Dr. Alexander Pruss's Blog called, "Sexual Orientation" against same-sex sexual relationships: Minh's commentary

 Consider the following two claims that some people seem to accept [so, for example, i guess that most secular college students would accept these 2 claims]:

1. Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be in a same-sex sexual relationship than opposite sex sexual relationship, and vice versa–no…rather, they are on par or equal to each other].

2. Heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are on par [so it’s not like it’s better to be heterosexual than homosexual , or it’s not like it’s better to be homosexual than heterosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than homosexual, or it’s not like it’s better to be bisexual than heterosexual–no! Rather these three orientations are simply on par or equal] , and persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another [so, if i’m a homosexual, i do not have reason to try to change to be heterosexual or bisexual, etc. because they are all on par to each other].

I don't know what exactly "on par" here means—I think it's some combination of morally on par, should be treated equally by society, equally valuable and equally normal.

I will argue that (1) and (2) are in tension [i interpret pruss to be showing that you cannot accept these two claims. So, both of the claims goes awry even though many college students and maybe you probably just accepted both claims intuitively. Pruss is showing that one would have to reject both of these claims that one original thought were good to accept].

Suppose that George is sexually attracted to people, male or female, of a particular ethnicity, and not at all towards anybody, male or female, of any other ethnicity. We would think this weird and maybe just a little perverted even if we accepted (1) and (2) [so george being limited in his sexual attraction to only a particular ethnicity is weird and maybe a little perverted] . After all, why should George limit his romantic options to members of a particular ethnicity? Indeed, his attitude would border on racism [so george limiting his sexual attraction to only people of a particular ethnicity borders on racism. But racism is bad. Nobody should be racist, including george. So george should not be a racist or not want to be a racist. But if we grant george that it is ok for george to limit his sexual attraction to only a particular ethnicity, we would grant george that it is ok for george to be racist. But we should NOT want george to be a racist. So we should NOT grant george that it is ok for george to limit his sexdual attraction to only a particular ethnicity. It is not ok for george to be a racist by limiting his sexual attraction to only a particular ethnicity] . Granted, if George hadn't done anything to choose his pattern of sexual attraction, and couldn't overcome it, we would not morally criticize George for his limiting his sexual interest to that ethnicity. But there would still seem to be something wrong with George [so even IF george were born with this limiting sexual attraction to only a particular ethnicity or he did not do anything to cause this limitation or he could not overcome it–STILL, there’s something wrong with george because of his sexual attraction limitation to only a particular ethnicity]

[maybe one objection against pruss is that maybe george just has a preference toward a particular ethnicity. So, maybe i just have a preference toward black people or white people or asian people. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with me having hat preference right? Well, pruss says:] I am not talking here of a mere preference. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with an Elbonian preferring Elbonians [by the way, elbonians are an imaginary ethnicity group] . But to be unable to be sexually interested in anybody but Elbonians is limiting, unfortunate, not quite right. And it is particularly odd if one isn't Elbonian oneself. It is certainly sub-optimal, given that sexual relationships with Elbonians are on par with sexual relationships with non-Elbonians, and it is not a good idea to have artificial limits in the difficult task of finding a suitable romantic partner [So, george being limited in his sexual attraction to only elbonians and not any other ethnicity is limiting, unfortunate, not quite right, sub-optimal, and borders on racism. The reason george’s sexual orientation is limiting, unfortunate, not quite right, sub-optimal, and borders on racism is that george being sexually attracted to elbonians or being sexually attracted to black people or being sexually attracted to white people or being sexually attracted to asians are on par. Being sexually attracted to one particular ethnicity is not superior to being sexually attracted to another ethnicity. But if so, then something is wrong with george who is sexually attracted to only to a particular ethnicity. It is as if george’s sexual attraction dares to claim that it is SUPERIOR to be sexually attracted to elbonians than blacks or white or asians. But this claim of george’s sexual attraction is  limiting, unfortunate, not quite right, sub-optimal, and borders on racism. Therefore, this is bad for george to be limited in his sexual attraction in this way. Moreover, it is also bad for george to have this limitation in finding his suitable romantic partner, especially when friendzone is on the rise, when being treated as a brother is on the rise. If so, then pruss continues:]. Furthermore, if George were not in a relationship, and there were a pill that had no side-effects and could remove the limitation, it would be reasonable for George to take the pill, at least assuming (1).

But the heterosexual or homosexual is in a similar state to George. The heterosexual man and homosexual woman is limited in sexual attraction to to women. The homosexual man and heterosexual woman is limited in sexual attraction to men. If same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par (as per (1)), then there is something sub-optimal in value here—an odd limiting of possible partners on the basis of a quality, maleness or femaleness, that is basically irrelevant to sexual relationships according to (1) [so, let me explain this real quick, so as an analogy to the case of george’s sexual attraction making him limited, unfortunate, not quite right, sub-optimal, and bordering racism–The heterosexual man and homosexual woman should NOT want to be limited in sexual attraction to to women. And The homosexual man and heterosexual woman should NOT want to be limited in sexual attraction to men. Because then there would be something limiting, unfortunate, not quite right, sub-optimal, and bordering orientationalism–[by the way, i just created that word, but basically it has a negative connotation. You do not want to be bordering orientationalism similar to how you do not want to be bordering racism]. For example, that heterosexual man is limited in his sexual attraction to only women and that homosexual woman is limited in her sexual attraction to only women. But this is limiting, unfortunate, not quite right, sub-optimal, and bordering orientationalism. So you do not want to be the heterosexual man or homosexual woman because it is bad in the sexual attraction limitation.]

 So, if (1) holds, then there is something not quite right with homosexuality and with homosexuality [pruss has a typo here, it should say something like, homosexuality and with heterosexuality]—it is a limiting of the relational options [remember that the artificial limitation is exactly where the orientation goes awry by the way]. Moreover, there would be reason to change one's orientation to bisexuality if one could do so easily and with no side-effects, thereby removing that restriction [so if you could take that pill to change to bisexuality–in which you are LESS limited in your sexual attraction–you should take it, which disproves claim 2 that persons of one orientation do not have reason to try to change to another because they DO actually have reason to change to another orientation. So, even though many college students would accept claim 2, the argument above just showed that claim 2 is false.]

Thus, if (1) holds, bisexuality has a privileged status among sexual orientations, and, in particular, (2) is false. [meaning if you accept the first claim that same sex and opposite sex sexual relationships are par—then you actually accept that bisexuality would be SUPERIOR to homosexuality or heterosexuality because it is less limiting, less unfortunate, less not quite right, less sub-optimal, and not orientationalism. Therefore, you would falsify claim 2 that the three orientations are on par and you just falsified the claim that the homosexual or heterosexual do not have reasons to change their sexual orientation because you just showed from the reductio that they should change to be bisexuals. Basically, if you accept claim 1, you reject claim 2.]

Now, basically, pruss has you in an uncomfortable spot. You’re forced to say that bisexuality is superior to heterosexuality and homosexuality. And that those with the latter two orientations should try to change their orientation to bisexuality if there’s a pill for it. But if you want to escape this uncomfortable spot, pruss continues: One can, of course, contrapose the argument—and I think one should. If bisexuality does NOT have a privileged status among sexual orientations, then (1) is false. Let me explain this: Contraposing an argument says that a conditional statement is true if, and only if, its contrapositive is true. For example, "If it is raining, then I bring my umbrella." — "If I do NOT bring my umbrella, then it is not raining."

In Pruss’ argument, we would be contraposing the argument of the original reductio “IFF (1) is true, then bisexuality DOES have a privileged status among sexual orientations” we would change that into being the newer claim “Since bisexuality does NOT have a privileged status among sexual orientations–so (1) is false.”

Meaning, if you want to salvage the claim that bisexuality is NOT superior to other sexual orientations–then you have to reject (1) that Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par.

 [but if it is false that “Same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationships are on par” then either same sexual relationships or opposite-sex sexual relationships has to go. Either same-sex sexual relationships are inferior to opposite-sex sexual relationships or vice versa. But one would want to hold to the basic intuition and basic truth that opposite-sex sexual relationships are morally ok, valuable, normal, and should be treated equally by society–even most college students would accept this. But it is NOT a basic intuition and basic truth that same-sex sexual relationships are morally ok, valuable, normal, and should be treated equally by society, especially considering the fact that many people and many societies are against same-sexual sexual relationships.. So the same-sex sexual relationships being ok or on par is exactly where the 1st claim goes wrong. Therefore, same-sex sexual relationships are not ok. It is actually immoral, not valuable, abnormal, and should not be treated equally by society. But if so, then same-sex sexual relationships are wrong.]