Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
The old meme that ‘there’s nothing wrong with being gay’ can be interpreted in at least two different ways, functional and moral. In this article I argue that homosexuality is functionally abnormal, based on the functionalist description of sexuality, but not morally wrong.
There is a strong tendency in the social sciences to extrapolate the medical judgment of the narrow-scope normality to all domains of rational discourse, in effect regarding homosexual orientation as normal in the wide-scope sense. This additional analytical step can be defended in several ways: from statistical regularity (population norm), from nature (natural norm), from sexual modality (modal norm), and from sexual identity (normal for some). I will show that all of these analytical strategies fail to satisfy the formal criteria of normativity. While this failure does not of itself entail abnormality, I will engage a functionalist account of sexuality to unequivocally demonstrate that homosexual orientation entails a narrow-scope, non-pathological abnormality. I will further show that in order to defend the much stronger claim that homosexuality is morally wrong would require demonstrating that homosexuality is (at least in some cases) subject to choice, and there are objective, belief-independent moral norms about sexual attraction. I conclude that satisfaction of this second tier of normative evaluation presents an impossible evidential burden and must be rejected.
I will now revisit the functionalist account of sexuality presented in my earlier article (A Functionalist Defence of Binary Gender) (https://culturalanalysis.net/2018/01/27 ... ry-gender/) and show why homosexuality is functionally abnormal. The present argument differs in an important way from Michael Levin’s Why Homosexuality is Abnormal (The Monist, 1984) in that I focus on deficiency of the sexual function rather than just on the functionally abnormal use of body parts. Abnormal use does not negate the capacity for normal use when normal use is required and therefore does not of itself entail a constitutive abnormality.
Sexuality is analysable as a set of complementary functions with a common constitutive aim without which sexuality would just not make sense: procreation. If this aim is existentially indispensable and there is no evidence of other constitutive aims to sex that are also existentially indispensable, then any practically relevant definition of sexual normality must include the functional capacity to satisfy this aim. On this view, Male is a functional kind characterised by the hypothetical capacity to produce sperm, and Female is a functional kind characterised by the hypothetical capacity to produce eggs. By ‘hypothetical’ I mean the capacity that could be realised in one’s lifetime under conditions of anatomical completeness, sexual maturity and the optimal state of health. The sexual function is nonetheless not exhausted by males just producing sperm and by females just producing eggs; there is also a performative dimension to sexuality that involves, relevantly, sexual orientation. Heterosexual orientation spontaneously regulates the ‘right’ choice of sexual partners for the aim of reproduction to be possible, consisting in attraction to members of the opposite sex and a degree of repulsion from sexual acts with members of the same sex. Homosexual orientation, on the other hand, is essentially at odds with the constitutive aim of sexuality and is therefore ‘wrong’ in light of that aim. If this is correct, then heterosexuality must be regarded as the constitutive norm of sexuality, while homosexuality, being a deficiency or an impediment to realisation of the constitutive aim, must be regarded as functionally abnormal.
In conclusion, the claim that there’s nothing wrong with being gay is not absolutely true. There is something wrong with homosexuality, but this ‘wrongness’ is neither moral nor pathological but just the ‘narrow-scope’ abnormality of a particular existential function of the human species. It does not justify discrimination in any context other than when selecting for a partner with the aim of procreating and establishing a family and, perhaps, in explaining moderately-negative attitudes to public displays of gay sex. This is important in light of the original claim of normality being overstated in social sciences and in the popular discourse. Social policy based on erroneous conception of normality can be harmful.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
This lack of design (the lack of ability for evolution to plan a future design feature) is apparent in various features, such as the difficulty of human child birth compared to many other animals. If we take this "human anatomy was designed for a particular purpose" approach, then we'd have to assume that the size of newborns' heads and the method of birth do not perform their function very well! But, of course, we know it doesn't work like that. Our evolution into upright-walking, together with the evolution of large brains, appear to be the reason. The mammalian method of giving birth (through the pelvis) was established first, and evolution is not capable of going back to the drawing board. If it was, then it might have invented something closer to the Caesarean section.
Since homosexuality has not died out, it seems reasonable to assume that it is not generally selected against. Just like our method of childbirth, it is neither a deliberate design feature nor a mistake. It is simply a feature of our evolved nature. There are some theories as to why the existence of some homosexuality in a tribe may in fact have been selectively advantageous.
Another failing in the argument, in my view, is the assumption that if sexuality in humans was designed for a purpose then that purpose is purely to bring sperm together with egg in a physical environment (the womb) where they can grow into a new human. Evidence suggests that sexuality in humans achieves much more than just that. The amount if time we spend on sexual activities compared to many other animals may be a selective advantage for a species which has become successful by intelligence and intra-tribal cooperation. This goes along with a very prolonged period of infancy and learning. This in turn requires strong bonds between the carers of the infants (mothers, fathers and other members of the tribe). It's been suggested that sexuality in humans is part of this bonding process.
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Second, there is no reason whatsoever to think about evolutionary "naturalness" for evolution gave people the ability to choose, reason, invent, decide. Nothing is natural or unnatural; there are only defensible ideas and indefensible ones. What is there are about being gay that is indefensible? It has no victim.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
It is likely homosexuality will be a 10% [best guess] percentile on one side to the curve, i.e. somewhere less than 2 Standard Deviation.
Perhaps the term 'abnormal' may not be precise and have some sort of derogatory connotation.
Rightly homosexuality is a 'normal' percentile along a natural continuum of sexual drives within humanity.
So it is not abnormal but a qualified 'normal'.
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
The article does not assume ‘design for a purpose’, it only argues that for sexuality to make sense at all it must be understood primarily in terms of what existentially indispensable outcome it produces. Normality of the function is inferred from existential necessity. This is standard practice in normativity, esp. constitutivism.
All other objections I see in the comments so far have been addressed in the original text, although some might be missing in the excerpt above.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Re: "existentially indispensable outcome".Monky11 wrote:The article does not assume ‘design for a purpose’, it only argues that for sexuality to make sense at all it must be understood primarily in terms of what existentially indispensable outcome it produces. Normality of the function is inferred from existential necessity. This is standard practice in normativity, esp. constitutivism.
In other words, for a given behaviour to make sense it must be understood in terms of whether it is beneficial or detrimental to survival; to continued existence.
Fine. That relates to the comments I made about the evolutionary reasons for various aspects of human sexuality. As I said, the evidence suggests that human sexual behaviour does not simply exist for the outcome of sperm meeting egg. If you simplistically look at it in those very narrow terms, then there are all kinds of human behaviours and traits that do not "make sense" and would therefore not be considered "normal". We are complex creatures with complex behaviours and interactions with each other. As I said, there is evidence that homosexuality does indeed play a part in the survival of tribes of humans. Behaviours don't have to directly result in new humans being created in order to do that.
As I also said, since homosexuality has not died out and has existed in humans since records began (and therefore presumably before that) it seems reasonable to assume that it is not detrimental to our survival.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Exactly! But why should any thought at all go to design or evolution? We don't care about these things at all unless we have to; when we're trying to get beyond nature, as with medical care, that is when we look to these. All arguments like this are simply red herrings: You could show definitively that being gay is is contrary to your "design" and this would not move the issue one jot. Flying airplanes is certainly not by design.Steve3007:
I think the fundamental point on which the argument in the OP falls down is that it implicitly assumes that human bodies (and the bodies of other sexually reproducing animals) were designed for a purpose.
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
The OP is nonsensical for a variety of reasons, big and small.
First, as many have pointed out the use of the term "abnormal" in the title is about as meaningless as: "wearing glasses is abnormal but is not morally wrong".
Second, it is statistically incorrect to declare that the purpose or use of body parts is for procreation, since the use of said organs for that purpose comprises a tiny fraction of their use, way, way less than 1%.
Additionally, the casual unspoken implication that something that happens to be "normal" is therefore somehow superior to another choice which happens to be "abnormal" (as stated above the title topic doesn't fit this paradigm), is just sloppy thinking. It is normal for there to be a high death rate from appendicitis, of course the abnormal idea of an appendectomy would be considered to be superior to a death by peritonitis by every thinking Modern citizen.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023