Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Monky11 »

Steve3007 wrote: February 22nd, 2018, 7:56 am 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.
No, that’s not what I said, nor is this implied. This step applies to sexuality because it is obviously instrumental to survival, while playing chess, for example, isn’t. Eating food on the other hand seems to share this property with sexuality. Normality is then implicitly linked to essential properties of enduring existence, as opposed to cases of extinction.

Also, I do not claim that nonsensical entails abnormal.

You need to actually read the article because your other objections were explicitly dealt with, so no use repeating what has been refuted.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Monky11 »

Greta wrote: February 22nd, 2018, 6:56 am Are outliers in any category abnormal or rare? I would think that a lack of outliers in a population would be more abnormal than a more homogeneous group - less in accord with the kind of diversity we observe in the rest of nature.
This also has been addressed in the article, under ‘population norm’, which includes rare but regular cases. But using the population normality to infer individual normality would be a category mistake.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Monky11 »

Hereandnow wrote: February 22nd, 2018, 12:36 pm "Abnormal" begs the question: what is the standard of normalcy?
The relevant sense of normality is precisely formuated in the article. Take abnormality to mean not-normal.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
Reply:
Steve3007 wrote: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.
Reply:
Monky11 wrote:No, that’s not what I said, nor is this implied.
If you're saying that:

"must be understood primarily in terms of what existentially indispensable outcome it produces"

does not mean the same as:

"understood in terms of whether it is beneficial or detrimental to survival; to continued existence"

then we disagree as to the meanings of words in the English language. If something is "existentially indispensable" then it is needed for continued existence. Continued existence = survival.
Monky11 wrote:This step applies to sexuality because it is obviously instrumental to survival, while playing chess, for example, isn’t. Eating food on the other hand seems to share this property with sexuality. Normality is then implicitly linked to essential properties of enduring existence, as opposed to cases of extinction.
As I said in previous posts, human beings being complex creatures who live in complex interacting and cooperating groups (a.k.a. "societies" or "tribes"), activities which are essential to survival are not just those that directly lead to the bringing together of sperms and eggs.
Monky11 wrote:Also, I do not claim that nonsensical entails abnormal.
In the sense in which you're using the word "normal", yes you do. The central thesis of the OP is that homosexuality is abnormal in a particular sense which you define in the OP - "functionally abnormal". As part of that definition you say this:
Monky11 wrote:Sexuality is analysable as a set of complementary functions with a common constitutive aim without which sexuality would just not make sense: procreation.
So you explicitly say here that sexuality without the possibility of procreation does not make sense. I take "nonsensical" to be a synonym for "does not make sense". Homosexuality is a form of sexuality that does not lead directly to procreation and, in your view, is abnormal in the sense in which you use that word. Therefore you are indeed equating abnormality with not making sense.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Sy Borg »

Monky11 wrote: February 23rd, 2018, 8:46 am
Greta wrote: February 22nd, 2018, 6:56 am Are outliers in any category abnormal or rare? I would think that a lack of outliers in a population would be more abnormal than a more homogeneous group - less in accord with the kind of diversity we observe in the rest of nature.
This also has been addressed in the article, under ‘population norm’, which includes rare but regular cases. But using the population normality to infer individual normality would be a category mistake.
Actually there is a valid gradation from straight through bi to gay that has no category error whatsoever. Humans are often not just one or the other but gravitate to their strongest needs. Note that homosexual behaviour is similarly noted amongst other social species too. Just another natural variant.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Monky11 »

Greta wrote: February 23rd, 2018, 5:46 pm Actually there is a valid gradation from straight through bi to gay
If you are referring to Kinsey, his research has been debunked, not to mention that he was a sadistic poedophile who was just trying to normalise his perversion. But even assuming that a range of attractions exists, this is perfectly compatible with gradation of abnormality.
... that has no category error whatsoever.


Yes, but that’s irrelevant to the category error associated with equivocation of population normality and state normality criteria. For example, it is normal for humanity to produce a small but stable percentage of children with Down syndrome, but that does not entail that individuals who have Down syndrome are normal. Population (statistical) normality is a meta level criterion, about distribution of individual abnormalities and normalities alike.
Note that homosexual behaviour is similarly noted amongst other social species too. Just another natural variant.
Please Greta, read the whole article. I am tired of reappearing that this has already been addressed. Genetic deformities are also found in all other species, but natural does not entail normal, nor does regular entail normal.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Monky11 »

Steve3007 wrote: February 23rd, 2018, 11:15 am
If you're saying that:

"must be understood primarily in terms of what existentially indispensable outcome it produces"

does not mean the same as:

"understood in terms of whether it is beneficial or detrimental to survival; to continued existence"
The two statements are not functionally equivalent, but they are close enough. But I do not dispute this anyway. All I have said is that neither of these constructions entails “design for a purpose”; it is not about what sexuality was ‘meant for’ but what ‘it must aim at’ to exist at all. It is a question of expalantory necessity.
… activities which are essential to survival are not just those that directly lead to the bringing together of sperms and eggs.
But sexuality does, and the article is about that.
you explicitly say here that sexuality without the possibility of procreation does not make sense. I take "nonsensical" to be a synonym for "does not make sense". Homosexuality is a form of sexuality that does not lead directly to procreation and, in your view, is abnormal in the sense in which you use that word. Therefore you are indeed equating abnormality with not making sense.
Better way to put this: homosexuality is a defficiency of the function of procreation, because heterosexuality also in not a sufficient (direct cause) condition of procreation.

Calling something abnormal is precisely a way of making sense of something that would otherwise not makes sense as a member of some established category. In other words, the only way to make sense of homosexuality as a kind of sexuality is to sub-categorise it as abnormal.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Monky11 »

I have not included above any of my refutations of typical arguments that homosexuality is normal. The full article is linked above but I should have mentioned what I have omitted in the abbriged version. So here is the main missing section:

The argument from statistical regularity relies on the evidence of stable demographic distribution of same-sex attracted individuals over time, suggesting that it is normal for the human population to include a certain proportion of homosexual individuals. I contend that the population norm does not entail individual normality because establishing a norm requires more than just the evidence of regular occurrence in the population; crippling genetic abnormalities or mental disorders can also have regular distribution but that does not render those states normal. The related argument that homosexuality is normal because it is natural (people are born that way) faces a similar objection: just because some medical condition is natural and inborn does not make it healthy, let alone normal. For example, some people are born with eleven fingers but that does not mean that having eleven fingers is a normal state of human physiology. In any case, the question is not whether it is normal or natural for the population to include some gay people, but whether it is normal for an individual to be gay, and the arguments from statistical regularity and from nature do not answer this question.

The next argument, from sexual modality, maintains that homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are just modes of healthy sexuality and are therefore normal. The modal argument begs the question why should the alleged mode itself be regarded as normal, and if modality is taken to entail normality then it again begs the question why must we regard these different orientations as modes of the normal rather than one as being normal and the others abnormal. The modal argument could be just as well applied to the eleven digits scenario: if having eleven fingers is normal because it is a mode of normal human physiology then the conclusion relies on the presupposition that normal human physiology consists of these two modes, but this is something that must also be demonstrated. Using the modal approach in such an ungrounded way could effectively eradicate all abnormality by simply defining it out of existence, but this would also negate the sense of normality and thus result in contradiction. This refutation could be challenged by making a comparison to left-handedness and right-handedness as normal modes of being two-handed, what seems intuitively right, and asking why should sexual orientation be regarded as modally different to handedness. In response to this challenge I would object that is the case of handedness we infer modality from the intuitive normality, but that does nothing to demonstrate that, in case of sexual orientation, normality can be inferred from the assumption of modality. It would still have to be shown that sexual orientation is objectively modal and that modality entails normality. A further evidential burden for sustaining this kind of challenge would be to show that the kind of modal description that entails normality would override the (forthcoming) practical description that entails functional abnormality.

The final argument in defence of the wide-scope normality is the argument from identity, which maintains that it is just normal for gay people to be gay. This argument can be generalised with the formula ‘it is normal for something X to be X’. Now, let X take the value ‘abnormal’. Substitution for X results in the expression ‘it is normal for something abnormal to be abnormal’ which is evidently unsatisfactory: a norm that applies to X cannot be logically satisfied by X just being itself. This objection reflects a formal criterion of normativity and is virtually unassailable; in essence, “There is no normativity if you cannot be wrong.” (Lavin, Douglas. Practical Reason and the Possibility of Error. Ethics, 2004.) In any case, the question is not whether it is normal for someone gay to be gay, but whether just being gay is normal, and the argument from identity does not answer this question.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Sy Borg »

Monky11 wrote: February 24th, 2018, 12:17 am
Greta wrote: February 23rd, 2018, 5:46 pm Actually there is a valid gradation from straight through bi to gay
If you are referring to Kinsey, his research has been debunked, not to mention that he was a sadistic poedophile who was just trying to normalise his perversion. But even assuming that a range of attractions exists, this is perfectly compatible with gradation of abnormality.
This has nothing to do with Kinsey. While I was unaware of those allegations, they are completely irrelevant, and there was nothing in those reports that normalised paedophilia. That is simply garbage.

Further, it's simply a fact that human sexuality operates on a gradation, probably along a Bell curve. I don't need academic evidence anyway; I've been alive long enough to see it.

Your ignoring of other species' homosexuality is an insurmountable problem, unless you believe humans are divine and should be judged by Biblical criteria. There is no way out for you otherwise, certainly no *credible* academic material to support your position.

Monky11 wrote:
... that has no category error whatsoever.

but that does not entail that individuals who have Down syndrome are normal.
If not being "normal" equals "abnormal", then yes, but that is clearly not the case. The word "abnormal" is loaded with negative semantics that cannot be ignored. To be called "abnormal" is an insult, the implication being that such people are sub-normal.

However, the great gay geniuses, leaders and humanitarians throughout history make clear that relative scarcity does not equal abnormality.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Spectrum »

Greta wrote: February 24th, 2018, 4:57 am Further, it's simply a fact that human sexuality operates on a gradation, probably along a Bell curve. I don't need academic evidence anyway; I've been alive long enough to see it.
Yes, Bell Curve or Normal Distribution. That was what I presented earlier.
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 91#p305791

I don't have actual statistics, but yes human sexuality of the 7 billion humans of the present + those who had died [given such a large population] is very likely to follow the pattern of the Normal Distribution.
Human sexuality operates on a gradation, i.e. along a continuum.

It is likely a 10 percentile is likely to be average-homosexuals and that would be 700 million of them, even if it is 5% that is 350 million and with such a large quantum, they do not deserve to be branded as 'abnormal'.
Perhaps if there is only 1 in a million, then that would be 'abnormal' for communication sake.

I am optimistic, in the future when we are able to track the mechanisms and processes within the brain or body of how humans has homosexual tendencies, we will understand why such a distribution is normal percentile within humanity.

Note this thread I opened.
The Normal Distribution = Bell Curve, - Exceptions?
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =1&t=15378

Other than the main features of humans, e.g. number of legs, eyes, organs etc. [but not the size, etc] I believe in principle based on empirical abstractions, almost all human variables are distributed in accordance to the Bell Curve or Normal Distribution.'
So far no one has been able to give me any exception.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Eduk »

Monky11 obviously you plain just don't like gay people (not including all the people you like and don't know are gay, possibly including yourself).
But anyway. Your whole argument requires you to prove that being homosexual is of net cost to probability of continued and long term survival of life as a whole. I would suggest that humans are surviving ok based off of population growth and that the incidence of homosexuality has had zero demonstrable effect on population size. This ignores that many people would argue that humans are in fact overpopulating. So perhaps a higher incidence of homosexuality would actually be of net benefit to long term survival.
I would also suggest that the topic is complex and unravelling one facet of human sexuality and predicting all future outcomes is well beyond current human capacity. It would have to be at least as complex as clouds for example.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Monky11 »

Eduk wrote: February 24th, 2018, 7:21 am Your whole argument requires you to prove that being homosexual is of net cost to probability of continued and long term survival of life as a whole.
This is not necessary, just as prevalence of flu does not need to threaten human survival to be considered abnormal, even though it is not a normal state of human health, and continued survival is a function of health. All I have demonstrated that certain aspect of a function is not failing in some individuals, and that’s the scope of the demonstrated abnormality. I don’t mean anything derogatory about it, just like calling flu an abnormal state of health does not mean I hate people who have flu, including myself.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Monky11 »

Greta wrote: February 24th, 2018, 4:57 am This has nothing to do with Kinsey. While I was unaware of those allegations, they are completely irrelevant, and there was nothing in those reports that normalised paedophilia. That is simply garbage.
Here’s some stuff on Kinsey: https://infrakshun.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... ey-legacy/
You might me surprised...
Further, it's simply a fact that human sexuality operates on a gradation, probably along a Bell curve. I don't need academic evidence anyway; I've been alive long enough to see it.
Even if true, and it probably is, I have already explained why this does not affect my argument.
Your ignoring of other species' homosexuality is an insurmountable problem
I have also showed, repeatedly, that statistical normality and normality of the condition are independent concepts. If in doubt read the whole article again and review comments above. Seems we are arguing in circles now.

If not being "normal" equals "abnormal", then yes, but that is clearly not the case. The word "abnormal" is loaded with negative semantics that cannot be ignored. To be called "abnormal" is an insult, the implication being that such people are sub-normal.
By abnormal I mean just NOT NORMAL, nothing more. If you choose to extend this concept that is not what I have defended and therefore not reflective of my argument. I don’t dislike or devalue people just because they have flu, and yet I would call flu an abnormal state of human health. I have explicitly defined the limits and context of the relevant sense of abnormality, so there should be no confusion about it.

[quite]However, the great gay geniuses, leaders and humanitarians throughout history make clear that relative scarcity does not equal abnormality.[/quote]

Stephen Hawking is abnormal in a serious way but that does not prevent him from being a genius who is greatly respected despite his abnormality, and without denying his abnormality. And no doubt each of us is abnormal in some unique way...
User avatar
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

Post by Hereandnow »

Monk11:
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.
A lot of words that come to one thing: sexuality has an essential role in procreation. But you see how it falls apart: The drive to have a pleasurable life is also existentially indispensable (unless you think pleasure is some sort of cultural invention we can simply put aside, which is nonsense), and pleasure, joy, happiness are malleable things: we eat play, and so on as the world allows, and the world allows differently for different people. Sex for pleasure falls squarely here and is just as primordial as sex for procreation. Sex for procreatively becomes just another need in life and has no existential priority.
Also, what is the point in giving such emphasis to "constitutive aims"? Again, who cares about these if we can take them up, shape them to our needs and desires? If we were a wandering tribe depending on procreation for survival against the hostilities around us, then I can see the point against discouraging homosexuality; but now? Pure conservative nostalgia.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Sy Borg »

Monky11 wrote: February 24th, 2018, 8:30 am
If not being "normal" equals "abnormal", then yes, but that is clearly not the case. The word "abnormal" is loaded with negative semantics that cannot be ignored. To be called "abnormal" is an insult, the implication being that such people are sub-normal.
By abnormal I mean just NOT NORMAL, nothing more.
Then there is a problem.

Have you ever heard a person refer to another as abnormal in any but a pejorative way?
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021