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.
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 »

LuckR I do think some people use the word abnormal properly :-)
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 »

Greta wrote: February 25th, 2018, 5:19 pm 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.
That would entirely depend on the argument. As I said, we are all abnormal in some way so a valid argument to that end could be constructed. If a well grounded and sound argument demonstrating my abnormality were constructed then I would be impressed; not offended.
Is "sub-human" your intended meaning?
What do you mean by “human”? And what dimension do you have in mind when you say “sub-“?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
Steve3007 wrote:So, any activity that does not directly and immediately...
Monky11 wrote:Strawman argument from here on. I did not say ‘immediately’.
OK, so if you are not talking about the immediate effects of our actions, then you can presumably admit that there are numerous human actions which are not a "deficiency of the function of procreation" but are part of the complex web of human activity that ultimately has led to the very successful reproduction of the human race? You could accept that homosexuality is not such a deficiency, even though it doesn't either directly or immediately lead to a sperm meeting an egg? Just as most heterosexual activity does not either directly or immediately lead to a sperm meeting an egg?
Steve3007 wrote: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 wrote: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.
What does right/wrong and nihilism have to do with it? I thought an essential part of your thesis was that you were talking about functional normality and making no comment on morality?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Steve3007 »

Were you planning to introduce the subject of morality once everybody had accepted that homosexuality is a deficiency of the function of procreation?
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Dark Matter »

Aberrations occur in nature all the time. It's called "evolution." The only question to consider is this: does homosexuality promote the general welfare of our species?
User avatar
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

Post by Count Lucanor »

Monky11 wrote: 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.
The mental representation of gravity, as well as of physiological properties and behavior, might be social constructs, but gravity, physiology and behavior themselves are not. So the concepts associated with them, including their normativity, are entirely dependant of their objective properties. But you cannot use the same criteria of normativity across all the fields of reality. The rules that define the physical properties and existential states of a rock are not the same that determine the range of existential states of a unicellular organism. And the ones of an unicellular organism are not the same of a multicellular organism. And the ones of a human being, among multicellular organisms, are not the same of any other mammal. Each of those present emergent properties that are not reducible to their basic constituents. Human sexuality is not reducible to its reproductive function, even though its reproductive function is what gave rise to its particular sexuality. As it turns out, this sexuality tends to be diffuse and diverse, allowing a wide range of possibilities within the heterosexual norm. I think it's pretty obvious that the mechanisms of sexual attraction operate in such a way that any combination of characteristics of potential sexual partners make them elegible. I think this sort of plasticity of human sexuality, into which converge both innate inclinations and environmental influences, is what allows the manifestation of homosexual behavior as a deviation from the norm. Perhaps it works somehow as the concept of "spandrel" proposed by Stephen Jay Gould, as a byproduct of our versatile sexuality:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
Monky11 wrote: 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.
My point is that there's no such function-specific norm in human sexuality. A norm should take into account all the elements of the structure, primary and secondary, which are put in relation to one and other. So, also their genesis and development, the "movement" of the structure. It seems that you call the norm only the primary elements and once they are fixed, you call them structural.
Monky11 wrote: Precisely. It is all part of sexual functionality, with some core properties and some subordinate or peripheral properties.
Isn't that peripheral what makes us human?
Monky11 wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote: 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.
I think in general we mostly agree, with the differences being found in the emphasis you put in the reproductive function as the defining trait of human sexuality. Your approach is more modular, while I think we should be focusing on the diffuse and complementary aspects which explain our sexual versatility.
Monky11 wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote: 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.


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.
I understand and agree with such distinctions, except that I don't find such functional norm to exist if we're not talking about pure physiology. In most organisms, the phisiology norm corresponds to the behavior norm; pure instinct dictates the agent's actions. In general, sexuality implies both, but in human sexuality, there's a partial relation or the relation is weak, naturally.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
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 26th, 2018, 7:37 am What does right/wrong and nihilism have to do with it? I thought an essential part of your thesis was that you were talking about functional normality and making no comment on morality?
I did not mean right/wrong in the moral sense, but logical sense.
User avatar
Monky11
Posts: 24
Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Monky11 »

Count Lucanor wrote: February 26th, 2018, 3:22 pm My point is that there's no such function-specific norm in human sexuality. A norm should take into account all the elements of the structure, primary and secondary, which are put in relation to one and other. So, also their genesis and development, the "movement" of the structure. It seems that you call the norm only the primary elements and once they are fixed, you call them structural...
I think in general we mostly agree, with the differences being found in the emphasis you put in the reproductive function as the defining trait of human sexuality. Your approach is more modular, while I think we should be focusing on the diffuse and complementary aspects which explain our sexual versatility.

The reason I select procreation as the ‘constitutive aim’ of sexuality, that is, a condition whose absense cannot be compensated by any other property or function, is because it is existentially indispensable. Without reproduction sexuality would make neither biological nor evolutionary sense. This objective fact alone serves as basis of a norm without negating other, peripheral norms. That is why I call it ‘narrow-scope’, to emphasise this interpretation-specific claim of validity. I agree that it may possible to explain sexuality differently, in which case (in order to invalidate my normative conclusion) it is necessary to show that some other explanation is at least as peparsimonious but more practically relevant. I doubt this can be demonstrated.

Now to give this argument broader context, this kind of approach is rather new. It is essentially a branch of Kantian transcendental constructivism, called Constitutivism.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Atreyu »

I agree that homosexuality is inherently dysfunctional for mankind, and that it is "abnormal" in the sense that only a fairly small % of people are gay. The more homosexuality you have in a species, the less reproduction, and eventually, if the % of individuals in a species rises beyond a certain threshold, the species will die out. This is common sense.

Whether or not it's morally wrong is, as usual, debatable. Everyone has their own morality. My position on this is it depends. If a person is born gay, then it's not immoral because there was no choice. However, if a person isn't 'really' gay (i.e. it's not 'in his genes'), and he is merely 'acting out' due to the socialization process, then I would consider that "immoral", simply because it's always "immoral" to me for a person not to be his "real" self, i.e. not to live according to his nature....
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 »

Atreyu gay people are functionally able to have children and often do want and have children. Be that via adoption, naturally or artificially. If everyone in the world was gay there would be no reason to simple assume there would be no more children. It is complex and for your view to be reasonable you would need evidence.
Similarly sexually preference is a case of nature and nurture. It is not set in stone. For example in ancient Greek times, as I understand it, the sex of the partner was not of chief concern. I have no doubt that if the group you identify with were not homophobic then you wouldn't be either.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
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

Post by Count Lucanor »

Monky11 wrote: February 26th, 2018, 7:52 pm The reason I select procreation as the ‘constitutive aim’ of sexuality, that is, a condition whose absense cannot be compensated by any other property or function, is because it is existentially indispensable. Without reproduction sexuality would make neither biological nor evolutionary sense. This objective fact alone serves as basis of a norm without negating other, peripheral norms.
A throne is a chair, so it could be said that its "constitutive aim" is to sit. But really? Actually its seating functionality may become secondary or even irrelevant for its throne function. It's true that if the world had to be restarted from scratch, without the heterosexual norm there wouldn't exist humans. Furthermore, as my approach proposes, homosexuality exists because heterosexuality exists. It becomes a possibility because the real "constitutive aim" of human sexuality is to be found in mating behaviors, not in the physiological functions. We are hardwired for sexual versatility.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Steve3007 »

Atreyu wrote:I agree that homosexuality is inherently dysfunctional for mankind, and that it is "abnormal" in the sense that only a fairly small % of people are gay.
I've read that it's about 10%. So, by the same argument, it is abnormal for an adult male to be 6'1" or taller.
The more homosexuality you have in a species, the less reproduction, and eventually, if the % of individuals in a species rises beyond a certain threshold, the species will die out. This is common sense.
As Eduk said, homosexuality doesn't stop people from reproducing. Also, it doesn't really make sense to say "if everybody did X then we'd all die out, therefore X is dysfunctional". You could say that about pretty much any profession, for example. If everybody was a computer programmer, we'd all starve.
Whether or not it's morally wrong is, as usual, debatable. Everyone has their own morality. My position on this is it depends. If a person is born gay, then it's not immoral because there was no choice. However, if a person isn't 'really' gay (i.e. it's not 'in his genes'), and he is merely 'acting out' due to the socialization process, then I would consider that "immoral", simply because it's always "immoral" to me for a person not to be his "real" self, i.e. not to live according to his nature....
That's an odd view. Things that we have no choice but to do are morally right. Things that we choose to do are morally wrong. So morality has nothing to do with whether or not harm is caused by those choices?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve, I suspect the last in is the wording. Atreyu appeared to just be saying, "To thine own self be true", to be as authentic as possible, whatever that authenticity may be. I expect that in the case of those compelled to kill and rape he's provide some qualifiers, perhaps related to personal growth and the kind of things that truly make us happy, rather than just satiated, which perhaps ironically leads to Epicurus's far-sighted hedonism.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong

Post by Steve3007 »

Greta wrote:Atreyu appeared to just be saying, "To thine own self be true", to be as authentic as possible...
Fair enough. Although I guess in the context of homosexuality that would mean "don't pretend to be gay just as an affectation". Given the difficulties of being gay, even in our modern liberal cultures, I would have thought relatively few people do this unless they're actors playing a part.
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 »

I didn't want a 2nd beer the other day but then the group I was with all had a 2nf beer and I guess it influenced my choice. I didn't, at the time, think it immoral.
Unknown means unknown.
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