Quote:
Originally Posted by vixticator
Both, maybe? I understand if you mean a rock has no desire/will etc but this makes no sense as analogy so you must mean something else, and I don't know what.
What I mean is that, except when speaking metaphorically, we do not call a rock 'blind,' because being able to see does not belong to what a rock is. We don't need some special term to indicate that a particular rock can't see, because no rock is able to see. Instead, we use the term 'blind' to indicate when an animal (such as a human being) that normally is able to see cannot see. The proper subject of the term 'blind' is always a thing normally capable of seeing.
Similarly, when I say that "Bob is infertile," I mean that his engaging in vaginal intercourse probably or (practically) certainly won't result in conception. I wouldn't say "Bob is infertile" just because he's a homosexual (or a celibate, or one who engages in masturbation, etc.) who doesn't happen to engage in vaginal intercourse. I also don't call particular acts 'infertile,' but rather a person who will not conceive or cause conception through vaginal intercourse.
That is, the proper subject of the term 'infertile' is always a person, considered with respect to what would occur as the result of their participating in vaginal intercourse. The act of vaginal intercourse is intrinsically ordered towards reproduction, even if a particular person engaging in it is infertile. Therefore any comparison between a homosexual act and a heterosexual act on the basis of whether or not the heterosexuals involved are fertile or not is just a bad comparison. You are comparing (a) an act that can never result in new life to (b) an act whose intrinsic purpose is reproduction. (b) remains true even if one or both of the people engaged in the act are infertile.