Y.N. Harari on the nature of homosexuality

How is this different from the other examples you gave in the conceptual analysis course?
There you demonstrated concepts. For example: democracy.
Debates are held about them, about the characteristics, etc.

Democracy also has no meaning beyond what people pour content into it.
The fact that the discussion about ”naturalness” is one of the characteristics of the debate about homosexuality,
proves that people feel that it is essential and important.

I explained there that this is not true. Democracy has an essence and the characteristics are linked to it. Essentialism versus conventionalism. Naturalness has no essence. It's just a matter of definition and it also has no consequences. Just mental confusion.

I don't understand the whole discussion about 'naturalness' at all. Even driving a car or flying in a plane is not 'natural'. So what?

The Torah prohibits homosexuality along with a prohibition on the wife of a man and a woman despite their 'naturalness'. The prohibition stems from gender holiness, regardless of naturalness.

It is clearly a disease (in the Darwinian sense of the word) and it is clearly unnatural. We call behavior “unnatural” when it deviates from what we expect.

If you heard about a bird species in which a certain percentage of the birds fly north for the winter, wouldn't you think that was strange? Would you say that it was “natural” because it happens in nature? The same is true of the phenomenon in which a certain percentage of men show no sexual interest in the opposite sex.

This is not an empty discussion. It is simply a question of whether it is a disease or not. That is, whether it is bad or not. Or more precisely, in the case that there are conversion treatments that work, can they be included in the basket of drugs and treatments funded by the state, let's say.

@Yosef, the conclusions that are sought go even further. It is accepted that the state tries to limit the destructive choices of the individual (smoking, drinking, overeating), and it has a variety of means at its disposal for this purpose. Today, the state _encourages_ homosexuality. Funding an organization like “Iggy”, for example, is similar to funding the “Marlboro Youth” organization. And it is not just about funding and active assistance – after all, an organization that encourages smoking among youth, not only would not support it, but would also restrict it legally.