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.