A little head’s up: Many (quite many, actually) of us men and women do not engage in sexual behaviors with others with the intend of procreation in the form of begetting offspring. — javra

A little head's up: I never claimed anything to the contrary.

So a mental illness is whatever "the professionals" or "society" says it is? — Count Timothy von Icarus

To a large extent, yes. These are weighty science-based questions, and we often have to depend on medical experts. They don't always get everything right of course. But in the case of homosexuality, the medical communities and societies around the world stopped regarding it as a mental illness long ago. In the decades since, that seems to have been the right call. Do you disagree? Do you think homosexuality belongs back in the DSM?

Yea, I think you missed the whole gist of my post to you. To sum things up: (healthy) sex ain't about the begetting of chidlren.

As to the whole burgeoning homosexuality vs. naturalness issue:

Scientists observe same-sex sexual behavior in animals in different degrees and forms among different species and clades. A 2019 paper states that it has been observed in over 1,500 species. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#

The natural world as unnatural? Or maybe just sick and in need of the latest pharmaceuticals to clean it all up.

- I would suggest trying to find a thesis that I actually defend within the post you want to respond to, quote that thesis, and then respond to that thesis. That's a good way to interact with the ideas I am presenting. In other words: try arguing with things I've said, rather than things I've not said.

For example, look at the way I began the post:

how can you claim that "group tendencies in no way determine individual proclivities"? — Leontiskos

That's a telltale sign that I am going to argue against the thesis within quotation marks.

I already quoted you in the post I gave.

As to:

how can you claim that "group tendencies in no way determine individual proclivities"? — Leontiskos

No quibbles there. Hence the ancient Greco-Roman world, for just one example, being replete with homosexuality. ... Without it being either unnatural or indicative of insanity.

I already quoted you in the post I gave. — javra

Right, and as I already pointed out, I have no idea how your response is supposed to be a response to the quote you quoted. It's as if you were responding to a post that I never wrote, but that you instead created in your head and then imputed to me.

Right, and as I already pointed out, I have no idea how your response is supposed to be a response to the quote you quoted. It's as if you were responding to a post that I never wrote, but that you created in your head and then imputed to me. — Leontiskos

Not having read the entirety of this thread, its quite possible that i could have misinterpreted your stance. In which case, my bad.

To clarify: Do you uphold that genders are necessarily tethered to biological genitalia of the body or do you not uphold this? Thanks for the reply.

Indeed, the removal of homosexuality from the DSM is a fine example of a moral move that was not just despite, but against, conservative Cristian dogma. Of the gap between Aristotelian morality and the impoverished Christian interpretation hereabouts.

@Count Timothy von Icarus, you have more familiarity with Aristotle than I - what do you make of ? Is Bob in line with neo- Aristotelian thinking?

In which case, my bad. — javra

No worries.

The thread considers gender in terms of social roles, and one of the theses I explicitly opposed in the post you responded to is the thesis "that differences between males and females do not flow out into the social lives of human beings."

So we can infer that one of the theses I was arguing for was: <differences between males and females do flow out into the social lives of human beings>. This involves the corollary that sex bears on social roles.

So we can infer that one of the theses I was arguing for was: <differences between males and females do flow out into the social lives of human beings>. — Leontiskos

Ah. Again, my bad for my specific reply to you.

Maybe I overly conflated your views with those of @Count Timothy von Icarus, who from what I've so far read at least alluded to homosexuality being either unnatural or an illness.

It's a complex issue. In my cognitive sciences and anthropological studies of human sexuality while at college, for instance, I was taught that humanity can be divided into fifths on a sexual preference spectrum. The two extreme fifths are 100% either purely heterosexual or homosexual. The middle firth is perfectly bisexual. With in-betweens on either side. Can't find a quick reference to this, but I continue to maintain this perspective in light of both history and current human culture(s). And, as per my previous post addressing the animal kingdom for example, I find homosexuality and bisexuality to be both natural and just as potentially healthy as any heterosexuality. (utterly heterosexual though I myself am).

I do find this pertinent to the discussion. But, if it doesn't contradict your own views, once again: my apologies for my previous posts to you.

- No worries. There are many extremely antagonistic posters in this thread, so I am trying to write heavily syllogistic posts and then stick to what I've said. I will try to get back to this tomorrow.

But if the urge for men to procreate with women is found more in men, and is not merely a result of gender norms, then how can you claim that "group tendencies in no way determine individual proclivities"? If that were true then such urges would simply not be found more in men. — Leontiskos

Because, individuals can act in ways contrary to how groups as a whole behave. My species and gender determine the range and distribution of behaviors available to me as a human male. I can impregnate, but I cannot give birth. But this range is incredibly wide. It is therefore not accurate to say that my gender "determines" how I behave. If you knew only my gender, you might have ideas about how I can behave, and how I am likely to behave. But my actual behavior would be unknown to you, as gender does not determine it.

Looks like this thread is revealing itself as the Conservative Christian echo chamber that it at first pretended not to be. No doubt it will go for another forty pages of theological babble.

No need for others to provide the walls. But it remains a puzzle as to why such stuff is permitted in a philosophy forum. — Banno

It very quickly produced a heated philosophical debate, and I've been enjoying posts by you and others which oppose the OP's bigotry and religious dogmatism. So I'm going to let it stand.

And as @Count Timothy von Icarus points out, the discussion is the perfect specimen of the degenerate state of moral discourse described in the first chapters of After Virtue, in which (in my loose interpretation) Christian conservatives rely anachronistically on concepts that no longer have any shared social basis, and the liberals, leftists, and moderate conservatives (if they still exist) are largely emotive in their opposition.

Well, that's MacIntryre's view. Me, I'm definitely not on the fence. I'll make a post about it, maybe.

Me, I'm definitely not on the fence. I'll make a post about it, maybe. — Jamal

Please do.