Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
aimnyamer

Brokeback Mountain

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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.
EC, I think that if you are going to understand the "other side," you are going to have to put forth a lot of effort getting your mind out of the norm, heterosexuality, which you are a part of. This quote above is just pure rationalization; homosexuality is not comparable to emergency situations in ethics. It is fairly widespread, it does not change the essential nature of men, and it fits perfectly fine with Objectivist principles. Furthermore, as some have already pointed out to you, tabula rasa is not the same as genetic disposition, and so biology is not irrelevant, because there is a good chance that biology determines sexuality in part. And to be fair, social atmosphere may have just as much an influence.

The point I would like to make is that sexuality is hugely complex. It is a mix of biology and psychology before philosophy even enters the equation. You are making some pretty hefty generalizations without support to back them up. Why is the most ideal relationship between a man and a woman? And this is what I meant above: imagine yourself going through all of your sexual development, but instead of women it was men who stimulated you. Imagine you are a sane person, and you know other sane people who had identical experiences. On what grounds would it be rational to even consider that your attraction is improper? Remember, tabula rasa is out, and quotes from Ayn Rand do not count, either, since they are unfounded and undeveloped on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the gay-debate is one that separates the so called Rand-cultists from the "true" Objectivists.

The thing that Objectivists get from Rand, is the core of the philosophy, the values and the principles, but that does not equate that everything Rand uttered on every subject were correct. The "cultists" on the other cant get over the fact that every observation Rand made wasnt true.

Rand understood THAT things "are what they are" and that is what makes Objectivism what it is, but that does not mean that she had complete knowledge about WHAT every thing in the universe is.

Edited by JJJJ

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...