How is this different from the other examples you gave in the conceptual analysis course?
There you demonstrated concepts, like for example: democracy.
People argue about them, about their characteristics, etc.

Democracy too has no meaning beyond whatever content human beings pour into it.
The fact that the discussion about “naturalness” is one of the characteristics of the argument over homosexuality
proves that people feel it is essential and important.

I explained there that this is not true. Democracy has an essence, and the characteristics are tied to it. Essentialism versus conventionalism. Naturalness has no essence. It’s just a matter of definition, and in addition it has no implications whatsoever. Just empty babbling.

I do not understand at all this whole discussion about “naturalness.” Traveling by car or flying in an airplane is also not “natural.” So what?

The Torah prohibits homosexuality together with the prohibition of a married woman and a menstruating woman despite their “naturalness.” The prohibition stems from categories of holiness, unrelated to naturalness.

Obviously it is a disease (in the Darwinian sense of the word), and obviously it is not natural. We call behavior “unnatural” when it deviates from what we expect.

If you heard about a species of birds in which a few percent of the birds fly north for the winter, wouldn’t you think that was strange? Would you say it was “natural” because it happens in nature? The same applies to the phenomenon in which a few percent of men show no sexual interest in the opposite sex.

This is not an empty-content discussion. It is simply the question of whether it is a disease or not. That is, whether it is bad or not. Or more precisely, in a case where conversion therapies that work exist, whether it would be possible to include them in the basket of medications and treatments funded by the state, for example.

@Yosef, the necessary conclusions go even further. It is accepted that the state tries to limit the individual’s self-destructive choices (smoking, drinking, overeating), and it has a variety of means for that purpose. Today the state _encourages_ homosexuality. Funding an organization like “IGY,” for example, is similar to funding an organization called “Marlboro Youth.” And it is not only a matter of funding and active assistance — after all, an organization that encouraged smoking among teenagers would not only fail to receive support, it would also be legally restricted.