Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
"Big Think Interview With Satoshi Kanazawa"
covers related material
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
I would be cautious of including assessments from Psychology in the domain of medical judgements. At best, Psychology is a soft science and its concept of normality, which you identify as belonging to a narrow-scope definition, is actually (and inevitably) a view of human society in what you call the wide-scope sense. What it looks at is behavior, but behavior is not mere physiology. And physiological functions themselves don't seem to give rise to normativity, despite the attempt of rebranding them as "structural". They only become normative when the symbolic functions enter the game, which implies the construction of meaning. This is not to say with Butler that the body itself is a social construction, but it is neither the other extreme.Monky11 wrote: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.
All of this invalidates your arguments against the defense of homosexual orientation as normal, which mostly rest on analogies with physiological characteristics of human bodies (fingers, crippling genetic conditions, etc.). We all know the natural functions of genitalia and reproductive organs in all species, but it's pretty obvious that mating strategies across organisms that produce eggs and sperms are diverse. Even human sexuality that remains restricted to reproductive functions is not reduced to their pure instinctive use, because we are not purely instinctive beings. If we thought such use is "structurally normative", then we should consider heterosexual eroticism fundamentally abnormal. The search for erogenous zones, kissing, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation and a whole bunch of other sexual practices that do not use genitalia and other body parts only for their primary natural functions, would have to be regarded as aberrations, too. And that goes also for things as subtle as being attracted to the shape of breasts, skin or muscle tone, the length of the neck, smiles, eyes, and so on. What has to do anything of this with sex? All and nothing. It means that human sexuality is influenced by a lot of other secondary elements, which most likely are there to enhance the possibility of success of the primary functions and are as natural and important as them. Furthermore, nothing precludes the naturally-designed features of our physiology to perform other "unnatural" functions: a hand for writing or playing the piano, arms and legs to swim or dance, neocortex to do math and poetry. Functional normativity becomes then a useless concept.
Although I agree with the overall conclusion that homosexuality is to be regarded as abnormal, that distinction must be made in different terms. It's only because it presents mating behaviors that run contrary to natural mating behaviors. They are facilitated, however, by the same natural mechanisms of mating (lust, pleasure, character bonding, etc.). In this point of view, normality is defined from the abstract concept of more or less naturally-favored behaviors. But still, in a broad sense, normality is to be considered a concept derived from culture, even though biological determinations are in play. Culture just adds more layers of complexity (think of rules of kinship, marriage, etc.). It's simply the general rule, what's more common because the pressure of biological determinism allows some features to be more widely spread in the human population, while other features less recurrent, the ones we could consider abnormal. So, it's a version of what you call the argument of statistical regularity, for which you provided an invalid counterargument, as I explained in the paragraph above. Heteronormativity is then the general rule and the natural tendency, but all other deviations from the "norm" are still legitimate within the wide spectrum of human possibilities. We should also agree with Marx and Foucault that the subject, man as social category, is constituted historically. Normativity is always constantly redefined.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Please note the typical usage. Also please note the difference between normal and usual.deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.
For example while I am not usually in the shower I do usually shower each day. Therefore it is normal for me to shower and certainly not abnormal. I also occasionally have a bath (say once every few months). This too is not abnormal or unusual in most contexts.
To even say that homosexuality is unusual you would have to define the context quite carefully. For example I often meet homosexuals and thus far have not been surprised at how unusual it was.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Steve3007 wrote: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"
Here, again, is where you disputed it:Monky11 wrote:The two statements are not functionally equivalent, but they are close enough. But I do not dispute this anyway.
Reply: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.
---Monky11 wrote:No, that’s not what I said, nor is this implied.
So, any activity that does not directly and immediately lead to sperm meeting egg should be classed as "a deficiency of the function of procreation"? As you've said, that includes heterosexuality, in the sense that most heterosexual activities do not bring together a sperm with an egg. And, of course, it includes all other human activities. They are all a deficiency of the function of procreation, yes?Monky11 wrote: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.
And the only way to make sense of heterosexuality is to also class it as abnormal? Because of what you said above? The only way to make sense of any sexual act that does not lead to sperm meeting egg is to class it as abnormal? So, for example, all the various complex courting rituals of the human species, all the sexual pair-bonding activities that serve to bind parents together for the raising of children (but which do not themselves directly result in the conception of more children), the only way to make sense of these is to class them as abnormal?Monky11 wrote: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.
Couldn't we instead class all these human activities as part of a large complex process which, as a whole, tends to lead to the continued existence of the tribe?
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 24th, 2018, 7:16 pm ...physiological functions themselves don't seem to give rise to normativity, despite the attempt of rebranding them as "structural". They only become normative when the symbolic functions enter the game, which implies the construction of meaning.
That meaning is socially constructed is a moot point. Gravity is also socially constructed and that does not affect its normative force. The sexual function is on par with gravity: only a particular combination of partners and correct performance of the functiona can yield an offspring.
This objection was dealt with by Levin (Monist, 1984), linked in my original article. In essence, all these uses do not diminish functional performance and some are instrumental to it. A distinction must be made between possibilities of use and functional deficiencies: just because x can be use to phi does not entail that phi-ing is an impediment to psi-ing when psi is needed, as you seem to agree. So it does not necessarily violate the functionalist norm.We all know the natural functions of genitalia and reproductive organs in all species, but it's pretty obvious that mating strategies across organisms that produce eggs and sperms are diverse. Even human sexuality that remains restricted to reproductive functions is not reduced to their pure instinctive use, because we are not purely instinctive beings. If we thought such use is "structurally normative", then we should consider heterosexual eroticism fundamentally abnormal. The search for erogenous zones, kissing, fellatio, cunnilingus, masturbation and a whole bunch of other sexual practices that do not use genitalia and other body parts only for their primary natural functions, would have to be regarded as aberrations, too. And that goes also for things as subtle as being attracted to the shape of breasts, skin or muscle tone, the length of the neck, smiles, eyes, and so on.
[quite] It means that human sexuality is influenced by a lot of other secondary elements, which most likely are there to enhance the possibility of success of the primary functions and are as natural and important as them.[/quote]
Precisely. It is all part of sexual functionality, with some core properties and some subordinate or peripheral properties.
Although I agree with the overall conclusion that homosexuality is to be regarded as abnormal, that distinction must be made in different terms. It's only because it presents mating behaviors that run contrary to natural mating behaviors. They are facilitated, however, by the same natural mechanisms of mating (lust, pleasure, character bonding, etc.). In this point of view, normality is defined from the abstract concept of more or less naturally-favored behaviors.
This is compatible with my argument. I have No objections to your modified formulation.
[quite] Heteronormativity is then the general rule and the natural tendency, but all other deviations from the "norm" are still legitimate within the wide spectrum of human possibilities.[/quote]
While in principle I agree, a distinction needs to be made between the population norm (what is statistically typical) from the functional norm (what conditions are instrumental to reliably accomplishing some existentially indispensable outcome). Two different conceptions of normality that can be true or false independently of one another. To demonstrate narrow-scope abnormality it is sufficient to show only one kind of abnormality.
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
What I have heard is irrelevant to validity of my argument.
It is a moot point to say that ‘a person is abnormal’ (we all are in some way abnormal) but that some characteristic is abnormal. The entire field of normativity is concerned with just that.
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 25th, 2018, 1:06 am‘Design for a Purpose’ does not equal ‘must be understood primarily in terms of what existentially indispensable outcome it produces.’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.
What is indispensable to an outcome requies neither design nor purpose. Gravity need not be designed or have a purpose (it could be pure contingency) to be instrumental to falling. You need to apply the principle of intellectual charity.
Monky11 wrote: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.So, any activity that does not directly and immediately
Strawman argument from here on. I did not say ‘immediately’.
The only way to make sense of any sexual act that does not lead to sperm meeting egg is to class it as abnormal?
No. Functional normality does not limit alternative uses of the body.
Couldn't we instead class all these human activities as part of a large complex process which, as a whole, tends to lead to the continued existence of the tribe?
That would amount to abolishing the concept of normality/abnormality, right/wrong, which is essential for reasoning. What you propose is an implicitly nihilistic position.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Okay, so if a person was to come on this forum and tell you that you were abnormal because you views were so odd and fringe, would you consider that to be a philosophical observation or an ad hominem attack.
Language choice matters; it shapes thought. It is a short step from "abnormal" to "sub-human".
Is "sub-human" your intended meaning?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Ah, but who is misusing a word that is by it's nature has multiple meanings (dictionary and functional)? You guessed it... everyone!
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
But if your goal is to have other people understand you then you need to pay attention to normative usage in circumstance. And if you are redefining a word then try to make that very clear. Personally I don't think the OP has provided clarity on their definition of abnormal. Or provided any reasoning as to why the redefinition is of use.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
I think the semantic is pretty clear:
Consider some listed synonyms:
I have categorised them roughly by semantic by applying the "You are _ _ _ _" test" and checking how it feels:
Clearly negative
-------------------
aberrant
[abnormal]
unnatural
Implied negative
--------------------
anomalous
bizarre
odd
peculiar
strange
weird
Neutral
---------
atypical
irregular
unexpected
unusual
Positive
---------
exceptional
extraordinary
uncommon.
Obviously the above listing is not authoritative but I think most would find it relatable.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Why the but? I wouldn't say something was good but not morally wrong. I wouldn't say something is neutral but not morally wrong. I might say something is bad but not morally wrong.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
Exactly my point.Eduk wrote: ↑February 26th, 2018, 4:49 am Words can have multiple valid definitions. It is also valid to redefine a word to mean whatever you want. You can also misuse words deliberately, if you so wish.
But if your goal is to have other people understand you then you need to pay attention to normative usage in circumstance. And if you are redefining a word then try to make that very clear. Personally I don't think the OP has provided clarity on their definition of abnormal. Or provided any reasoning as to why the redefinition is of use.
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