Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

In Ayn Rand Answers, pg. 18, she says;

All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as neccessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults.

I would not say that that answer makes for a clear, unqualified statement that "homosexuality is immoral". In fact, it leaves wide open the idea that its moral status is contextual.

Let me start with an example of a similar statement a speaker might make:

"all laws against drugs must be repealed. I'm not saying that drug use is necessarily moral, i am just saying there should be no law against it".

Maybe we read things differently, but the 'necessarily' in this statement looks like a buffer against the speaker's advocacy of legalisation - to stress that she is not saying this because the act is necessarily moral (as would be generally expected of one who might want laws repealed against something). I would not think the speaker is stressing that she is open about the morality of drug use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe we read things differently,

We do. Ayn Rand was usually very specific in her words. Her statement about homosexuality's morality would have been definite had she said;

"All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as neccessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."

However, she qualified her statement to allow for context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand was usually very specific in her words. Her statement about homosexuality's morality would have been definite had she said;

"All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as neccessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."

However, she qualified her statement to allow for context.

I found this quote in Ayn Rand Answers and thought it may have indicated a change in AR's thinking on the topic, but I checked the dates and found that this answer was from 1968, while the bald "I regard it as immoral" answer was from 1971. So if the answers do show a change, it's in the direction of a more general evaluation. However, I don't think such brief answers can tell us anything definitive either way.

One thing I do find interesting is that Robert Mayhew chose to omit the 1971 answer from his book and include the 1968 one. Without asking Dr. Mayhew, we don't know why, but he has said that he consulted with Leonard Peikoff on the selection and editing and that "Dr. Peikoff did not want the book to present anything that contradicted or could be taken to contradict what he knew to be AR's views on some topic." So perhaps Dr. Peikoff knew her evaluation of the immorality of homosexuality to be less broadly applicable than the 1971 answer would indicate.

Mark

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if people have referred to this talk during this thread previously but in "Love, Sex, and Romance" (available at The Ayn Rand Bookstore), Dr. Peikoff clearly says that Homosexuality (in good people) is abnormal but not immoral. He claims to know perfectly moral people who are homosexual. A form of homosexuality that he doesn't see as immoral is one where you have a boy who is very intellectual in an environment where such intellectuality is not admired by his classmate, etc. Eventually he meets another boy who is also intellectual and who accepts his intellectuality. The gay boy falls in love, and sometimes both boys are gay. Now this is just a pattern that he has encountered but the roots of the homosexuality is formed in early childhood.

I know of a guy who is gay who was traumatized by both parents at an early age and family members in regards to the issue of sex, very very early. One of those parents is not to blame because of the abuse (in various forms) that he/she experienced in his/her own early life. This friend of mine early in life experienced attraction to both sexes. But early in life there was a predominant attraction to boys. He can identify now that he repressed his homosexuality because his fear of peers, society and family members. When he was 14 he saw for the first time a beautiful blonde Italian across the gymnasium, and it was then that he knew for sure, though he still repressed his feeling for four years. At 19 he accepted his sexuality and pursued the boy, who was by then his best friend after four years of estrangment. That relationship ended tragically but it taught him a great lesson in courage. Now he is a confident and charismatic (homosexual) who is among the most brilliant people I have ever encountered. For all I know he is not immoral. I certainly cannot call his homosexuality an immorality, given what he has revealed to me.

Junius Junius.

John Ridpath in a question and answer period during one of his taped lectures, I believe it is The Morality of Capitalism (but correct me if I'm wrong), where he is asked about homosexuality. He does not believe it is immoral. Though, he sees it more as a tragedy, where the men/women will never experience life and sex as it can and should be. John Ridpath is not gay.

I know that Ridpath has a sympathy for people who are still guided by their sense of life, and encourages that they study philosophy so that they can fix the errors and problems that they must have initiated when they were not in full control of their consciousness.

Very few people reach the level of psychological health that men like Peikoff, Binswanger, Brook, and Ridpath, et al., achieve.

I just recalled that in the Peikoff lecture aformentioned, he does say that he is convinced that there is no psychologist living today who can cure homosexuality, and there won't be one for a long time to come.

Junius Junius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do. Ayn Rand was usually very specific in her words. Her statement about homosexuality's morality would have been definite had she said;

"All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as neccessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."

However, she qualified her statement to allow for context.

Yes, but my contention is that this statement says nothing - neither that she thinks it is moral nor immoral nor that she is still open about it (context-depending). The statement is not definitive either way. To conclude from this that she made a substantive statement about homosexuality is just wrong, RationalCop.

(e.g. What would stop someone from interpreting the 'necessarily' as meaning she is not (yet) sure whether it is moral or immoral -i.e. absolutely? can you honestly say that's not a possible interpretation? Can the 'necessarily' only mean that "it depends on the context"?)

The reason i read this differently is because of the 'BUT' in the statement. She had to contrast what follows (the 'but') with a position that does not necessarily cause -or is the basis of - that conclusion. i think that's common in speech, RationalCop. But perhaps we can agree to disagree on that one and leave it alone, as long as we are both honest in our reading.

The only statement that does tell us a clear, indisputable position (grammatically, philosophically, etc), therefore, is the one from the Q&A - whether you accept it as qualifying as part of "Objectivism proper" is of course another issue. (I asked Mark to tell me what he considers to be part of "Objectivism proper" and i'm not sure he has answered the question. Unless of course i should take his statement on OPAR as his answer?)

I have recommended that other people here read what Capitalism Forever said from page 2 onwards (it's only a few pages) so that we could make more progressive steps in the direction of a conclusion. It's possible CF has changed his mind over the years, but that doesn't matter: his position was certainly rational and i am prepared to defend it, even against him! (until someone shows its indefensibility). I have my own alternative - but fundamentally similar - argument, as does EC apparently, but it would be a waste of space if the arguments that have come before us are not even disputed before we consider something else.

(I have not said, by the way, that it is only those against the immorality argument who have the responsibility of proving their position. I said that they also have that responsibility, particularly with respect to a forum that i expected to hold a position that's consistent with "what Ayn Rand [actually] said...". But i see that this is not getting us anywhere because it is bringing other debates onto the forum, so i humbly suggest we take it from Capitalism Forever's actual arguments for the immorality of homosexuality. yes?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if people have referred to this talk during this thread previously but in "Love, Sex, and Romance" (available at The Ayn Rand Bookstore), Dr. Peikoff clearly says that Homosexuality (in good people) is abnormal but not immoral.

I've never heard of that talk, but i also said the 'abnormal' part earlier in the discussion (I said "it is at least abnormal"), but even this bit was rejected. I think i am prepared to argue that something that is 'abnormal' is necessarily immoral if 1.it can be changed 2.it can be changed 3.it can be changed. [Especially if it is something that constitutes an important part of someone's life (their sex life, for example, is much more important than their ice-cream life - i would understand if they think it is not worth their effort changing their 'issues' in the latter department.)]

It can be changed if one is not born that way.

Objectivism can show that no one is born with any particular sexual preferences.

But i still prefer that we first exhaust CF's arguments - before we get sidetracked again.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but my contention is that this statement says nothing

We still disagree then, whether we agree to disagree or not. :) (never liked that phrase - disagreement by it's very nature requires no agreement to be accomplished, but I digress)

What would stop someone from interpreting the 'necessarily' as meaning she is not (yet) sure whether it is moral or immoral -i.e. absolutely? can you honestly say that's not a possible interpretation? Can the 'necessarily' only mean that "it depends on the context"?
Whatever may be common in speaking, it is also very common in Objectivism that the morality of an action is judged by the particular contexts involved, which makes my "reading" entirely reasonable.

I do agree you present a reasonable possibility, which in either case still casts a discrepancy on an outright position of the moral status homosexuality, at least at that time. mwickens brought up a more substantive point however in noting that the quote I listed was 3 years before the other quote being referred to. Thus, regardless of how she intended that sentence at that time, she apparently came to a more decisive conclusion regarding the morality of homosexuality at a later date.

"Objectivism proper"

I think one way to distinquish this would be to say there's a difference between what Objectivism says to guide us in our life, and what Ayn Rand says when she applied her philosophy to her thinking and her life. Determining the ethical status of Homosexuality would seem to me to be an application of the philosophy of Objectivism, not a part of the philosophy itself. Certainly Ayn Rand didn't go to all the trouble to develop a philosophy to by which man can live and think for himself only expect everyone to go along with all her positions on matters. And no, I'm not insinuating that is what is necessarily being done here. As I have said before, I think for myself first when possible, and if it differs from Objectivism or "what Ayn Rand said", I go with my thoughts until I have reasoned why I should go with Objectivism or "what Ayn Rand said". However, I can't really think of a philosophical principle or idea which I have that is not congruent with Objectivism (most of which were compatible before I even knew of Objectivism even if I didn't properly understand the foundation for such ideas), or that I haven't changed to accept the Objectivist concept instead. However, this is one of those "Ayn Rand said" issues with which I have not reconciled my judgement to coincide with hers yet.

It's possible CF has changed his mind over the years, but that doesn't matter:

It would probably matter a great deal to him if he had, as well as to many other posters on this board I suspect. Even if (or when) we disagree on something, I have been exposed to enough history of Capitalism Forever's posts to respect his use of reason. To say that it doesn't matter is suggestive that regardless of whatever reasoning may have changed his mind, you would discount it without consideration. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would hope you don't actually mean that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But i still prefer that we first exhaust CF's arguments - before we get sidetracked again.

You are certainly free to restrict your responses to whichever lines of discussion you want. However, if someone else has something relevant to offer to the discussion, they are certainly permitted to do so. "We" may not be getting sidetracked when reviewing new information. While there may be a "closed" aspect of the discussion as it relates to the application of the philosophy of Objectivism, there is still certainly an "open" aspect to rational conclusions, particularly by men of Peikoff's stature, that may have been developed after Objectivism became "closed". I do not intend this to mean that any possible course of discussion regarding homosexuality be permitted, but I don't think Peikoff's position (whatever it may be) would be blacklisted from this site just because it was not 100% compatible with what Ayn Rand might have said previously. If I'm wrong on that, I fully expect the admins to tow me back in line. :)

Now what David Kelly or Nathaniel Brandon might have said on the other hand...

[Edit - added the italicized "not" above for clarification - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop, i think it is fair to say that you have misunderstood a lot of things i have said in my last 2 posts.

1. The discussion on "closed" and "open" system had to do only with the little side-argument we had on whether the statement that Ayn Rand gave in that Q&A should be considered a part of Objectivism or not, and this too arose from a discussion of whether those who would oppose such a position would have some sort of responsibility of showing why they disagreed with it. No one was saying this discussion has to be limited to "what Ayn Rand said" and that any ideas by Peikoff or others that is not consistent with this should be "blacklisted" from this discussion. I honestly do not know how you read that from my contribution.

2. When i said "before we get sidetracked AGAIN", i meant only getting sidetracked into issues that might be proper to another thread - assuming i have understood the forum rules. I thought we were getting sidetracked, for example, when we started focussing on the subject of closed versus open system, and (as Capitalism Forever pointed out), when the focus became what Ayn Rand said or did not say. As my last posts indicated, i thought this was taking us nowhere as long as we were disagreed on other side issues connected to this, and it could just grow into a big discussion proper for another thread.

3. i was hardly commanding everyone to discuss Capitalism Forever's idea (or forbidding them to discuss anything else) when i said

But i see that this is not getting us anywhere because it is bringing other debates onto the forum, so i humbly suggest we take it from Capitalism Forever's actual arguments for the immorality of homosexuality, yes?.
4. Finally, you said:

Even if (or when) we disagree on something, I have been exposed to enough history of Capitalism Forever's posts to respect his use of reason. To say that it doesn't matter is suggestive that regardless of whatever reasoning may have changed his mind, you would discount it without consideration.

When i said it doesn't matter if CF has changed his mind, i obviously meant it doesn't matter with respect to whether we should debate his points or not, as the context very, very clearly shows; not the other things you have insinuated i might have been saying about him.

5. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard of that talk, but i also said the 'abnormal' part earlier in the discussion (I said "it is at least abnormal"), but even this bit was rejected. I think i am prepared to argue that something that is 'abnormal' is necessarily immoral if 1.it can be changed 2.it can be changed 3.it can be changed. [Especially if it is something that constitutes an important part of someone's life (their sex life, for example, is much more important than their ice-cream life - i would understand if they think it is not worth their effort changing their 'issues' in the latter department.)]

It can be changed if one is not born that way.

Objectivism can show that no one is born with any particular sexual preferences.

But i still prefer that we first exhaust CF's arguments - before we get sidetracked again.

Thanks

It is becoming more and more evident that you suffer from Platonism. It seems that you would think that Hank Reardern was immoral until he finally joined the strike because he could have changed his mind before hand. I don't think the issue of errors of knowledge and evasion is clear to you. In the example of homosexuality that I used the homosexual would be suffering from an error of knowledge; and a worse form of it than even Hank Rearden experienced. But because my homosexual has not reached your ideal of perfection, though he has not evaded on this issue, he must be immoral. And so anyone who is not a Leonard Peikoff or an Ayn Rand, even if it is just a matter of not knowing certain principles or even a certain methodology, is immoral because he "will not" match your impossible dream (given the context).

It seems that you're playing chess with this issue of homosexuality. Perhaps Objectivism should advocate a form of eugenics to ensure a timely and necessary plateau of moral perfection for everyone.

Junius Junius.

Edited by juniusjunius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you wish to refute my arguments, does it matter whether or not I have changed my mind since? Only to the extent that, if I had changed my mind, I might have provided my own refutation of my previous arguments, so it would suffice for you to verify the logic of my self-refutation. If I had changed my mind without explaining why, or given a flawed line of reasoning for changing my mind, then my previous arguments would remain on the table.

If I wanted to play a prank on y'alls, I could ask you to scour the thread to see if you could find a post where I announce having changed my mind, and whether I give a logical reason for my doing so. :P But I don't want to be cruel and make you read twenty-eight pages looking for something that isn't there. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I humbly suggest we take it from Capitalism Forever's actual [though perhaps subsequently reconsidered] arguments for the immorality of homosexuality.
Sure. Any progress on this issue is better than no progress.

In a homosexual relationship, one of the partners inevitably has to play the role of a man and the other has to play the role of a woman, even though both are men or both are women. This is an implicit admission that the relationship is just a cheap substitute for something more real.
First off, I don't think homosexual sex necessarily requires one to "play the man" and one to "play the woman." Secondly, even if it were possible to delineate sexual acts proper for a rational/woman, not all homosexuals are having homosexual sex.

Excitement of discovery: In a heterosexual relationship, you discover what the mind and body of a person of the other sex is like. As a homosexual, you will only encounter a mind and body similar to yours. You completely forgo the experience of learning to know the secrets of the other sex.
I would imagine that all homosexuals are not of the same mind and body.

A self-respecting person will strive to earn the love of another by being as attractive as possible, spiritually as well as physically. If you happen to be a woman, this means being beautiful, charming, lovely, cute, and attractive in a feminine way. If you are a man, it means being strong, brave, resolute, and handsome in a manly way.
Homosexuality doesn't require any gay man to act feminine, nor does it require any lesbian to be "butch."

Once [two men]see that both are interested in a relationship and don't mind if it's homosexual, they can simply just go ahead. No barrier there. But if a man wants to have a relationship with a woman, he has to face the challenge of dealing with someone different from himself; he has to overcome her resistance; he has to brave the possibility of being rejected.
...you could argue on similar lines that women ought to be bisexual lest they lose out on the opportunity to know what a clitoris feels like on their tongue.

[sexism] is the recoginition of the fact that men and women have different natures, and that consequently the life of an ideal man will in some ways be different from the life of an ideal woman. Where IS the irrationality here? Where AM I not being objective?
IMO the lack of objectivity is not so much in saying that men and women are different, but in not objectively deriving the values a male qua male, female qua female Ought to have from what Is an objective biological/chemical distinction between man and woman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. ....No one was saying this discussion has to be limited to "what Ayn Rand said" and that any ideas by Peikoff or others that is not consistent with this should be "blacklisted" from this discussion. I honestly do not know how you read that from my contribution.

This is more meant to address that which is open to discussion based on the forum rules and a clarification of my own comments, not yours. My clarification could have been clearer. :doh:

2. When i said "before we get sidetracked AGAIN", i meant only getting sidetracked into issues that might be proper to another thread -
Okay, but you said it in response to a post that was within the proper scope of the topic under discussion (the morality of homosexuality). What was the "sidetrack" you referred to?

3. i was hardly commanding everyone to discuss Capitalism Forever's idea (or forbidding them to discuss anything else) when i said

The quote you quote was not the one I got that from. This is the quote I got that from;

But i still prefer that we first exhaust CF's arguments - before we get sidetracked again.
And I didn't accuse you of "commanding" anything. I would consider it an attempt to focus the thread on certain aspects of the issue which you want to discuss when others may still have different relevant aspects they want to discuss that you don't want to get into. I wanted to make it clear to others that they can introduce other relevant information even if it doesn't follow the line you prefer to follow.

When i said it doesn't matter if CF has changed his mind, i obviously meant

It's obvious now that you clarified it. Thank you.

And just so you know, I don't insinuate things. I make direct accusations when I see reason to do so. When I say something is "suggestive but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt", I mean just that, nothing more, and I'm offering an attempt to clarify what was said because it wasn't so obviously clear. Trying to read between the lines will only lead you to a false conclusion. Had he changed his position, that reasoning would equally "matter" just as much as any reasoning which would have led to his previous position (assuming rationality in both cases). At any rate, he has clarified that no such change of position exists in this thread so this is no longer an issue.

5. ;)

:fool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS ON LOVE AND SEX AND HOMOSEXUALITY:

‘ “Rationality” is a broad abstraction. Now we must learn more fully how to apply it to the concrete choices of human life. We must study the derivative virtues (and values) recognized by the Objectivist ethics.

‘Since these virtues are expressions of rationality, they are logically interconnected, both in theory and in practice. None can be validated in isolation, apart from the others; nor can a man practice any one of them consistently while defaulting on the others. In defining a series of virtues, Ayn Rand is abstracting, separating out for the purposes of specialized study elements of a single whole. What she seeks to clarify by this means, however, is the whole. The Objectivist ethics upholds not disconnected rules, but an integrated way of life, every aspect of which entails all the others’

(Leonard Peikoff in the opening of Chapter 8 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand).

How does one arrive at conclusions, such as, “All acts of sex between two males are evil;” or, “Only sex between a man and a woman is good”?

Before one can validate that sex is good between a man and a woman, one must answer what makes a man or woman, a human being, good. The evaluation of the entity that acts is more fundamental than the evaluation of the action of that entity. Sex, proper, is a consequence of a rational code of morality. If one understands a rational ethics but one’s morality fails to live up to it, then one’s sex life will necessarily be handicapped.

Is it even proper for men and women to have sex? Maybe people shouldn’t have sex if they love each other because it degrades them to animalistic level. Or, maybe they should have sex but only if they are not in love.

A good man (a rational-selfish man) must have sex with a moral equal. Sex is a recognition and expression that one is good and the world is benevolent. As the most intense and joyous pleasure possible to humans, it is a reward one shares with one who feels as great as you and is as great as you. Anything less will not bring you the thrill that a good man is promised by nature.

The Rules of Masturbation:

1. One should never masturbate only to satisfy an “itch”.

2. One should never masturbate if one wants to stop some feeling of guilt, boredom, hate, fear.

3. One should never masturbate fantasizing about different women, or several women at once.

4. One should never masturbate when thinking about a lower animal or a close blood relative.

5. One should only masturbate as a response to a recognition of one’s self-esteem.

6. One should only masturbate when fantasizing about someone one loves.

7. One can masturbate if one is practicing to improve in sex.

8. One can fantasize about a stranger, when practicing, so long as one is single, and one doesn’t know that the stranger’s moral worth is less than yours.

9. Never stick a your finger up your anus.

10. Do not masturbate while fantasizing about illegal rape, or sado-masochism, and all other acts forbidden in a rational sexual relationship.

I think that much of the above points are valid if only as guides to improve one’s sex life. But there is certainly a morality to masturbation, it occurs to me. No other form of masturbation compares to the one where you fantasize about the person you love the most.

I suspect that homosexuals can masturbate in response to an attraction to their own beautiful body. I don’t think heterosexuals are capable of this; they need a fantasy of someone of the opposite sex.

But is it immoral for a homosexual to masturbate in this way? Is it immoral for a homosexual to masturbate at all, even if fantasizing about another male—or is he exiled from the realm even of masturbation because he is gay? Those who think that homosexuality is immoral may very well think that homosexual masturbation is immoral.

Or does the immorality, for these critics, arise only when one gay has sex with another gay, even if it is just simultaneous masturbation? But for these critics, certainly felacio and anal penetration is immoral.

What leads a rational straight man to want sex?

Among other things:

1. Efficaciousness in his work.

2. Success in the market place.

3. A healthy dynamic of a group of friends.

4. Access to and experience of good art.

5. An evaluation of the universe as benevolent.

6. An evaluation of himself as worthy of the central values he does possess.

Observe that the “drive” to sex for a primitive tribal Indian is much different than a rational man in an industrialized city.

What “drives” a man to sex is not his recognition that he is a male and that he should have sex with a female. Humans are more complex and spiritual than that. The “drive” first and foremost comes, in adults, by his self-esteem and his benevolent universe premise, and some specific trigger event that symbolizes such principles. Masturbation is not immoral.

But sex with another is much more enjoyable than sole-masturbation. It is the choice in another that heightens one’s sexual drive to its utmost (in the context of the individual): when one finds one’s psychological and moral mirror.

Very early in life, a human will program his consciousness to what gender he will be attracted to. But just because a man is heterosexual does not guarantee that he deserves sex. There are more essential things that make one worthy, as listed above, such as efficaciousness in one’s central purpose. A heterosexual man can still be good and middle-aged and never have had sex with another because he never has found his feminine equal. A homosexual male can very well experience this type of long-term celibacy, which may be rare but not immoral and still living a fully rational life.

It would be an injustice to insist that a homosexual (a man with sexual desire for other males), who has never had sex (for example), who is efficacious in his central purpose, successful in the market place, has a good group of friends and family, is able to experience good art frequently, evaluates himself as worthy of possessing the values he does possess, and who evaluates the universe as benevolent (as being one where such values and such level of character is possible)—to sacrifice the need that ensues because of his worthiness, so that he can get therapy, repress his metaphysical human need, so he can re-unite with his pre-determined sexual nature.

Granted that given the nature of human biology and anatomy, heterosexual sex will be more enjoyable and represent a more fulfilling life. A homosexual cannot reach that sexual level that a rational egoistic heterosexual can experience … but he can still be good and still experience a rewarding and fulfilling sex life.

Junius Junius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back from extended absense. Hi! [wave]

First:

...the essence of femininity is hero worship...

Important word, essence. It means that hero worship is an essential part of femininity. It does not mean that all hero worship is essentially feminine. I would argue that the strong friendship between Rearden and Francisco is a form of mutual hero worship, but is clearly not feminine. Also, no one has yet proven that having a penis is an essential part of being heroic. Only if being heroic requires a penis can anyone make the claim that women (i.e. one or both women in a lesbian relationship) cannot be heroic. Also, if the essence of femininity is hero worship and (the implied) essence of masculinity is heroism, why can a person only be entirely one or the other? What about romantic love insists that it be something other than mutual hero worship? I mean come on - any drooling puppy-dog bimbo with big tits can worship a great man. Her motivations may not be appropriate, or well thought out, or even rational, but just because a woman worships a man does not make her love for him correct. It may not even make her feminine. The essence of hero worship is not femininity, after all. It's the other way around. If a woman wants to be feminine, she'd better worship someone heroic. But being feminine does not disqualify someone from also being heroic, and thereby (by implied extension) also masculine. Someone needs to demonstrate that the essentials of masculinity and femininity (heroism and hero worship, respectively) are mutually exclusive in order to claim that "a masculine gay person is a contradiction in terms."

Next, the so-called "1971 Quote":

Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.

No offense to our dear benefactor, but this is tantamount to answering the question "Why does water boil?" with "Because of physics." What flaws? What corruptions? What errors, what unfortunate premises and what psychological immorality? Just because someone says 'because' doesn't mean that the 'because' is then followed by an explanation. In fact, (look at me about to break the forum rules) I think it's clear that Ayn Rand was wrong (ducks) when she made this statement, specifically because it is directly contradicted by both earlier and later, more well established aspects of her philosophy. She has said she is not a psychologist. She has said that the purpose of sex is a physical expression of ownership, not procreation. She has said that morality deals only with chosen attributes (only applies in an argument about homosexuality being of some sort of genetic or other non-choice origin). She has said that males are capable of loving one another (see her fiction works). She has said that romantic love is based on shared values and hero worship. Nowhere has she said that women must be feminine, or that hero worship is restricted to women only. (In fact, on the latter point, Atlas Shrugged contains several examples of male-male hero worship. See the Galt-Danneskjold-D'Anconia relationship.) That the 1971 quote contradicts well established parts of her philosophy, and that it gives no explanation for her assessment, and that at no time later did she ever return to and stand by this assessment, or provide any further explanation therefor, all suggests that (ducks again) she was wrong on this point, made a snap judgment directed more by very deeply ingrained public opinion than by rational thinking (she may just never have felt the topic worthy of such considerable attention: why then have we devoted 31 pages to it?), and that this should not be considered as carrying any weight whatsoever in an Objectivist sense. The 1971 quote is clearly not philosophy as such and doesn't figure into Objectivism.

Third (and completely off-topic): Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. What Ayn Rand wrote and authorized comprises Objectivism. But part of what she wrote implied that every person who uses the philosophy in their lives must be able to build it for himself from the ground up, not by basing it solely on what she has said. This was to protect her philosophy from any errors she may have made herself, as well as to ensure the longevity of her philosophy.

Now some direct responses:

A self-respecting person will strive to earn the love of another by being as attractive as possible, spiritually as well as physically. If you happen to be a woman, this means being beautiful, charming, lovely, cute, and attractive in a feminine way. If you are a man, it means being strong, brave, resolute, and handsome in a manly way.

Unless of course you are striving to be attractive to the same sex. Cart before horse, though. We haven't shown that men being charming lovely and cute, or women being strong, brave and resolute, are inherently immoral.

In a homosexual relationship, one of the partners inevitably has to play the role of a man and the other has to play the role of a woman, even though both are men or both are women. This is an implicit admission that the relationship is just a cheap substitute for something more real.

This assumes that all homosexual sex is simulative of heterosexual sex. It isn't. There are many sexual things homosexuals can do which heterosexuals cannot, just as there are many sexual things heterosexuals can do which homosexuals cannot. I'll refrain from being graphic.

It can be changed if one is not born that way.

Objectivism can show that no one is born with any particular sexual preferences.

I agree with the first statement, and I will agree with the second if it is first qualified: Objectivism can show that no one is born with any particular philosophical sexual preferences. Objectivism is a philosophy, neither neuroscience nor psychology. If (emphasis on if) neuroscience or psychology were to demonstrate conclusively that sexual orientation (as against preference, which is a word implying more deliberate choice) is determined at an early (read 'pre-cognition') age, Objectivism would be forced to take this into account. Again 'if,' if this were done, this would also likely affect any moral evaluation on the act of altering one's sexual orientation. But again, such a conclusion has not been reached by neuroscience or psychology yet. Both are still undecided.

Enough for now.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless of course you are striving to be attractive to the same sex. Cart before horse, though. We haven't shown that men being charming lovely and cute, or women being strong, brave and resolute, are inherently immoral.

I was going to wait until I finished reading the middle of this thread, but this is something I would like to address now since it was brought up again. None of the traits Capitalism Forever listed are traits exclusive to one sex. In fact, they all could be seen as good traits of either sex... Except, of course, being "attractive in a feminine way" and "Handsome in a manly way." The best I can come to approximating what these must mean are floating abstractions. But handsomeness could even be attributed to an attractive woman, even if it is commonly used today as a snarky insult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um...perhaps i should have made my suggestion a little wider: it might be helpful not only to read what Capitalism Forever said, but also what was said by others in response to his theory (and, um, what he said in response to that?). This might avoid repeating almost word-for-word the arguments that others gave that were already answered by CF. It would thus be better (I humbly suggest) to start from his subsequent defences and shoot down that (this assumes your current rebuttal has already been covered in those first few pages - it did not go on for very long, by the way). Otherwise, i think we will go through a complete re-cycle of this forum.

[i might also introduce my arguments for CF by pointing out that the operative word in his theory is 'best'. What is best for a man, not just what is possible. There has to be an objective way of ascertaining what is truly best for the man, as opposed to what is just also 'enjoyable' or 'possible'. The foundation of his theory is that there are some fundamental differences between men and women (qua men and women) and that we should logically take these into account in determining what is best for a person, romantically. I'm sure CF will correct me along the way whenever i misrepresent his position.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped at post #228, about a page after CF "quit" the debate and poohat (his best opposition?) was railroaded out. Is there any benefit to going further?

Would this be indicative of the "heterosexuality is superior" position?

    1) Males and females have biological differences.

    2) Femininity is how a female qua female should act and masculinity is how a male qua male should act.

    3) The aforementioned biological differences lead to distinct and objectively defined concepts of femininity and masculinity.

    4) Masculinity is maximally complemented by femininity (and vice versa.)

    5) It is not masculine for a male to have intimate relationships with another male, nor feminine for a female to have intimate relationships with another female.

I believe 1) and 2) can be taken for granted. 3) is presumably true (that there is an objective definition of what is masculine/feminine, even if we don't know precisely what it is.) The problem is (and IMO has been for the whole of the topic) that no arguments have been put forward stating how/why any given principle is masculine/feminine, other than vague allusions that the biological differences "obviously" lead to individuals' ideas of what is feminine/masculine.

In terms of heterosexuality being "the best" or optimal, I think 4) has to be evidenced, and I humbly suggest that it most certainly hasn't within this bloated 700+ post thread.

The bodies and personalities of men and women complement each other, therefore the best match for a man will always be a woman and vice versa.
It's never stated how heterosexuality complements better, so there's really nothing to shoot down...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[i might also introduce my arguments for CF by pointing out that the operative word in his theory is 'best'. What is best for a man, not just what is possible. There has to be an objective way of ascertaining what is truly best for the man, as opposed to what is just also 'enjoyable' or 'possible'. The foundation of his theory is that there are some fundamental differences between men and women (qua men and women) and that we should logically take these into account in determining what is best for a person, romantically. I'm sure CF will correct me along the way whenever i misrepresent his position.]

It is 'best' for all Men to be rational, and to eat, because these are essential for his survival. But would you say that, since Ayn Rand held them as an ideal, it follows that it is 'best' for all Men to be industrialists, and that, although other occupations are 'enjoyable' or 'possible' to a particular man, that he is not living up to the best within himself, and is therefore immoral? This argument is begging the question: it assumes what it tries to prove, namely that heterosexuality is essential to Man's survival. I'm not yet arguing that choice of sexual partner is analogous to choice of profession, I'm merely pointing out that no solid effort has been made to differentiate the two.

Also, as hunterrose pointed out above, no one has made an argument for the assertion that males and females (or masculinity and femininity) maximally compliment each other which has not resorted to descriptions of how well the penis fits into the vagina. May I remind everyone that Fransisco and Dagny learned every mode of sexual pleasure their bodies made available to them with each other - there are many other modes of sexual pleasure available to heterosexual couples than just this one, and no argument has yet been made that suggests that this one form is either essential or somehow better, which hasn't resorted to the procreation argument, which we all know is not the purpose of sex.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would imagine that all homosexuals are not of the same mind and body.

Sure, not all oranges are of the same shape and size. But if I wanted to eat a different fruit, I would get an apple.

not all homosexuals are having homosexual sex.

:lol: What kind of sex do they have then, if not homosexual?

First off, I don't think homosexual sex necessarily requires one to "play the man" and one to "play the woman." [...] Homosexuality doesn't require any gay man to act feminine, nor does it require any lesbian to be "butch."

Let's go through the steps leading to the consummation of a heterosexual romantic relationship:

  • The first step is taken by the woman, usually long before she has even met the man; it can be summed up by the word primping, and includes things such as buying fancy clothes, styling her hair, putting on makeup, and the like. The purpose of this is to make her beautiful, and while she is still single, she is likely to do it with a conscious view to making men notice her.

    This has no counterpart among men. If the man wants to be noticed by women, he needs to do what he wants to do anyway: gain strength and wealth--physically, materially, intellectually, and morally. While he is probably aware that it will make him more attractive to women, that is not his primary purpose in doing so, only a secondary benefit.

  • As the next step, the man notices the woman and tries to make her notice him, or the woman notices the man and tries to make him notice her. The roles of who notices whom are not fixed, but the ways of gaining and keeping the other one's attention differ between the sexes.

    The woman will emphasize her feminine features, such as her hair, her mouth, her hip, perhaps her legs. She will act playful--and tender, cute, lustful, or fierce, whatever she thinks will attract the man most.

    The man, on the other hand, will not try to make the woman notice him by being playful. He will be purposeful--and his purpose will be to get her. So he won't be trying to make her notice him from a distance; he will approach her and make his interest in her clear.

  • Thus, the first explicit, verbal expression of interest will always come from the man (with the exception of the case of an awfully horny woman and a shy, desperate man ... a pair of losers).

  • After this, a longer or shorter period of courtship follows, in which the man plays the leading role: it is him who buys flowers and gifts, writes love poems, takes her out to dinner, and so on. The man is the conqueror; the woman is the one being conquered.

  • As the next step, someone has to initiate sexual intimacy--for example, kiss the other on the mouth. There is always an element of force or intrusion involved this; to stay with the kissing example, the kisser has to "pry open" the mouth of the kissee, or even if it opens readily, he has to "trespass" into it. It is an expression of physical strength and undauntedness on the part of the actor, and a feeling of being overpowered and "taken in hand" on the part of the person being acted upon. Which of these does a man aspire for, and which does a woman crave?

  • What follows may, as I have been reminded, take a number of forms, but if it's between a man and a woman, it will necessarily be asymmetric due to their different anatomies.

Each of the above steps is necessary for a romantic relationship to take place. Every single one of them has different roles for the man and the woman. In a homosexual relationship, analogous steps are necessary too--and during each step except the last, at least one of the parties will be playing a role foreign to his gender and contradicting his nature as a man or her nature as a woman.

As for the final act, it will either be an imitation of a heterosexual form of sex, and thus asymmetric, with one of them playing the man and the other playing the woman--or it will be some symmetric concoction, in which both play the man and the woman, and neither expresses his or her sexual identity.

For to express one's sexual identity is to say with one's actions: "I'm a man, and this is how I'm different from a woman"--or "I'm a woman, and this is how I'm different from a man." It is one thing to take a hot shower followed by an ice cold shower, and quite another thing to take a lukewarm shower twice in succession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each of the above steps is necessary for a romantic relationship to take place.

I most emphatically disagree. Rand wrote that romantic love is one's response to one's own values embodied in the person of another [reference needed]. This is what is necessary for a romantic relationship to take place. That relationship can take many forms, including the one you presented, but that is just one form.

The first step is taken by the woman, usually long before she has even met the man; it can be summed up by the word primping, and includes things such as buying fancy clothes, styling her hair, putting on makeup, and the like. The purpose of this is to make her beautiful, and while she is still single, she is likely to do it with a conscious view to making men notice her.

This has no counterpart among men. If the man wants to be noticed by women, he needs to do what he wants to do anyway: gain strength and wealth--physically, materially, intellectually, and morally. While he is probably aware that it will make him more attractive to women, that is not his primary purpose in doing so, only a secondary benefit.

Which is to suggest that romantic love is a primary goal for women and a secondary benefit for men? Romantic love should not be thought of as a primary goal for anyone - it is a means to an end, specifically, a means to the improvement of one's own life. Are you also suggesting that a woman should never do 'a man's work?' Can a man and a woman who work next to each other in an industrial research laboratory not become romantically involved, simply because *both* are trying to "gain strength and wealth--physically, materially, intellectually, and morally" and both are acting "purposefully?" Would Roark have wanted Dominique if she had just been out to catch a man? No. He wanted her because she was a strong, independent, self-interested woman. Rearden wanted to "break" Dagny, the "woman who ran a railroad." It took him a while to realise that the thing in her which made her run the railroad could never be broken: her passion for her own productive ability. It is his passion for his own productive ability that leads him to her. Their sexual attraction comes upon them both suddenly and unexpectedly in the cab of the train - Dagny was never out to attract Rearden: both were just living their lives and happened to find one another.

I also disagree that a first kiss is always a violation of some sort. A first kiss can be a completely spontaneous and mutual event brought on by strong, mutual recognition of shared values.

-Q

Edit: Forgot a 'not.' Kinda important, that.

Edited by Qwertz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's never stated how heterosexuality complements better

Better than what? An "A" can complement a "non-A," but it doesn't make sense to say that an "A" complements another "A." Complementation is a relationship between two different things; it isn't applicable to "a thing and itself."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That relationship can take many forms, including the one you presented, but that is just one form.

I would be interested in an example of a romantic relationship where:

  • Neither person notices the other; or,
  • Neither expresses interest in the other; or,
  • Neither does anything to win the heart of the other; or
  • Neither of them initiates a sexual act; or
  • Neither of them engages in a sexual act.

It is physically impossible for a romantic relationship to take place if any of the steps I outlined fails to occur. Whatever happens instead is not a romantic relationship but a fantasy, a criminal rape, or "Platonic love."

Which is to suggest that romantic love is a primary goal for women and a secondary benefit for men?

It is a primary goal for both. What I wrote about was the specific activity of making oneself attractive to the other sex, which women need to tend to separately from their other pursuits, while men get it as a side effect of being good at their job. I meant what I wrote to say the specific thing I wrote; there is no intended "suggestion" with respect to more general contexts.

Are you also suggesting that a woman should never do 'a man's work?'

Again, I'm not suggesting anything other than the specific things I wrote.

Would Roark have wanted Dominique if she had just been out to catch a man?

Another thing I'm not suggesting.

He wanted her because she was a strong, independent, self-interested woman

...who wasn't exactly ugly. (Of course, strong, independent, self-interested women don't tend to be ugly.)

I also disagree that a first kiss is always a violation of some sort.

Is "violation" another word you think I was "suggesting" ? I never used it.

"Violate" is what a rapist does to his victim. I was talking of force--of moving the woman's body without asking her for permission; and of trespassing--of "entering" the woman's body, again without asking for permission.

You don't ask, "May I kiss you please?" You know you can presume her permission to kiss her.

A first kiss can be a completely spontaneous and mutual event brought on by strong, mutual recognition of shared values.

That would be a first kiss on the cheek, or on the forehead.

A "strong, mutual recognition of shared values" does not automatically result in a romantic relationship. It can bring about some romantically neutral intimacy, such as a pat on the shoulder or a hug or the kinds of kisses I mentioned. But a kiss on the neck, or on any other erogenous part, is more than just an expression of shared values: it doesn't merely say, "I like you" ; it says, "I like you, and I presume you don't mind if I take possession of your body."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Dondigitalia is indeed correct in the fact that Ayn Rand (in private conversations with Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff) later admitted that more study needs to be done on the issue before a definite conclusion is made, then perhaps we should go into the scientific/psychological evidence?

I read a really interesting article in the current issue of Scientific American Mind (February) which basically concludes that most people don't have a choice about whether or not to be gay, however evidence indicates that some "gay" people are capable of resexualizing themselves into being "straight" and vice versa.

For a decent scientific treatment of this issue, I recommend picking up this issue at your local newsstand or you can go to this link and for $5 have access to the article in question.

Just my 2 cents.

-Evan

Also as a sidenote, the article is titled "Do gays have a choice?" and it is by Robert Epstein.

Edited by Evan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...