...is devastated by Professor Volokh, at least with regard to homosexuality.

I've discussed this in the past as well. There, I also take issue with the notion of elevating the word "normal" as having some kind of moral or practical component.

Rand, what you don't get is that, ultimately, there is no "truth." Like it or not, we all have belief systems, and if you think that you can prove the naturalistic fallacy is false, particularly to someone who doesn't use "proofs" as the basis of knowledge, you're deluding yourself--go read a little Goedel.

One can prove it within the realm of logic, Raving. I said nothing about "truth."

Interesting comment by RA, considering his recent battle with Steven Den Beste, in which he argued the opposite position...

He's being sarcastic, paraphrasing a comment to him that I left at Jane Galt's blog post about "Brights."

I see. He has problems with logic, doesn't he...

Ethical statements -- including those concerning the morality of homosexuality -- are within the realm of LOGIC? Interesting. Is that how Prof. Volokh deduced the conduct of Bonomo monkeys?

Uh, bonobos (proper spelling) are apes, not monkeys. Perhaps RA ought to fact-check a bit more and rave a bit less, eh?

To directly answer your question, RA: it's certainly possible to logically prove that a particular position is inconsistent, which is what I thought Eugene was doing. But accepting that doesn't mean it somehow becomes possible to, for example, logically disprove the existence of something (especially something as ill-defined as "deity")... which is what I understand you to be claiming for yourself. Hence my statement.

Raving is what he seems to do best...