage?

AJ,

Female chooks take it up the fundamental orifice and that's natural for chooks, but we ain't talking about chooks, not even old chooks.

Care to explain why the alleged fallacies are fallacies?

Stezza,

Sorry to disappoint you if you thought I would say God. I don't know what (certainly not a who). It's nature, so perhaps designed wasn't the right word. Can you suggest a better one?

However, you and everyone else seem to able to work what everything is for, and where it goes. So you should know what I mean.