Homosexuality : Ab Normal? (Part 2)

1. Science is strictly supposed to deal with “positive” statements, not normative ones. Misuse of positive (falsifiable, but provable from observed evidence) statements as “normative” is not scientific ideology, just political misuse of science. Science is value neutral, and has nothing to do with the normative. The statement that “science and medicine “masquerade” as natural” is meaningless. Science can make statements about something being genetic, based on strong correlations - but those are positive, falsifiable statements based upon evidence at that time.

2. violence being normativised: police torture is normative? (again the problem is of definition so I won’t harp on this much). POTA is normative? It falls in category C of my post. It’s legislative, but not normative. husband beating wife is NOT normative. Killing girl-children is NOT normative. In societies where it is, there is a case to be made upon why normative needs to change. But in most societies, they are bad practices that were driven from distorting the normative, the dharma, to use a much maligned term in indic traditions. They’re neither normative, nor legislative. Anyways my point is violence should not be part of normative, even if it’s “natural”. And it’s intended to clarify that “natural” or “genetic” has nothing to do with “normative”.

3. Society deciding normative: it’s the matter of definitions. Society will always define normative. People have choice of staying out of it, and working towards changing it, but society will only change normative when something is seen as a value by majority (or leaders who can influence majority (idealogical/political/religious…)). I still couldn’t find any reason in your take-2 why it should be in the normative, apart from “because i think it should be” or worse “everything should be”. No, that defeats the purpose of normative. I can say “homophobia should be in normative”, and it’s hegemonic to demand that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against. And it will be equally valid, by your approach.

4. How can you keep the normative in place and expect to end discrimination against those out of the normative band

By legislative reforms, by building awareness, changing misconceptions, by working towards a society that tolerates difference from the norm … Let me ask you, how do you expect to change the normative? By demanding that it be changed? The problem is harder there, no? Especially since you’re not saying “why”?

1. “The whole definition of normative is premised on the existence of that which isn’t normative”

It’s equivalent to saying that moral is premised on the existence of that which is immoral. Normative is about “ought” or “should” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative).

1. “I don’t agree with your reading of what I’ve written. I have made as much of an argument against discrimination against homosexuality, as I argue for it to come into the folds of the normative”

As far as latter is concerned, you haven’t answered the “why” that I asked. Your second post still don’t say why.

1. “The second thing I disagree with is your definition of normative. It’s not about positive values. It’s, as I’ve mentioned before, about keeping a patriarchal class structure in place.”

It’s not my definition of the normative. The second sentence is, simply, far fetched. Dragging patriarchy in each and everything seems to be the evolving trend. You still haven’t given what definition of normative you agree with. “anything that’s about keeping a patriarchal class structure in place” is not a valid definition of normative, because it will cease to be true if patriarchy is broken down, society becomes classless, or whatever. Normative will still be around in such a society.

1. “Value is a word that harks to a wholly separate discursive universe: that of ethics”

A normative statement is “by definition” a statement of value. It’s the context which decides, of value to whom? Ethics is considered “normative” branch of philosophy, as opposed to metaphysics or etymology.

1. “The contradiction implicit in your own headline is a case in point: you call your post meta-normative, ie harking to its own normativeness, which according to you, provides a space to espouse positive values, but according to me, is hegemonic”

I called my post meta normative take on homosexuality because it makes a normative claim (homosexual support groups “ought not” demand inclusion in normative, because such an approach is not of value to the debate). I call it non-normative also. It was TIC. But I’ve long stopped expecting people to get such things. I’ve argued why it is not of value. You’re not addressing the points and labeling the approach hegemonic. That’s fine with me, but that takes us nowhere.

1. Sexual preference vs sexual practices: Are practices not part of normative domain? In fact normative deals more with practices than orientations. It’s laying down the rules for what practices are fine and what are not fine — in what are of value and what are not. So the difference might be huge, but it doesn’t change my question — why homosexuality alone should be part of normative and not, say pedophilia/incest (both could be an orientation)/masturbation(even this is not normative in most societies, is it?).

2. “homosexuality is against the order of nature” is a positive (and falsifiable) statement, as opposed to a normative one. There is enough “positive” data, that is enough to repeal such Victorian law without going into “normative” angle, which anyways you’re not going beyond making a repeated appeal: “it must be part of the normative”. Why.

regards,
asuph.