Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism and homosexuality dont mix

Rate this topic


Superman123

Recommended Posts

A male is a male, and a female is a female. Every is implies an ought. If there was no ought implied in this case then humans would only have one sex.

My bold. "Implies" is not the same as "should". If there was no ought implied in this case, it would mean that people are individuals who are not slave to particular roles determined by their sex organs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philosophy decides if the science is flawed fundamentally not the other way around.

I would be interested in a comprehensive reply to FeatherFall's preceding post. This is not such a reply. It is obviously unnecessary to know the scientific basis for some specific man's observed effeminate behavior. That behavior is certainly the result of some is - i.e., the result of the environment and circumstances under which he developed. A boy is not a man - his mind and body are still growing and developing years after leaving the womb. Depending on the environment in which he grows, his behaviors, tendencies, and preferences will develop and become ingrained. It's up to you to not only show why he should want to change them, but also why he should be morally condemned for not changing them.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philosophy decides if the science is flawed fundamentally not the other way around.

Yes, epistemology determines how we integrate knowledge, thus laying the foundations of science. That's important in light of what some of us have been trying to explain. Gather evidence, then make conclusions. Evidence points to a context much more complicated than, "XX or XY". Conclusions must bow to this.

Edited by FeatherFall
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a seriously worthwhile (and unheated) discussion.

To the is/ought question: again, Objectivism supplies the answer. Without contradiction, I think:

Is/ought begins at species level, and resolves down to individual level.

It is - as much important O'ist stuff is - hierarchical.

I was never comfortable with Ayn Rand's views on gender and homosexuality. As hetero myself, there was some identification with the dominant male role - but also, some departures. For a while, I'd ask of friends "Why should one specific man, and one specific woman, be any different?"

(Well, apart from the obvious, sure). However, I was of the unsubstantiated opinion through observation, that there were often more similarities between a given woman and a given man, than between a random two of the same gender. An independent mind, and free-will, should trump sex and upbringing, ultimately - no?

I'm glad to see FeatherFall say there is now empirical evidence for exactly this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about something earlier related to all this. What are proper and moral relationship structures, anyway? Is the only proper structure monogamous, and a generally sort of dominant/submissive interaction, for instance? In what ways are homosexual relationships different than traditional/common ones out there, if at all? Does the more traditional structure necessarily preclude homosexual relationships? EC earlier was arguing along the lines that the only kind of proper relationship structure is the one I mentioned, meaning that any other kind are immoral/misguided. My response to my questions are that aside from abuse and lying, any relationship structure is perfectly moral and depends upon personal preference.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking about something earlier related to all this. What are proper and moral relationship structures, anyway? Is the only proper structure monogamous, and a generally sort of dominant/submissive interaction, for instance? In what ways are homosexual relationships different than traditional/common ones out there, if at all? Does the more traditional structure necessarily preclude homosexual relationships? EC earlier was arguing along the lines that the only kind of proper relationship structure is the one I mentioned, meaning that any other kind are immoral/misguided. My response to my questions are that aside from abuse and lying, any relationship structure is perfectly moral and depends upon personal preference.

Sure. Whether one knows it or not, all relationships are 'negotiated' - on many levels.

The more conscious you are about what you are doing, the less conformist it will be, so the more rewarding.

There should be no such thing as a 'model' relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 1 month later...

I have some experience that may help. After I read Atlas Shrugged, but before I became an atheist (Atlas Shrugged was only the beginning of the end to my religion), I was desperate to get the two to mix because I could not reject either. Christian objectivism sounded good (Christians are practiced at picking the parts they like of something).

But then I "de-converted" and realised that the fundemental basis of Christianity (sacrifice of the most holy for the sins of the masses) is in conflict with Objectivism.

It is shocking how much a person can twist their mind to accomodate religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but there is an ought. And it's much more than the simple sexual mechanics. It's the mind/body taken as a whole and the way two different sexes compliment one another metaphysically and phycho-epistemologically. Same sex relationships do neither.

Given the existence of the prostate as a biological source of sexual stimulation, can we therefore deduce that it is immoral not only to forgo gay sex, but to forgo being the receptive partner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the existence of the prostate as a biological source of sexual stimulation, can we therefore deduce that it is immoral not only to forgo gay sex, but to forgo being the receptive partner?

Certainly not! However it might be immoral, arguably, to forgo digital manipulation of said gland by a knowledgeable female (ahem, with whom one is in a loving relationship), particularly while she’s engaged in giving a tonsil polish to the family jewels round the other side. One should not fail to actualize certain potentialities in the realm of intimacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, at our Objectivist conference in Atlanta (note: this is in the south) we had a whole panel of Objectivist homosexuals. There were a bunch of gay guys at our conference and nobody cared one way or another. There was never anything negative that came up, to my knowledge. People were just interested to hear about topics like if they had been bullied in their life or something. There were a couple of house party social events, at the first one I recall Diana Hsieh (a prominent Objectivist person) sitting in the basement with a bunch of the gay guys and few other straight people just hanging out. At the second party, there were a bunch of people sitting outside drinking and talking, and there were a couple of guys holding hands and stuff. It was no big deal. If anything, Objectivism is very friendly to homosexuals. Anyone against homosexuality is rare and way out of the mainstream as far as Objectivism is concerned.

Oh, and as for "christian objectivists"... hell, if you are irrational enough to be a christian (or religious at all for that matter), then I don't see why claiming to be both christian AND objectivist is somehow MORE irrational. Anyways, Objectivists are very largely atheists, like 99% probably. Capitalists of all stripes, including religious capitalists, tend to be friendly to Objectivism despite that, which is actually a good thing. It goes without saying that the actual philosophy of Objectivism is strictly atheist for reasons that are very fundamental to the entire system of thought.

Edited by epistemologue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...

I was recently reading a 1993 Reality magazine and a classified ad in the rear mentioned a gay and lesbian group in Ontario Canada that doesn’t seem to exist anymore. Is there still a group like this around to join? Facebook has an Objectivist group in Florida but they never reply in the group. If other objectivists would like to get together in Miami, Florida I’d love to meet you. [email protected] and hopefully see you soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2023 at 6:15 PM, HerbdocJon said:

 . . . If other objectivists would like to get together in Miami, Florida I’d love to meet you. [email protected] and hopefully see you soon.

If you can afford it and have the time, attend as much of the following in Miami as possible. You can meet people and some gay folks will be among them: OCON 2023

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...