Appeal to Nature Fallacy?

"No. All people, regardless of gender preference, are allowed to marry a person of the opposite gender. This is not a double standard."

Isn't this just a red herring?

To say "regardless of gender preference" is to gloss over the major issue, which is that of gender preferences in marriage, because those preferences are central to sexuality. If I am a gay man, and gay marriage is banned, I am denied the right to marry someone of the desired gender. The fact that I could still marry (someone from the undesired gender) on paper is irrelevant - it's who I'm allowed to marry that matters.

Not to say you're against gay marriage or anything; you can't be that un-enlightened ;)

(As for the idea that black people can't wear their hair in certain ways - I've heard that at some workplaces, African-Americans have been told that their natural hairstyles are 'inappropriate' for business. This harms the ability to express oneself and is a form of racism, or so the argument goes.)

I am 100% for gay marriage, but also 100% for strong arguments. I just think there are better, less arguable defenses for gay marriage. For example, this same line of reasoning could be used to support child/adult marriage--e.g., since most people marry the desired age, people who prefer minors should be allow to marry them*. This uses the same double standard logic. The real question is WHY should people be allowed to marry the gender of their choice? What is the harm, if any? What are the benefits? As we see with the minor example, the preference (or what is desired) could be problematic, justifying the "double standard." Those who oppose gay marriage see the preference of gender as "problematic." The most effective arguments convince people that this preference is not problematic.

I've heard that at some workplaces, African-Americans have been told that their natural hairstyles are 'inappropriate' for business

I guess I would need to know what "natural" means. A white guy with a "natural" look can mean the caveman look... long hair with a long, ungroomed beard (grooming is not "natural"). If the business has hair length and grooming standards, I would think it would be racism to exempt certain races from that policy. However, I would agree that if a company has these standards only for black people, then we are looking at a double standard. To argue this either way, I would need to see the specific policy.

* This would not be a slippery slope as presented.

Hmm. If someone made that point, I'd point out the lack of equivalency between 'gender' and 'age'. But yes, this would need to be argued further; I see what you mean.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

When I used natural as related to a workplace I meant neatly styled afro or neatly braided cornows, or neatly twisted dreadlocks. I can see an afro textured hair style like free-form dreadlocks being considered unprofessional in a workplace regardless of race. 

I don’t have a problem with your argument supporting gay marriage.  But I very much object to this comment:

Not to say you're against gay marriage or anything; you can't be that un-enlightened ;)

I thought the whole point of this website is that conclusions should be supported with premises, not to claim that if someone took a position you disagree with that they’re “unenlightened.”  
Again, I’m not debating gay marriage; that can be debated with arguments about morality and justice, and if there is no good argument against it then the proponents will win.    I’m pointing out the fallacious claim that no enlightened person would disagree with your position which is sort of a reverse ad hominem   We see that kind of thing on both sides of the abortion and gun rights debates   

My point wasn't necessarily in support of gay marriage (though I'm not against it), I was asking a question about the answer Dr Bo gave to the OP.

As for my tongue-in-cheek comment, you can make of it what you will, though I'll say that I agree positions should be supported with good arguments (in fact, that's what my comment was about).