Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
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.
What do you mean by “human”? And what dimension do you have in mind when you say “sub-“?Is "sub-human" your intended meaning?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
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...
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?Monky11 wrote:Strawman argument from here on. I did not say ‘immediately’.
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?
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?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.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
- 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
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: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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
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: 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.
Isn't that peripheral what makes us human?Monky11 wrote: Precisely. It is all part of sexual functionality, with some core properties and some subordinate or peripheral properties.
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:This is compatible with my argument. I have No objections to your modified formulation.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.
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.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.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
- Monky11
- Posts: 24
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 8:13 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
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.
- 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
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....
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
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.
- 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
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.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.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
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.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.
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.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.
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?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....
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- 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
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.Greta wrote:Atreyu appeared to just be saying, "To thine own self be true", to be as authentic as possible...
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Why Homosexuality is Abnormal but Not Morally Wrong
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