However, I am thinking of revising my original argument to show that engaging directly (what I called "immanently") can, e.g., by exposing contradicitons, serve as a basis for metacritique (which I think it effectively did in my big post). — Jamal

Under this scheme, eristic is what happens when I fail to escape from the direct engagement, i.e., in Adorno's terms, fail to move from the particular (Bob's argument) to the metacritical universal (Christian ideology). But the point of my revision is that I do actually have to engage.

"Schizophrenics are mentally ill" is not a substantive claim, it proceeds from the definition of "schizophrenic". To know the word is to know that "mental illness" and "schizophrenia" stand in a genus - species relationship. It offers nothing new to the competent language user.

This is not at all the case with "Ali Chinese are mentally disabled" or "all trans people are mentally ill". — hypericin

But why is schizophrenia a mental illness? Why would anyone link trans to mental illness if there were not some type of similarity between being trans and being schizophrenic (as in they are both a type of delusion)? Maybe we should stop with the labels and just get at the symptoms of what we are talking about.

What makes sex so special that one can identify as the opposite sex but if someone identifies as another species or as the President - then that is just crazy. There is no consistency in the interpretation of the symptoms.

This is really just basic decency. If I were trans, or had loved ones who were, I wouldn't want to come here and have to deal with threads claiming that I or my loved ones were immoral and mentally ill based merely on group identification. — hypericin

But if you had a family member that was anorexic and they were told that their condition means that they have a distorted view of their own body, why would they be more accepting of this fact than trans people are of their condition as a delusion?

Early symptoms of delusional disorder may include:

Feelings of being exploited.
Preoccupation with the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends.
A tendency to read threatening meanings into benign remarks or events.
Persistently holding grudges.
A readiness to respond and react to perceived slights. — Cleveland Clinic

Actually I take all that back. I have an idea for a new op: "Conservative Christians are immoral and mentally ill". I'm positive I can make a better case than Bob Ross, without appealing to a questionable reading of Aristotle. — hypericin

Exactly. I have always said that the trans movement is like a religion. They are both mass delusions. This is just being consistent. Aristotle (or the input of any long-dead philosopher) isn't needed. We don't need to refer to long-dead philosophers to determine if an argument is logically sound or not.

Yes, absolutely. Where would you like to start?

The OP isn't about drag shows and that only came up because people were derailing the conversation to try yo get me to say something that is homophobic, bigoted, etc.

Like I said:

1. We have solid evidence that multiple people notified Jamal about the thread in hopes of getting it banned and some were actively suggesting, like Banno, to censor it.

2. No one contended directly with the OP: it is about gender theory—not ethics about sexuality.

3. RogueAI was trying to bait me into agreeing with Nazism to illegitimatize my position.

4. Multiple people decided I was a bigot for thinking that transgenderism is a mental illness and continued to push that claim even after being corrected on the definition of bigotry.

5. They continued to mischaracterize my views even after I clarified them. For example, most initial responders made claims that I support forced experimentation (or 'curing') of homosexuals and transgender.

This is only important insofar as it demonstrates that at least some of the leftists on here are not being intellectual virtuous; which I think everyone should be exhibiting—especially on a philosophy forum.

With that being said, the discussion has started to tame itself and is now getting more charitable and closer to actually discussing the OP; so I have high hopes that I will be able to have productive conversations with people who are sticking with the thread.

"Schizophrenics are mentally ill" is not a substantive claim, it proceeds from the definition of "schizophrenic". To know the word is to know that "mental illness" and "schizophrenia" stand in a genus - species relationship. It offers nothing new to the competent language user. — hypericin

Now you are claiming that a unsubstantive claim is one that is contained, deductively, in the definition of something; and this kind of claim is not bigoted.

1. That is not what bigotry refers to. It is an obstinate attachment to an unreasonable belief.

2. Definitions are subjective. By your logic, when transgenderism was considered, by definition, to be a mental illness called general dysphoria it would not have been bigoted for me to believe it. However, since they changed to definition to fit liberal agendas I am not somehow a bigot for using a different definition. Bigotry requires that I am holding on to my belief that transgenderism is a mental illness stubbornly, which means I am being closed-minded and acting in bad faith. You haven't demonstrated any of that.

3. If society decided to redefine schizophrenia so that it is not by definition a mental illness for suit a political agenda; then you, by your logic, would bigoted if you still believed it was.

Let's just move forward. You say I am failing to recognize the difference between sex and gender: what is sex and what is gender under your view?

We could talk about such things, but given the example you provided, I would simply concede that one should prefer a fertile marriage to a sterile marriage (ceteris paribus). Or using your own language, if it is better to marry a fertile wife than a sterile wife, then it is more choiceworthy to marry a fertile wife.

As to the more general question, we would need to specify the proposition in question. For example, we might want to talk about the proposition, "A sterile marriage or a sterile sexual act is necessarily illicit." I would say this relies on modal reasoning in the same way that "moral obligation" challenges rely on modal reasoning, and I think there are good Aristotelian answers to be had, but I will postpone the question for now given the complexity of this thread. That's the sort of question that could perhaps benefit from a different thread altogether. — Leontiskos

It seems relevant to many of the points made here though. It isn't considered immoral for sterile couples to marry. And if such marriages were considered wholly defective per se that would represent an extremely narrow view of marriage.

Anyhow, while I object to the idea of a sui generis moral good that is discontinuous from other goods, I do not think this means that all value judgements must become "moral judgements." Surely it is better to be born with a functional hand, but it is hardly a moral failing to be born with a mangled one. Likewise, is it immoral or even a sort of deficit for someone born sterile to marry?

This is what I mean by arguments from procreation being too weak. They have not traditionally been thought to preclude sterile heterosexual couples from marrying.

Under this scheme, eristic is what happens when I fail to escape from the direct engagement, i.e., in Adorno's terms, fail to move from the particular (Bob's argument) to the metacritical universal (Christian ideology). — Jamal

That set's a rather large task for oneself though, no? "Christian ideology," is incredibly broad. Even to only focus on the natural law tradition is quite a project. And it would require focusing on the natural law tradition, and not just "the real reasons" some conservatives are drawn to it (which strikes me as necessarily an argument from psychoanalysis of sorts). But there are lots of wrinkles there, not least that the status of homosexuality is not uniform across modern versions of the tradition, nor Christianity, nor conservatism. Yet surely those differences are important in considering the genealogy of why some strains differ.

Can there be a genealogical account of "Christian ideology," that makes absolutely no reference to Christian theology? Or one of the natural law that doesn't account for its philosophical basis? It strikes me as something like trying to explain the appeal of Marxism in the West entirely in terms of the "real motivations" of Western Marxists, as wanting to appear counter-cultural, hip, or transgressive, which, even if it is partially true, will also remain shallow. It doesn't explain the particulars. Costin Alamariu is a reactionary conservative and yet that whole set of masculinist identitarians tends to be quite accepting of homosexuality and its "classical roots." There is not a necessary linkage between the terms "reactionary," "Christian," "conservative," and any particular stance towards homosexuality.

Genealogical accounts are normally big door stoppers for a reason. One thought is that homosexuality was widely considered to be a mental illness, or defect of sorts by progressive liberals until relatively recently. So, if you want a complete genealogy, you have to look at why that changed, as a sort of broad, widely held default, and why particular groups did not find the drive towards this change compelling. But I think here, at the sociological level, you would have to look at particular theological traditions and bedrock assumptions there. This is probably besides the point for Bob though, who says he isn't a Christian, and so is probably not a good target for a critique of Christian ideology.

I think both these philosophers have been accused of committing ad hominem or the more general genetic fallacy. — Jamal

Well, in Nietzsche's case it's also just bad history, with no rigorous methodology, bordering on mere creative fiction. Also, his work is littered with emotional invective, so this criticism is always going to bite in at least some areas. :smile:

(Sorry, I can't help myself here. Nietzsche's many merits notwithstanding, I do not take him to be a very good historian to say the least.)

My problem with this is that I don't think, e.g., Nietzsche is validly critiquing Christianity by giving a psychoanalytic of the development of humanity over time. He never gives any coherent reasons that God doesn't exist, that morality doesn't exist without God existing, that morality is just socio-psychological, etc. Instead, you actively presupposes it throughout his works. His geneology of morals is a good read, but it doesn't even attempt to do ethics.

You can reduce ethics to pyscho-sociological inquiry unless you are a moral anti-realist. Are you a moral anti-realist?

This is a significant issue because you are not providing an alternative ethical theory to contend with nor are you contending with Aristo-Thomism by giving a genesis to Thomistic or modern conservative thought. It could be simultaneously true that natural law theory is true and humans discovered it with evil motives.

Likewise, you are trying to give a genesis of conservatives as a group and then trying to lump me in that general depiction. You simply don't have any reasons to believe I am bigoted, prejudiced, etc. even IF you had good reasons to believe there are a lot of bigoted, prejudiced conservatives out there. You are conversing with me and my ideas here: not on a debate stage where you address the crowd and make general remarks.

Homosexuality as a sexual orientation is not itself degenerate: I am not sure why you are assuming I believe that. Homosexuality as an act or behavior is because it wills in accord with what is bad for a human. You having sex with your wife is an attempt at realizing your and her nature—irregardless if your nature’s are defective or inhibited in some sort of way. — Bob Ross

Are you saying that heterosexuals ought to, or at least may, realise their real nature, whereas homosexuals ought not realise their really defective nature? Are you saying that the menopause is a defect, or old age is a defect?

My problem is you make these declarations of what is a defect and what is a real nature but you never tell me how you tell what's what, so that I can do the same. So I keep coming back, to try and find out what real natures are and what defects are again and again, because I cannot find the consistent basis. Should I not force my rhubarb because it is against its real nature to grow in the dark? I'm sure you will tell me the answer, but what I want is that basis that will allow me to tell for myself. Is it against our real nature to travel by motor car? Is it perhaps the real nature of horses to be ridden and pull carts for us? But, above all, how do you know?

That set's a rather large task for oneself though, no? "Christian ideology," is incredibly broad. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't mean I have to account for the entirety of Christianity. The task is just to trace the argument back to its source, not in Aristotle or even Thomas, but in Christianity as it finds itself now (in America, probably).

Right, I am just wondering about the general linkage there. I can think of American subcultures (hardcore punk, rap) that are extremely homophobic (lyrics peppered with slurs, etc.) and yet have shed almost all outward embrace of Christian culture. Whereas historically in the West negative attitudes towards homosexuality predominated prior to Christianity.

So for example, the linkage can go in the other way. People who have strong feelings about homosexuality and gender, etc. gravitate towards existing Christian frameworks, which you see in the embrace of "cultural Christianity," or the language can simply be rolled forward without its religious foundations. And this is why I actually think a psychological argument makes more sense, even if those arguments have their obvious flaws.

The culture war makes for very weird combinations here, such that "cultural Christians" sit alongside conservative Christians in condemning liberal Christians' embrace of various philosophies of sex, and yet until relatively recently any sort of "Christianity" that denied the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. would have been considered obviously the gravest sort of hersey, far above any opinion about sex.

2. No one contended directly with the OP: it is about gender theory—not ethics about sexuality. — Bob Ross

but once again: this just isn't true. I know it's not true because I did directly respond to the OP: in my response, I sympathized with you implying that gender and biological sex are dependent on each other, and I asked you not to use the term "liberal agenda" because it's terminology used for bigotry and fear. If you don't believe, the main people who propagated that term were political pundits appealing to those who don't like liberalism. It doesn't clearly describe anything that's going on in politics: it's vague, it points into a void. The reason why those pundits use the term is to induce fear; they want their listeners to think liberals have this unified ideological agenda, and our discussion showed that you agreed with that POV (point of view).

Me asking you not to use a particular term is not me "canceling you", it's just me wanting you to use clearer and less emotive terminology so I can understand your gender theory. You say that others have been trying to shut down the thread, but I personally have sent Jamal or other moderators no messages like that. I personally don't like to do stuff like that, at least in the context of "someone has an offensive or wrong point of view". If I think someone believes in nonsense, then I try to show them it's nonsense if I talk to them at all. I personally thrive on "offensive", it makes me feel alive, even though I will continue to respect Jamal's specific guidelines because I do think flaming and nazi perspectives tend to make internet discussion more bland and less interesting.

This is what I mean by arguments from procreation being too weak. They have not traditionally been thought to preclude sterile heterosexual couples from marrying. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Okay, but I would encourage people to actually look at an argument from a philosopher who has written on this topic either formally or informally. I just don't know any arguments that fall into the problem you've identified. Else, maybe try to formulate the argument that you are arguing against?

The general question here is to ask whether there is a real distinction to be made between, say, anal sex and coitus, even when one of the partners engaged in the coitus is naturally sterile. I think there is a very obvious distinction to be made. The position which wants to say, "If marriage cannot be between people of the same sex, then marriage cannot be between any sterile couple," is basing itself on the reasoning which says that there is no real distinction to be made between those two acts. I don't think any of that makes sense. There is a difference between an organ that is inherently sterile and an organ that is accidentally sterile (or sterile through some impediment).

The other issue here is that the arguments around marriage are generally political arguments and not moral arguments (in the sense of being restricted to individual morality). The reason societies throughout history have recognized marriage between couples of the opposite sex but not the same sex really is based on the procreative nature of opposite-sex unions. That sterile couples were not barred from marriage does not mean that marriage is unrelated to procreation. A sterile person is precisely an exception to the rule that people are not sterile, and a sterile opposite-sex union is an exception to the rule that opposite-sex unions are not sterile. A sterile same-sex union is not at all an exception; it is a metaphysical necessity. The modal reasoning is unable to take exceptional cases into account; the essentialist reasoning is not. ...The other issue here is that sterility is not only difficult to identify with certainty, involves an invasion of privacy, and is costly to verify, but that there are tons of cases where supposedly "sterile" couples eventually do conceive.

With that said, it is surely true that the intentional sterility of our culture mitigates the force of arguments connecting marriage to procreation, as I alluded to <here>.

(I'm a bit short on time, which is one reason why I don't want to open up this can of worms at the moment.)

but I personally have sent Jamal or other moderators no messages like that — ProtagoranSocratist

In fact, I haven't received a single private message complaining about this discussion.

There is a difference between an organ that is inherently sterile and an organ that is accidentally sterile (or sterile through some impediment). — Leontiskos

There is not any difference in the world -- only in the philosopher's mind.

There is not any difference in the world -- only in the philosopher's mind. — Moliere

You are claiming that there is no difference between a womb that cannot conceive and an anus that cannot conceive. That there "is not any difference in the world" between the not-being-able-to-conceive of the two particular organs in question.

I need not argue against such a position. I need only describe it to show its rational poverty.

You are claiming that there is no difference between a womb that cannot conceive and an anus that cannot conceive. That there "is not any difference in the world" between the not-being-able-to-conceive of the two particular organs in question.

I need not argue against such a position. I need only describe it. — Leontiskos

I am claiming that -- especially in respect to the original topic.

I'd rather say that your expression is something I need not argue against -- it describes your error clearly.

Where to go with that?

- Nowhere. I am happy to ignore someone who takes your position. I think its sheer lack of rationality will sort itself out, and I think the presence of that irrational claim in a public setting supports the position I've laid out.

If I am wrong then it is only to my detriment to ignore such a powerfully rational claim, but I'll take my chances.

(And note that it is possible to simply ignore positions or claims with which one disagrees.)

Yeh, we're the same there. I'm also willing to take my chances.

Leon, you go on about true philosophical engagement but this exchange between yourself and Moliere demonstrates perfectly that it must be bullshit. You know very well that Moliere meant there is no relevant difference, and yet you chose to pretend you didn't know it. It's eristic, clear as day.

I'd like to start somewhere in our presuppositions.

I don't think we've nailed these down at all, but that feels like the proper place to start if we're attempting to do philosophy.

There are some distinctions you've stated that I could start questioning, but then I feel like we'd go back to where we started.

In some ways then it feels like the most appropriate place to start is to ask -- where should we start in relation to thinking about sex, gender, and the various identifications and actions that result?

I've stated before that I'm basically an Epicurean on such things.

I believe you're a Christian on such things.

I have ideas about what "Christian" entails because of my own upbringing, especially with respect to the "conservative" brand of Christianity.

This all by way of leading to the place I think we could begin: What is the difference between liberal and conservative Christianity in the USA?

That feels far astray but it also feels at home to me: as a possible place to bounce off from that's not going to result in the same tired dialogue which, at least so I've expressed, looks inspired by bigotry (even though I don't believe you are a bigot the words are used by others and that retains a meaning)

EDIT: Also, it might be something so far astray that it's not for this thread. As in my first response I'm reaching for a root and that will produce different conversations. Ultimately, though, I'd like it if we could all stop talking about the specifics of sex and whether this or that act is eudomon or not -- we're not in a sermon here, we're thinking together about things that are hard to think about.

In fact, I haven't received a single private message complaining about this discussion. — Jamal

Thanks for revealing rhetorical methods for what they are.

You can reduce ethics to pyscho-sociological inquiry unless you are a moral anti-realist. — Bob Ross

I am not reducing ethics to psycho-sociological enquiry.

It could be simultaneously true that natural law theory is true and humans discovered it with evil motives. — Bob Ross

That's right. But you've misunderstood. I'm not saying that your motives, or those of earlier philosophers, are evil (although I'm not ruling it out). I'm saying that the concepts and arguments you use are not neutral philosophical tools, but are tools of power, formed by historical social conflict.

And if the discourse of natural law developed to legitimize certain ways of life and certain hierarchies, the very idea that it might be true is deeply suspicious. To me it's like saying "but what if racism is actually true?" Well, no: here is why we have racism [insert genealogical account here], and here is why the racists are making these arguments now. (I'm not saying you're a racist or resemble a racist).

Likewise, you are trying to give a genesis of conservatives as a group and then trying to lump me in that general depiction. You simply don't have any reasons to believe I am bigoted, prejudiced, etc. even IF you had good reasons to believe there are a lot of bigoted, prejudiced conservatives out there. You are conversing with me and my ideas here: not on a debate stage where you address the crowd and make general remarks. — Bob Ross

I characterized your ideas as conservative, but not so that I can accuse you of things you haven't expressed: we only have to look at your words to see evidence of bigotry, as several others have pointed out independently. And I hate to break it to you but we are effectively on a debate stage, and we are addressing the crowd, whether we know it or not.

Leon, you go on about true philosophical engagement but this exchange between yourself and Moliere demonstrates perfectly that it must be bullshit. You know very well that Moliere meant there is no relevant difference, and yet you chose to pretend you didn't know it. It's eristic, clear as day. — Jamal

No, this isn't true at all, and I think it shows up your own biases. You are again much too quick to jump to incriminations due to the emotional volatility of this issue.

Here is the proposition that Moliere (and you?) claim is true: <There is no relevant difference between an organ that is inherently sterile and an organ that is accidentally sterile (or sterile through some impediment)>.

The most obvious reason this proposition is false is because an organ that is inherently sterile is relevantly different from an organ that is sterile through some impediment. If you are a doctor and a woman comes to you saying, "I am having vaginal sex and I haven't been able to get pregnant, can you help me?," and a man comes saying, "I am having anal sex and I haven't been able to get pregnant, can you help me?," then you would try to help the woman but not the man. This is because conceiving new life in one's womb is metaphysically possible and even normal, whereas conceiving new life in one's anus is not metaphysically possible. This dovetails with the epistemic point I made, "The other issue here is that sterility is not only difficult to identify with certainty [...] but that there are tons of cases where supposedly 'sterile' couples eventually do conceive."

The other case is where the natural sterility is not due to a treatable impediment and we know this with perfect certainty. I think this case is still wrong, and easily known to be wrong. But offers no argument for his position. He only offers an abrupt, Monty Python-style contradiction, and that in response to a substantial post that I wrote out. In this case you would have to specify what counts or does not count as "relevant," for that is in no way obvious, and a simple contradiction doesn't constructively further the conversation in any way.

The most obvious reason this proposition is false is because an organ that is inherently sterile is different from an organ that is sterile through some impediment. — Leontiskos

I'd say the reason I'm short with your responses is this line of reasoning.

It looks entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. It's like saying "but the light was on!" when talking about a bank robbery.

Which is why I say it's in the mind of the philosopher. I assure you that the people who are having sex with their organs in various ways are not thinking about this distinction in any which way whatsoever.

I think the various rules around sex are a religious fetish that basically hurts people. Hence my mentioning things like conversion therapy. It's something that, if anyone wants religion to be seen as good, religion should recognize as a prejudice carried on into the world now. Sure it could be revived, but why would I want to hate more people than I already do? What benefit or goodness do I get out of that? Seems much happier to allow people to bone as they will

It looks entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. — Moliere

Well you've moved from "no difference in the world" to 's "no relevant difference," and I'm guessing that, at least on your pen, this idea of "no relevant difference" is an unfalsifiable claim. If it's not then you would need to spell out what it means.

It's a bit crazy that @Jamal accuses me of being engaged in "bullshit eristic" because he thought that I failed to interpret "no difference in the world" as "no relevant difference." This is wrong on so many levels. If someone wants to say "no relevant difference," then they obviously do not want to say, "no difference in the world." Further, hyperbolic speech on emotionally fraught issues is itself irresponsible. But beyond all that, my response in no way requires ignoring the hyperbolic nature of @Moliere's speech. @Moliere's claim looks to be clearly wrong even when interpreted hyperbolically.

The way that members are being treated in this thread is exhausting, and would not fly in any other thread. ...And it is moderators who are behind much of it. :yikes:

Is it against our real nature to travel by motor car? Is it perhaps the real nature of horses to be ridden and pull carts for us? — unenlightened

A Benny Hill joke I remember from my childhood: God, in his all-knowing wisdom, gave us ears for the purpose of having something upon which to attach our eyeglasses on. (It's humor of teleology gone wrong, if it needs being explained, and its funny as hell to me.)

But yea, there can be a cline of sorts: from functional two-headed animals being unnatural (though an occasional, rare, aspect of nature), to diseases being unnatural (though a staple aspect of nature), to anything that does not bring me optimal health or eudemonia or immortality of existence being unnatural (though all these are natural aspects of life), to anything that gives me the heebie-jeebies being unnatural (though its natural to sometime get them on account of natural aspects of reality), to anything I say "boo" to being unnatural (though its perfectly natural to dislike things and for these things to be).

Mostly just wanted to mention that joke, though. :razz:

It's not crazy to me what @Jamal said -- it was something I felt.

Well you've moved from "no difference in the world" to ↪Jamal's "no relevant difference," and I'm guessing that, at least on your pen, this idea of "no relevant difference" is an unfalsifiable claim. If it's not then you would need to spell out what it means. — Leontiskos

No one -- absolutely no one -- thinks about Aristotle while fucking.

Yes or no?

The way that members are being treated in this thread is exhausting, and would not fly in any other thread. ...And it is moderators who are behind much of it. :yikes: — Leontiskos

I think this thread is exhausting -- that I have to explain to someone that talking about others sex acts as a bad thing in the mind like they are schizophrenics that need help is the saddest thing I've had to deal with in recent memory here.

As in, yet again, here we are, in the same dumb bullshit I've always dealt with because Christians really care a lot about how others fuck -- not because they're fucking, but because others fuck wrong.

No one -- absolutely no one -- thinks about Aristotle while fucking. — Moliere

As in, yet again, here we are, in the same dumb bullshit I've always dealt with because Christians really care a lot about how others fuck -- not because they're fucking, but because others fuck wrong. — Moliere

This is the sort of hyperbolic, elevated, aggressive, intentionally insulting language that intentionally makes these issues impossible to discuss rationally.

Look, I didn't want to say it out loud, but I have you on ignore. I have for a long time. I had to take you off ignore to read your post, and it was the same sort of emotional post I've come to expect from you. Only a tiny minority of conversations I've ever had with you have gone anywhere. It honestly seems to me that the reasoning you consistently employ, in thread after thread, is purely emotional. That's why I don't usually engage you anymore. <This post> was the breaking point for me, four months ago. @Jamal read my dismissal as uniquely related to this thread and this topic, but it's not. I find Moliere's posts to lack cogency in general. I should have anticipated the way this would be construed as having to do with the topic at hand rather than Moliere in particular.

But it's worth noting that I highlighted what @Moliere said, claimed it is irrational, claimed that it will fall under its own weight, and decided not to engage further. This is much more charitable than trying to undermine @Moliere's claim through a sort of genetic ad hominem (which is precisely why I wanted to avoid delving into the fact that I have @Moliere on ignore, the leveraging of which is in itself is a mild form of (arguably non-fallacious) ad hominem).

This is the sort of hyperbolic, elevated, aggressive language that intentionally makes these issues impossible to discuss rationally. — Leontiskos

Where am I wrong?

Do you or do you not believe others -- every single other human being -- should be married before having sex and should only be married to an opposite such that children will be produced or reared?

I'd say that people can have sex however they want.

Some Christians agree.

What about you?

Seems like no.