Satya: Until this moment I had never heard of the distinction you make between the terms “gay” and “homosexual.” I’m not saying you’re wrong; to be honest, I think it’s interesting. Are these distinctions par for the course in queer studies? They don’t seem to be very common in the mainstream discourse.
Let's try these definitions...
The way that the APA defines homosexuality is...
"A pattern of emotional, romantic, and sexual attractions to those of the same sex."
The way you seem define homosexuality is...
"The act of engaging in sexual behavior with those of the same sex."
The APA definition recognizes sexual orientation, whereas your definition only recognizes sexual behavior. If you define any sexual behavior that is not procreative as a sexual indulgence, then of course, by your definition of homosexuality, it would be just sexual indulgence.
To clarify, as I said before, I was using the terms, "gay" and "homosexual" to define different ideas only for
this discussion. That is not necessarily how other people would define those terms in the real world. I was simply making it evident that the definition you use for homosexual is not necessarily the same way that other individuals view it. In fact, your definition is only about 30 years old. There are those who define homosexuality as a mental illness. Those who define as a character flaw. Those who define it as a crime. And even those who define it as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality. I like the APA's definition best because it doesn't discount the important emotional and romantic elements of sexual orientation.
Of course, maybe the APA is wrong. It's simple for you to determine yourself. I'm assuming you are heterosexual. Assuming that you weren't having sex either way, could you fall in love with a man the same way that you could fall in love with a woman? Could you become romantically interested in a man, the same way that you could with a woman? If not, then it seems you have failed to account for a major part of the equation. Homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, is about more than just sex.
I don’t doubt that there are some same-sex couples that practice celibacy, but given my definition of homosexuality, I was under the impression that we were discussing erotic, or what we might today call “romantic,” relationships, particularly those that seek to be or emulate families or consummative couples. Indeed, in your original post you refer to “homosexual couples” and showed pictures of same-sex partners with children, in addition to a YouTube video in which a boy sings about his two “fathers.” It is this sort of arrangement—i.e., one in which two people form a romantic relationship, of which sexual intercourse or some other form of eroticism constitutes a part—that I had in mind.
Why are you only focusing on the sex part? That is what I don't understand. I'm sorry Nik, but your example didn't prove anything. Allow me to demonstrate....
I think heterosexuality qua heterosexuality is an indulgence. Surrounding it with other acts and desires, in my opinion, does not strip it of its fundamental character, which is sexual in nature. Suppose a man and woman, John and Samantha, have known each other since childhood and eventually find it to their benefit to live together—financial convenience, friendship, whatever. They may even take in an orphan to provide him with a home, responsibilities, and an education. But at no point could we reasonably call John and Samantha heterosexuals. Now suppose John and Samantha’s life plays out just as I’ve just described, except for the added detail that John and Samantha fuck each other or in some other way carry out erotic acts with each other. Now we can reasonably say that they are heterosexuals.
As you can probably tell, all I did was change the word "homosexual" to "heterosexual" and "Sam" to "Samantha" and your reasoning still applies. So what makes homosexuality an indulgence and what makes heterosexuality not an indulgence? Would you call heterosexuality an indulgence if a heterosexual couple chose to adopt children instead of having their own but continued to have sex anyways? Your example was ludicrous and meaningless, since all you did was try to narrow the definition of homosexuality to sex, but the exact same thing can be done with heterosexuality. Or is there some element that I am missing?
At any rate, it’s not clear to me that the separate definitions (i.e., “gay” and “homosexual”) remove the indulgence aspect of homosexuality in and of itself.
Pray tell, by your reasoning, if the people in the example had been John and Samantha, how would have it been any less of an indulgence for them if they had chosen to have sex? I'm sorry, but your example makes no sense and proves no point, only that you for some reason have a definition of homosexuality that only includes sex. So what is your definition of heterosexuality? How does it differ?
As for your example of the same-sex high school prom couple, you raise a fair point. It may be that I’ll have to reconsider what ought to be allowed in the public sphere. And by that I mean that I may end up taking a more austere approach to public displays suggesting homosexuality.
Good to hear.
One final clarification regarding your agreement with Sloe Djinn: I didn’t place non-procreative sex in the same category as homosexuality and oral sex, mainly because, as I said in your other thread, normal couples who are fertile can engage in sexual intercourse multiple times throughout, say, the course of a month, without the woman ever becoming pregnant.
That is fine enough, but you still have to account for any heterosexuals who use birth control or have had vasectomies or choose to have sex after becoming sterile. I'm sorry, but your line of teleological reasoning became quite ludicrous when actually applied to reality. I figured that if I demonstrated that you had to make an inordinate number of assumptions and exceptions, that eventually Occam's razor would come in and do its job by forcing your logic to accept the explaination with the fewest number of assumptions and exceptions. However it seems you don't base your belief of teleology on reasoning, so I don't imagine you are going to let go of that anytime soon. If you wish to restrict sex in your own personal life to simple procreative acts, then that is fine, but the moment you begin to judge others for their sexual behavior, you need to provide a reasonable argument, and as of yet I don't think you have one.
verpopulation.
