Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
aimnyamer

Brokeback Mountain

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I have nothing against homosexuals, but I really have absolutely no desire to watch a gay cowboy movie. From what I understand, there are a couple of rather rough sex scenes...I just really don't want to see one man plowing another.

The sex scenes are not rough, by any stretch of the imagination. You do see their first embrace, and you do see that one bends down for the other. It is certainly not left to the imagination what is happening. However, there is no way this could be described as "rough" - any more than a sex scene between a man and a woman could be described as rough.

Could they have told the men's story without such a scene?

It is part of the double standards applied to homosexuality that an honest sex scene between two men is described as "rough", while between a man and a woman it is often called "honest" or "realistic".

Also, why does the fact that the two central protagonists are men who love one another make this a "gay cowboy movie" - it is a love story.

It is as much a "gay cow boy movie" as West Side Story is an "immigrants' operetta". It is a glib generalisation to describe it as a "gay cow boy movie" - although I will admit the producers have certainly helped to propogate this by marketing it as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This movie, if you really wished to call it that (it's synopsis seems more befitting the depravity of "Naturalistic Literature"), is nothing more than Egalitarian propaganda ...All I had to do is see the way Hollywood puts forth the advertizing. Romantic Art is supposed to project an image of what man "ought to be"... the substance of the plot reeks of doom-and-gloom cynicism.
How is it naturalistic? Advertising criticisms differ from esthetic criticisms.

And the fact that the protagonists do not "succeed" does not make it doom-and-gloom, any more than it did We the Living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is an old thread but it seems worthwhile to resurrect it. I saw this movie again last night. It was unfortunate that the DVD refused to play an important scene and I had a few too many folks milling about the area in the beginning, but I was still able to enjoy it. I have to say I enjoyed it even more the second time. What is the best thing this movie has going for it? Characterizations, and I'm a sucker for excellent characterizations. All the main characters are both written well and acted superbly and that is so rare these days. The casting was excellent. Everyone was believable and able to express a lot of depth of emotion while saying very few things.

After seeing it a second time my take-home message from this movie is that no one can box you in better than yourself. Your worst enemies are your unexamined premises, especially when you refuse to seriously question them even after they cause a major contradiction in your pursuit of happiness. Especially in the character of Ennis, he is the one most repressing himself as an individual, not the society around him. It's his own fear that is his enemy. You can see that to some degree that has even been transmitted to his children. The scene where he is in the car with his daughter, Alma Jr, and neither of them says much when they both clearly have many things they would like to express, I ended up shouting at the screen "How much repression can you fit in just one truck?" Alma is barely able to ask her father to live with him when she clearly wants to and it seems she has more in common with him than with her mother and stepfather.

These are just some of my initial thoughts. If someone has seen the movie and remembers it well enough I'd love to continue to discuss philosophical points about it. I don't care whether or not you actually liked the movie, although certainly if you didn't like it we may have some divergent interpretations of events in the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this is an old thread but it seems worthwhile to resurrect it. I saw this movie again last night. It was unfortunate that the DVD refused to play an important scene and I had a few too many folks milling about the area in the beginning, but I was still able to enjoy it. I have to say I enjoyed it even more the second time. What is the best thing this movie has going for it? Characterizations, and I'm a sucker for excellent characterizations. All the main characters are both written well and acted superbly and that is so rare these days. The casting was excellent. Everyone was believable and able to express a lot of depth of emotion while saying very few things.

After seeing it a second time my take-home message from this movie is that no one can box you in better than yourself. Your worst enemies are your unexamined premises, especially when you refuse to seriously question them even after they cause a major contradiction in your pursuit of happiness. Especially in the character of Ennis, he is the one most repressing himself as an individual, not the society around him. It's his own fear that is his enemy. You can see that to some degree that has even been transmitted to his children. The scene where he is in the car with his daughter, Alma Jr, and neither of them says much when they both clearly have many things they would like to express, I ended up shouting at the screen "How much repression can you fit in just one truck?" Alma is barely able to ask her father to live with him when she clearly wants to and it seems she has more in common with him than with her mother and stepfather.

These are just some of my initial thoughts. If someone has seen the movie and remembers it well enough I'd love to continue to discuss philosophical points about it. I don't care whether or not you actually liked the movie, although certainly if you didn't like it we may have some divergent interpretations of events in the movie.

All I can say is that I've been tempted regularly over the last few months--I've watched many many movies--to rent this movie. I saw it when it was in the theatres. So it would be enjoyable again. So I will rent it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say is that I've been tempted regularly over the last few months--I've watched many many movies--to rent this movie. I saw it when it was in the theatres. So it would be enjoyable again. So I will rent it soon.

It's worth renting. One thing that I was able to do on the second viewing is, on the first time around I was very caught up in Ennis's story seeing as he is the main character. This time around I focused more on Jack, who is frankly the more sympathetic character to me anyway. I picked up on some things I didn't the first time either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I related very much with Jack because my first love reminds me very much of Ennis, or vice versa. However, my first love was much more affectionate and sensitive and artistic, etc. But, yes, I can certainly relate with the frustration that Jack had to endure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen it but, I think the fact that some of you guys wont see it because "ZOMG BALLS ARE IMPLIED TO BE TOUCHING!" is pretty juvenile and ridiculous. EC, you and your views on homosexuals/homosexuality are not in least bit rational.

-- Mammon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand thought homosexuality was disgusting.

As far as I know, there is no such thing as a "gay" gene. It was even common practice in old time Greece for boys to have sex with men.

It is because of the enviroment I believe not because of genetics

Edited by dadmonson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayn Rand thought homosexuality was disgusting.

Ayn Rand was wrong on that one. Happens. And while she may have thought homosexual acts disgusting, she certainly didn't seem to have a problem with individual homosexuals, as one of her best friends was gay (her husband Frank's older brother Nick).

Anyways, I think that the argument of what "causes" homosexuality entirely misses the point. While I believe it is true that people's orientation is more likely "hard-wired" than not, I think I would have the same opinion of it if it were a totally voluntary choice moment-to-moment and everyone's sexuality was malleable (I think most agree, however, that is not the case). Whether it is voluntary and whether it is desirable/acceptable are separate issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because all human behavior is volitional, any homosexual, given sufficient motivation and effort, can choose to abstain from engaging in homosexual behavior. That is not in dispute. The only question is whether it is morally necessary to do so.

~Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand thought that homosexuality was disgusting, and cigarretes deliciously rational. She was a pretty rational woman titan who could overcome her addiction to tobacco, and succesfully fought its consequences. Similarly she later remarked that she did not have the scientific facts to emit judgment on homosexuality. I'd look for the quote but it's not that hard to find.

Brokeback Mountain was extremely boring, but I am biased since I literally felt asleep at the first half. It would have been much better starring Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Like another variation of Cannibal! the musical

Edited by volco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The film takes place in a malevolent universe. Most of Lee's work does. I'm thinking of Hulk and Crouching Tiger... specifically. All three are about regret. This film contrasts with the earlier two by being more naturalistic with a much slower pace. Lee chose to emphasize the insignificance, inanity, thinness of these men's lives over decades in order to create the sense of loss on which his theme emotionally depends. It's an extremely well-made film, but the themes are malevolent. Cf. the works of Victor Hugo.

~Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee chose to emphasize the insignificance, inanity, thinness of these men's lives over decades in order to create the sense of loss on which his theme emotionally depends.

I agree. I only saw the movie once and, while unfortunate, I simply viewed the characters as weak in their situation. I have no value for weak individuals like they were. They needed to grow some balls, IMO (no pun intended). If wherever they were was so homophopic that they couldn't be who they were without getting killed, then pack your shit and move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have a complete lack of moral worth. Just by the act of choosing to be "gay" they are destoying their life as a proper man (or woman) should live it.

EC, you are so conventional. 10% of the male members of most mammalian and fowl species have been discovered to be homosexual, almost exclusively. Do 10% of elephants, horses, and penguins choose to be gay, destroying their lives as proper males of their respective species should live them? If that is not enough proof against your homophobia, in 1901 a survey was taken in New York City to discover the sexual orientation of the male population. 10% openly confessed to being exclusively homosexual! Back then! 100 years later in 2001 the same survey was taken in New York City to see if anything had changed, the expectation being that the figure had increased. The same result--10% of the male population said they were exclusively homosexual. In other words, the earth-shaking change in cultural values during the 100-year interim, the sexual revolution, the breakdown of traditional mores, did not change one percentage point the number of men who categorized themselves as homosexual. This 10% figure keeps popping up in all animal species, including the human species over long periods of time and different cultures. Obviously, what we have here is a constant of nature. So being gay, at least for 10% of the male population, is NOT a choice, but a manifestation of the brain structure they were born with. Of course, this does not include the 10% of the straight men in New York City who every year say that they, too, had sex with a man during the past year at least once. Albeit it may detect their bisexuality, which also is brain structure, not a choice.

Similarly, for the first time in Los Angeles since the survey started the majority of men now openly admit to having sex with other men on a regular basis! That is, a greater percentage of men in Los Angeles now categorize themselves as bisexual than heterosexual for the first time since the survey has been taken. Add to that the 10% who are exclusively homosexual and you have the majority of men in Los Angeles having sex with other men on a regular basis. I imagine that figure can be repeated in other metropolitan areas such as New York, Miami, Houston, Salt Lake City, the latter having become the gayest city in the United States after San Francisco, that is, the greatest percentage of its population declaring themselves gay than any other city but San Francisco. No explanation has been forthcoming as to why the high percentage of gays now residing in Salt Lake City, aside from the fact that it is one of the most beautiful cities in America, well-planned by the LDS Church patriarchs, is close to the best snow powder in the world, is a major film and entertainment center, Mormons being the new Jews in Hollywood who influence films being made in Utah.

But the point is that being gay is not a choice for 10% of the male population, obviously. This is not to be taken as an endorsement of homosexual behavior, only a non-homophobic analysis. And even if homosexual behavior could be proven to be irrational, what would you have those who are born with homosexual brains do in life, live without love or affection? Again, this is not an endorsement of gay sex, only an attempt to stretch EC's brain a bit. I suppose gays could express their natures by means of homo-emotional relationships, if not homo-erotic, like two men who love each other going to bed every night together, talking about the day's events, and falling asleep in each other's arms, while avoiding any genital activity. Such would be no more than what men used to do "in the old days" centuries removed from this one.

And such would be no more than what a man would do with his dog. I say that anything a man can do with his dog or his mother is okay to do with a male companion. Does he put his arms around his dog or mother? Then it's alright to do so to a male companion. Does he walk with his arm entwined with his mother's arm? Then it's alright to do so with a male companion. Does he sleep with an arm around his dog? Then it's alright to do the same thing with a male companion. Does he kiss his dog or mother? Then that, too, is alright with a male companion. Does he diddle with his dog's or his mother's genitals? Obviously, not. Then it is forbidden to diddle with his friend's genitals. Get it, EC? Homo-emotional is not the same as homo-erotic. Stretch that brain, EC, come on, stretch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. I only saw the movie once and, while unfortunate, I simply viewed the characters as weak in their situation. I have no value for weak individuals like they were. They needed to grow some balls, IMO (no pun intended). If wherever they were was so homophopic that they couldn't be who they were without getting killed, then pack your shit and move.

Kevin, you are young. I know that you are 30 from your personal. I, on the other hand, am a tired, old man. When you too have had the shit beaten out of you by life you just may become more compassionate toward those whom you dub as weak. In any event, ostensibly the "weak" character was Ennis, not Jack, who wanted to live together with Ennis, who wanted Ennis to pack his shit and move to Texas to be near him. But that's a superficial analysis. In reality Ennis was the stronger character of the two, the immovable object, while Jack, unfortunately, was not the irresisistible force. And it was this imbalance that drove the plot to its tragic end.

But who am I to judge? No, who are you to judge? Could living all his life with the horrifying image of Earl lying dead in a ravine with his member pulled off have traumatized Ennis? What would such an image have done to you? Would that have paralyzed you with internalized homophobia, especially if you had lived trapped in a house where you suspected the culprit was your father? Ennis did grow balls in the sense of overcoming his homophobia enough to sacrifice everything, his marriage, his career, his family, to maintain his homosexual relationship with Jack. I suspect that Ennis went further than you have in your life considering where he started. As the scriptures say, it's hard to be a judge. And not knowing everything about another person's history that has led up to their present situation and behavior is one reason it is hard.

By the way, you say you've seen the film only once. I've seen the film dozens of times, because it speaks to my own experience. Ennis is I. I am Ennis. It has only been recently that I have freed myself of all internalized homophobia which has plagued me all my life, as it did Ennis, because of my own conventional, narrow-minded, ignorant upbringing, and my own perfectionist nature. Self-hatred paralyzes. Is self-hatred a weakness of character? Or could it indicate distorted thinking, like perfectionism? You decide.

You said that you do not value weak individuals like Ennis and Jack. I recently discovered the most important idea I have ever discovered in my long, unhappy existence. With one arthritic foot in the grave already, I am thinking more and more of what looms ahead for me after this life. You are just beginning life with all the eagerness and hope that a person your age should feel. But I will convey what I have learned to you in the hopes that an old man like myself can speed up your scholastic development in life, a task worth shouldering, in my opinion, since you obviously are superior in intelligence and integrity. I warn you not to be what Jesus called a pig trampling the pearl cast before it underfoot. I used to think I was special, wanted to be special, possessing intellectual gifts that made it possible for me to delude myself into thinking I could dazzle other people, make them love me, make them treat me as special, like a gift for melody, which allows me to compose the most beautiful music possible, or a gift for logic, which allows me to solve problems in philosophy others before me have failed to solve. Such I have found is not the case. Unrequited love, the first time I have ever experienced such a dizzyingly terrible and mind-numbingly painful thing, motivated me to turn inward and for the first time think about what kind of person I wanted to be. One thing led to another and I rediscovered Jesus's dictum to love others as myself. Inasmuch as feelings are not directly controllable, are secondary mental phenomena, automatic psychological responses to evaluations, I took Jesus' statement to mean in the terminology of cognitive psychology that I am to assume that others' spirits are as valuable as mine. I now look upon others as my loved ones, not as objects for which I feel contempt, which was characteristic of my relations before. I now realize that I am not special, and I don't try to be anymore. I realize, almost too late in life to make a difference, that the bum sitting near the train station everyday whom I pass on my way to shop at Whole Foods is as valuable as I am, my loved one. We are the mirror of each other's spirits. It is as if I am he trapped in my body, he I trapped in his body. What a wonderful sense of enlargement and joy I now feel to be connected to everyone else in this way. But no one knows except I. My behavior is deliberately studied to appear conventional, to not stand out, to appear like everyone else. At dinner parties I engage in small talk just like everyone else. In fact, I now prefer small talk to intellectual exchanges. It's the way I get to know others. I am suspicious of the motive of people who stand out, suspicious that they are suffering from the same delusion from which I used to suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just going to respond quickly and generally once, to all who are calling my position on homosexuality "irrational". Either, men are born tabula rasa or they or not. So if one claims to be an Objectivist and except that fact, they can NOT also except a strange form of genetic determinism that states that one's innate sexual desires can be in contradiction with one's gender. It is not "irrational" to state the fact that for an entity to volitionally act opposed to one's identity, in this case a man (and all that implies--including an attraction to the opposite sex) is a deep contradiction. Could it be true that one's early development lead to one's "feelings" of homosexuality. Absolutely. But this does NOT negate the fact that he is still acting contrary to his identity as a man. This is NOT "homophobia"-- an irrational fear or "hate" of homosexuals-- but a statement of fact.

Do I know that there are many gays who claim to be Objectivists? Yes. Does this mean that they are truly one? No, at least not in terms of acting in a fully consistent and rational way. One CAN'T be fully rational--and therefore moral if one of the essential characteristics of one's character and soul rests on a contradiction. And it is a contradiction to act opposite of one's natural/i] identity.

Was I wrong when I said that all homosexuals are fully immoral? Yes. I would now just say that it is impossible for a homosexual to be fully moral. This doesn't mean that they can not be mostly moral or rational in most situations--just that they can NOT be fully moral or rational people because their essential character rests on a contradiction. I actually have some friends-- female-- who now claim to be gay, and for the most part I have no problem with them, and actually kind of like bisexual females :( but this doesn't mean I think they are fully rational or moral. Unfortunately, most people are not. :dough:

Now this is NOT part of MY argument--but it is a FACT, and one most other O'ist's either don't like or they try and disqualify it in some way-- "It was an off the cuff remark, etc.", but Miss Rand did say that she personally found homosexuality to be disgusting and immoral. So contrary to "popular opinion" which to me is unimportant and often incorrect anyway what I am saying while NOT an "official" part of Objectivism is NOT without precedent, including with its creator's personal opinion.

This is all I have to say on this subject and represents my current convictions in its regard. I don't wish to pointlessly argue with people that I will never agree with because I think that there premises are fundamentally flawed when it come to the origin of homosexual behaviours... so please refrain from trying to draw me into another pointless debate.

One last thing, I respectfully ask that members refrain from quoting several years old postings of mine on this subject that don't fully and accurately represent my current views on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is not "irrational" to state the fact that for an entity to volitionally act opposed to one's identity, in this case a man (and all that implies--including an attraction to the opposite sex) is a deep contradiction.
It is irrational to assert without evidence that the identity of all males includes attraction to the opposite sex.
I don't wish to pointlessly argue with people that I will never agree with because I think that there premises are fundamentally flawed when it come to the origin of homosexual behaviours... so please refrain from trying to draw me into another pointless debate.
When you make false assertions about man's identity, you have no hope of hiding from the consequence of your views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am just going to respond quickly and generally once, to all who are calling my position on homosexuality "irrational". Either, men are born tabula rasa or they or not.
The phrase 'tabula rasa' is generally used to refer to innate knowledge, which isnt whats under discussion here. If 'tabula rasa' implies that people have no innate abilities/dispositions/etc then of course noone is born tabula rasa. Claiming that people are born with a disposition towards homosexuali behavior doesnt imply that they are born with any innate mental content, so the tabula rasa thing is an equivocation.

So if one claims to be an Objectivist and except that fact, they can NOT also except a strange form of genetic determinism that states that one's innate sexual desires can be in contradiction with one's gender.
There are known examples of people being born with characteristics that place them in between our two genders. Hermaphrodites are one example, as are 'males' who have hormonal makeups closer to 'females'. Biology is more complicated than you think.

Its also been known since Kinsey that the number of people who are attracted exclusively to members of the opposite sex is a lot smaller than was thought.

It is not "irrational" to state the fact that for an entity to volitionally act opposed to one's identity, in this case a man (and all that implies--including an attraction to the opposite sex) is a deep contradiction.
The claim that its in the 'identity' of men to be attracted to females is totally arbitrary- its one thing to say that sexual attraction involves values (which it does), but finding boobs more attractive than penises, or long hair more attractive than short hair, is not a volitional choice. Evolution has stated quite clearly that homosexual behavior has a role in nature, as is shown by its presence in the identity of large numbers of non-human animals. In any case, theres a difference between homosexual feelings and homosexual actions. The actions may be volitional (in that people can choose whether to act on their urges), but the feelings themselves are not. Its nonsense to suggest that people can just choose to switch their sexual preference from male to female.

I actually have some friends-- female-- who now claim to be gay, and for the most part I have no problem with them, and actually kind of like bisexual females but this doesn't mean I think they are fully rational or moral. Unfortunately, most people are not.
The fact that female bisexuality/homosexuality is much more widely tolerated than the equivalent male behavior is a result of some deeply sexist beliefs that our society has, but thats another thread entirely. Edited by eriatarka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am just going to respond quickly and generally once, to all who are calling my position on homosexuality "irrational". Either, men are born tabula rasa or they or not. So if one claims to be an Objectivist and except that fact, they can NOT also except a strange form of genetic determinism that states that one's innate sexual desires can be in contradiction with one's gender. It is not "irrational" to state the fact that for an entity to volitionally act opposed to one's identity, in this case a man (and all that implies--including an attraction to the opposite sex) is a deep contradiction. Could it be true that one's early development lead to one's "feelings" of homosexuality. Absolutely. But this does NOT negate the fact that he is still acting contrary to his identity as a man. This is NOT "homophobia"-- an irrational fear or "hate" of homosexuals-- but a statement of fact.

I wanted to clarify something in your belief that it seems you might not have considered or are not aware of. Development and environmental factors begin to affect an individual 9 months before birth. Because of this, people may be conceived Tabula Rasa, minus any genetic deformities, but they are certainly not born that way. Differences in a mothers lifestyle(diet, sleep, drugs, alcohol, stress, etc) can have huge impacts on the formation of the child, especially earlier. The first two weeks in utero are ironically the most critical in brain development.

Studies have been done which find increases in homosexuality in areas of high stress. In the generation which is born during a war, for example(I believe Bosnia was cited). Further, similarities in brain structure have been found between gay men and women and between lesbians and men. The current understanding is that if a mother is under stress during pregnancy, she releases more cortisol then usual which in turn alters the hormonal state of the developing child. Hormones have a huge influence on the growth not just of the developing body, but also the mind.

I do agree with your assessment that hetero relationships are ideal. They have the capacity for possessing a symbiotic nature that is hard to reproduce in gay relationships. That said, if a man does have a more feminized brain, they still must act in a way which is likely to provide the highest level of happiness. For them, someone of their own sex seems to be ideal.

This doesn't paint the whole picture, of course. Circumstantial homosexuality also exists. In prisons and overcrowded cities, most often. My understanding is that the masculinity and femininity of a brain is on a spectrum with a roughly bell curved shape. In normal circumstances very few will be gay(I'm skeptical of the numbers given above-to my knowledge 3% is more generally accurate. 50% strikes me as preposterous. I would like to see sources for that outlandish of a claim.) But in unusual circumstances, say, the absence of women, a larger group might choose to swing the other way.

Blank slate, is philosophical, not psychological. We are not born knowing the capitol of Mississippi or the square root of 4, but we are born with different systems that regulate our hormonal state. The systems can vary from person to person. They can't control our actions but they do have strong impacts on our desires. I like women. I could make myself have sex with a man, but I couldn't make myself want to. Guns would probably need to be involved as the alternative choice. Homosexuals on the far end of the curve tell me they feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that you all are using animals having intercourse with other animals of the same sex as proof positive that people are automatically born being gay since most animals of the same species no matter what gender look alike. Unless you look at the private area it is pretty difficult to tell which animal of the same species is male or female.

I'm not saying I disagree with homosexuality I just don't think there is a "gay" gene. I suppose that you all think though that there is a "violence" gene too. :dough:

Edited by dadmonson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They have a complete lack of moral worth. Just by the act of choosing to be "gay" they are destoying their life as a proper man (or woman) should live it.

Whoa there! Do you mean -choosing- to do homosexual acts, or -choosing- to have homosexual longing and lust. We can control what we do. We cannot always control what we feel.

Now I am a heterosexual male both in my choice of acts and by my unchosen sexual feelings. I have always liked the girls more than the boys since I was young. What I do, I can control (to a large extent). What I feel is what I feel. It is very difficult to modify one's emotional pattern and structure. My recollection is that my lust and steam heat for the girls was wired in. I did not have to -learn- it. What I did -learn- was who to lust after and who not to lust after. I made a decision fairly early to confine my lust to females who reciprocated my feelings and who I would not mind spending a lifetime with and growing old together. And so it was. I am married 55 years to the same women (and no hanky panky since I was wed). We get along just fine.

While I am at it, let me ask do think having children is part of being a "proper" human or is it just a choice? Are those who voluntarily decide on no kids when they can afford to have children totally "proper" or is something lacking? Views on this question differ greatly from person to person. I am just interested in your opinion.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is irrational to assert without evidence that the identity of all males includes attraction to the opposite sex.When you make false assertions about man's identity, you have no hope of hiding from the consequence of your views.

No. It is self-evident--even to children--that from the biology--specifically the sexual organs, hormones, etc., --that man and women have specific differences, and that these differences are natural and complement one another for a purpose. There is no assertion involved in that at all, it is a fact available to the senses of all who choose not to evade it.

There are known examples of people being born with characteristics that place them in between our two genders. Hermaphrodites are one example, as are 'males' who have hormonal makeups closer to 'females'. Biology is more complicated than you think.

Anomalies by definition are not the normal situation, and are therefore as irrelevant in a philosophical discussion of the ethics of sexuality as emergencies are to ethics in general. Also the relative nature of the "complexity" of biology is irrelevant to this discussion.

The claim that its in the 'identity' of men to be attracted to females is totally arbitrary- its one thing to say that sexual attraction involves values (which it does), but finding boobs more attractive than penises, or long hair more attractive than short hair, is not a volitional choice.

Nonsense. Males and females are different instances of the same species for a reason, and I assure you that reason is not "arbitrary" but is a result of billions of years evolution.

Evolution has stated quite clearly that homosexuality has a role in nature, as is shown by its presence in the identity of large numbers of non-human animals.

No, it shows that in any given population of animals, that the animal will act on it's natural need for sexual release with anything that's available. A dog humping your leg doesn't mean that "evolution has stated clearly" that beastiality "has a role in nature". Men should not just act on their "desires" but the values those desires imply with regard to one's volitional choice to act in harmony with one's identity.

In any case, theres a difference between homosexual feelings and homosexual actions. The actions may be volitional (in that people can choose whether to act on their urges), but the feelings themselves are not. Its nonsense to suggest that people can just choose to switch their sexual preference from male to female.

Any feeling including those of the sexual nature are caused by ones accepting and integrating certain premises. So in a sense, at one time or another in one's life, he chooses-- even if he doesn't realize it at the time,his sexual nature-- even if he doesn't remember when, and it developed over time. This automatized choice can either be in harmony with one's nature or not, and therefore moral or not.

I've seen people change their "sexual preference" , so don't tell me that it's "non-sense". One of my best female friends from childhood was in a relatively long relationship with a guy when she was 14, 15 years old, having a child with him at 15. Several years later when she was about 19 or 20 and experimenting with guys and girls she told me that she had always had a crush on me and wanted to "hook-up" which I declined at the time because I thought it was a bit weird. Anyways, she now claims to be a full-blown lesbian. Don't tell me a change didn't take place over time or that it wasn't volitional. That would be a highly arbitrary statement based on an incorrect view of genetic determinism.

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It is self-evident--even to children--that from the biology--specifically the sexual organs, hormones, etc., --that man and women have specific differences, and that these differences are natural and complement one another for a purpose.
The fact which you are evading is that you are not a slave to your anatomical evolution. In lower animals, which od not have free will, mere considerations of genital structure and hormones suffice to determine how the animal will act. Man operates differently; the mind plays a highly significant role in determining man's nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not seen this film; perhaps I should. But it seems to me, from the things I've heard and read, that this motion picture uses Romanticism to attack and destroy (or "de-construct") the concept of masculinity.

As I say, perhaps I should see it. I think it would have value if it attacks the idea that the standard of judging one's sexual "orientation" is what the community says or thinks. The 1960's film The Children's Hour hinted at this. It showed how a small town's prejudice and hatred of anything so alien to it as homosexuality (in this case, lesbianism) destroyed--in essence, killed--a young woman, bringing her to take her own life.

"Community standards" are nothing but collectivist evil, because they use the "community" as the standard of judgment, rather than reason. I like how Edgar Rice Burroughs' title character in A Princess of Mars phrased it: "...the evil idea of community..."

Share this post


Link to post
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...