There are lots of other ways to interpret it! Forget not the words of the saints, that whenever you think there are two ways something could be, you should look for at least five ways. I’ll name one, and let you think of the other two:
3. People who exhibit homosexual behavior do so out of a choice to rebel self-destructively against what would be good for them.
(This is a somewhat secularized version of what I take to be the Catholic Church’s position on that particular matter.)
However, I think you mistook my point, which was a sort of self-sampling argument and not an argument about that particular topic. We shouldn’t take our own perceptions of what’s normal or natural very seriously on topics where we observe that there has been a lot of wibbly-wobbly change in perceptions of what’s normal or natural … because those topics are unusually likely to be ones where we’ve come to believe an unlikely local myth of normality or naturalness.
People who exhibit homosexual behavior do so out of a choice to rebel self-destructively against what would be good for them.
Which hasn’t been falsified either.
However, I think you mistook my point, which was a sort of self-sampling argument and not an argument about that particular topic. We shouldn’t take our own perceptions of what’s normal or natural very seriously on topics where we observe that there has been a lot of wibbly-wobbly change in perceptions of what’s normal or natural … because those topics are unusually likely to be ones where we’ve come to believe an unlikely local myth of normality or naturalness.
So are you claiming there are many societies out there where women don’t treat the dating game partially as a competition intragender status? Or is your idea of “avoiding self-sampling” limited to looking at the past 50 years of western culture and extrapolating?
There are two ways to ways to interpret the italicized statement:
1) most humans do not want to engage in homosexual behavior.
2) people who want to engage in homosexual behavior are “deviant” and likely to exhibit other “deviant” behaviors.
Note that neither of these versions were falsified by “the change in popular perceptions of homosexuality over the past fifty to seventy-five years”.
There are lots of other ways to interpret it! Forget not the words of the saints, that whenever you think there are two ways something could be, you should look for at least five ways. I’ll name one, and let you think of the other two:
3. People who exhibit homosexual behavior do so out of a choice to rebel self-destructively against what would be good for them.
(This is a somewhat secularized version of what I take to be the Catholic Church’s position on that particular matter.)
However, I think you mistook my point, which was a sort of self-sampling argument and not an argument about that particular topic. We shouldn’t take our own perceptions of what’s normal or natural very seriously on topics where we observe that there has been a lot of wibbly-wobbly change in perceptions of what’s normal or natural … because those topics are unusually likely to be ones where we’ve come to believe an unlikely local myth of normality or naturalness.
Which hasn’t been falsified either.
So are you claiming there are many societies out there where women don’t treat the dating game partially as a competition intragender status? Or is your idea of “avoiding self-sampling” limited to looking at the past 50 years of western culture and extrapolating?