Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

My point has nothing to do with the act of sex, per se. So everyone seems to be attacking a straw man here.

My point is that a man should act as his nature as a man says that he should.

I.e., he should be masculine, hold himself in a confident manner (not prance around like a fairy), he should take an interest in women, etc.

A man is a rational animal. Homosexuality is not part of animality. A man can choose it (to like other men). But, that choice is contrary to his identity as a man. He is a man acting, posing, whatever you want to call it as a female. But he is not a female. He is a man and should act as such. This has nothing to do with any sex acts or anything, it encompasses a man's whole being. For all I care, the man could die as an eighty year-old virgin, it doesn't affect my point at all. What matters is that while he is alive he acts as a man should and not contradictory to it. I.e., not act as a women or have sexual thoughts or fantasies, ect., that are only proper to women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But you're basing heterosexuality as a part of man's identity on procreation, though? I suppose my question is how do you go from

it's a part of man's identity that he can procreate under specific circumstances to

man should not act in certain sexual manners.

I know that your point is on homosexuality not limited to sex, but I problem I have is how you equate homosexuality (specifically the sex part) with unmasculinity (particularly since not all homosexuals act like "fairies.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be so presumptuous. I'm acquainted with dozens of homosexuals, friends with a few, and related to one, and none of them displays the characteristics you claim for all homosexuals. Sounds to me like you really need to meet a better class of people.

Amen. I would have posted something similar if I hadn't read what you posted.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, synthlord:

Here's why I reject the nurture argument inherent in your third paragraph - I reject anyone's ability in any way to affect whom I choose to love aside from whom I choose to love ...

I agree with you, although a bit of clarification is necessary. The premise of my speculation was centered on sexually-influential events which predate a person's conceptual development, specifically children. The notion that homosexuality is the result of traumatic sexual experiences is untrue, and my clumsy paragraph was meant to reject that notion.

Maybe I didn't clearly state the premise of my speculation. I certainly don't think homosexuality is a result of genetics. I don't think that it's solely the result of "nurture" either, as if a person's psychology is determined only by unchosen environmental conditions.

However, a child who has been not been taught sexual identity, who has faced confusing sexual situations without a conceptual framework to identify them properly, and who has evaded - possibly by habit - the necessity to define what their attracted to later in life, is probably more likely to develop homosexual tendencies. Certainly this is (on a surface level) evident in people who consistently get into over-dependent relationships, abusive partnerships, etc.

Ask any gay person, and they'll give you their story of the event that led to their self-realization. Only a phychologist could discover them, but I'll bet there are chains of both strong external influences and incorrect (and unchecked) personal choices before it.

Edited by synthlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

mosespa,

That conclusion seems to be based on nothing but anecdotal evidence. Do you have anything else to back it up?

That's exactly what it is, and as such is not evidence at all. The anecdotal evidence I would offer (if I regarded it as an admissable argument) contradicts his examples completely. Two of the greatest people I've ever known are gay (one male, one female), and neither of them are in any way psychologically unstable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll cite a few specific examples...

That's still just anecdotal evidence. It appears what you are attempting to do is make an induction by quantity. A proper inductive generalization must involve the identification of some sort of causal connection. As far as I know, the science of psychology is nowhere near advanced enough to supply such causal evidence.

Before one can assimilate the idea of "Gay Power," one must first ask the question "power over what or whom?"

What do the gays wish to have power over?

I don't deny that there are homosexuals out there who have this goal, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that it comes from the nature of homosexuality as such.

Show me a homosexual who keeps it under wraps because he realizes that it would be collectivist to broadcast it...a homosexual who doesn't feel the need to insure that all others around her know that she is gay...a homosexual who doesn't care at all if another person knows or not...

and I'll show you a figment of your imagination.

Intentionally "keeping it under wraps" could be a sign of collectivism as well. I'll show you tons of homosexuals who don't feel the need to broadcast their sexuality; I live in San Francisco, there are tons here. There are also tons of the other type.

But is that collectivism a symptom of being gay, or is it a symptom of the overall collectivist egalitarianism and multiculturalism of our era? Isn't it possible that a large percentage of homosexuals have grasped on to collectivist premises for exactly the same reason that many racial minorities and feminists do? What is it about collectivist homosexuals that makes it that much different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a homosexual who[...]

and I'll show you a figment of your imagination.

Do you ask every person you meet about their sexual orientation? Is it possible people you thought were psychologically stable and heterosexual were actually homosexuals who do not broadcast their preferences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that a man should act as his nature as a man says that he should.

I.e., he should be masculine, hold himself in a confident manner (not prance around like a fairy), he should take an interest in women, etc.

Could you please define, in your own words the essence of masculinity and femininity, because that is crucial to your argument? Furthermore, I find really queeny gay men irritating as well, but that is more an aspect of those men than it is of homosexuality as such. I know plenty of gay men who act just like any other guy. I'll add that many of the gay men I know find queeny guys just as irritating as straight men; maybe even more so, because they make the whole world think that "all fags are nelly," as one of my classmates puts it.

Homosexuality is not part of animality.

Or maybe it is... for some individual animals. There are other species, such as the bonobo ape, in which homsexuality and bisexuality are rampant. Homosexual pairing has also been observed in chinstrap penguins and swans. Or do you think these non-volitional animals are choosing as well?

Now, I'll confess that I know next to nothing about the nature of homosexuality, the biological basis of it, or the underlying psychology of the homosexual person. I just want to point out that it's an extremely complex issue which is being grossly oversimplified by a number of people here who may be letting their own personal aversion to homosexuality influence a strain of rationalistic reasoning.

It's primarily a psychological issue, and psychology is really the baby of all sciences. The stage of psychology right now can be likened to the pre-Socratic era of Philosophy--we really don't even know what the big questions are yet, and are only in the stage of making observations from which future scientific discoveries will be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're basing heterosexuality as a part of man's identity on procreation, though?

Not necessarily. I am saying that men and women are different. They possess different identities. This is a fact everyone knows since they distinguish Mama from Dada. As two distinct types of entitities, a male and female have different ways of exhibiting their respective identities. A proper male should be masculine. A proper female should be feminine. As we all possess a rational faculty, any one of us can choose to exhibit traits of the other gender, of course-- any this is what homosexuals do in nearly all aspects of their life. They are acting against their identity as defined by nature (reality). There whole life, there personality, values, and sex life rests on a contradiction. Instead of saying a man is man and should act according to that identity, they are saying that it is proper to deny the self-evident facts known nearly from birth about inherent male traits and inherent female traits. They are saying that is okay for a male to essentially be a female. There saying that they can make A be non-A because early in their life that was the choice they made and as such is not open to moral condemnation. I'm sorry, but that's non-sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. I am saying that men and women are different. They possess different identities. This is a fact everyone knows since they distinguish Mama from Dada.

Indeed, but identity involves much, much more than gender, and sexuality involves much, much more than biology.

A proper male should be masculine. A proper female should be feminine.
What is masculine vs. feminine, in essence, and how does it relate to sexuality? That question remains completely unanswered thus far.

As we all possess a rational faculty, any one of us can choose to exhibit traits of the other gender, of course-- any this is what homosexuals do in nearly all aspects of their life.

Which homosexuals? Which traits?

They are acting against their identity as defined by nature (reality).

This is kind of faulty, since it would violate causality, which is a corrolary of identity--it is metaphysically impossible for an entity to act contrary to it's identity. Yes, men have volition, but that does not mean a man can choose to act in opposition to his identity, it means he can choose his causes.

There whole life, there personality, values, and sex life rests on a contradiction. Instead of saying a man is man and should act according to that identity, they are saying that it is proper to deny the self-evident facts known nearly from birth about inherent male traits and inherent female traits.

What is the contradiction? What are the traits? What self-evident facts?

They are saying that is okay for a male to essentially be a female.

In what way are they essentially being female? Again, this requires explicit identification of the essential nature of femininity vs. masculinity, and how homosexuality (rather than the actions of individual homosexuals) necessary means adopting the identity of the opposite gender.

Ascribing the characteristics of a individual homosexuals to homosexuality as such, without identifying the causal factors involved is the empiricist fallacy. Unless you have known an extremely large number of homosexuals of both genders, from a multitude of cultures, backgrounds, economic groups, and any number of other variables, is the fallacy of insufficient sample.

There is only so much philosophy can say about sexuality--the rest belongs to physiology and psychology. I'll remind you that when asked, in the Playboy interview, what philosophy had to say on the subject of sex, Ayn Rand's response was simply, "It is good." The rest is highly advanced science, which requires a ton of specialized knoweldge. Are you a psychologist? Do actual psychologists even have enough knowledge to answer all of the questions involved in homosexuality?

Edited by dondigitalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't require "a ton of knowledge" to know the basis of homosexuality. And one doesn't have to "sample" "extremely large numbers" of homosexuals (or any oneself for that matter) to judge the morality of homosexuality anymore than one has to "sample" large numbers of crackheads or liars to make a moral judgement on them.

And I think masculinity and femininity are characteristics of the concepts male and female. As such most of the evidence is directly perceptable to people at a young age and is identified to a large degree ostentatiously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't require "a ton of knowledge" to know the basis of homosexuality.

Then explain the basis of homosexuality. Why are some humans homosexual and others aren't? How does this relate (if at all) to the homosexual behavior observed in other species?

And one doesn't have to "sample" "extremely large numbers" of homosexuals (or any oneself for that matter) to judge the morality of homosexuality anymore than one has to "sample" large numbers of crackheads or liars to make a moral judgement on them.
Unless you are able to identify the causal factors involved, yes, it does require a large number of observations. In the cases of both crackheads and liars, identification of causal factors is present in the inductive generalization, "Crackheads and liars are immoral." No causal factors have been identified in the case of homosexuality.

And I think masculinity and femininity are characteristics of the concepts male and female. As such most of the evidence is directly perceptable to people at a young age and is identified to a large degree ostentatiously.

"[C]haracteristics of the concepts male and female" is extremely vague; it does nothing to identify which characteristics. The characteristics of those concepts means: the characteristics of the referents of those concepts, which means: all of the characteristics of all individual men and individual women.

Now, one of my characteristics is that I have brown hair. Is that essential to masculinity? Are brown-haired females masculine? One of Ayn Rand's characteristics is that she had feet. Are all men who have feet feminine?

What is required to prove your position is an identification of essential characteristics, i.e. the charactereistics which explain the greatest number of others. Ayn Rand described the essence of femininity as "hero-worship." Are you operating from a different set of characteristics? If so, which ones? If you are operating from the same idea of femininity, what about being gay makes lesbians unable to experience hero-worship?

Even after this question of masculinity vs. femininity is sufficiently answered, there is a lot more that needs to be considered before a universal moral judgment can be made, but it's pointless to proceed until the concepts are defined.

And I think masculinity and femininity are characteristics of the concepts male and female. As such most of the evidence is directly perceptable to people at a young age and is identified to a large degree ostentatiously.

Furthermore, homosexuality is a characteristic of some men (and women), so by your definition, homosexuality is characteristic of masculinity (or femininity).

Edited by dondigitalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

mosespa:

1. Not to sound pushy, but I think you should re-read my previous post. You seem to have missed some points.

2. I understand your approach of using your observation of every homosexual individual with whom you have come into personal contact to draw a strong correlation between homosexuality and mental illness. I am, in fact, not challenging the correlation -

3. I'm trying to point out that you haven't proposed a reasonable causal link.

4. Even if every pot of water you've ever encountered boils when you heat it to 100c, it is erronious to then claim that all pots of water will boil when you heat them to 100c without describing the mechanism of causation: those things in the natures of heat and water which cause the interaction. In fact, further experimentation would show you that there are many circumstances under which water will boil at other temperatures, or will even go directly from a solid to a gas.

5. I am saying there is a very strong correlation between mental illness and homosexuality, but that I know of a few exceptions to it. If your assertation that homosexuality is or invariably leads to mental illness were true, no such exceptions could exist. I feel I provided a much more rational causal link between the two, one which allows for the exceptions, in my previous post.

6. It is not a sweeping generalization to notice consistency. It is a sweeping generalization to extend observed consistency to universal consistency without providing a causal link applicable to the nature of the subject of observation. It's the scientific method, baby!

-Q

1. You don't sound pushy...we're just discussing, there. This is how it works.

You may be right...I may have missed some points.

2. I consider that a good thing:)

3. Neither has anyone else who holds an opposing view.

4. Okay...so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that I should show a link between homosexual behavior and other deviant behavior. (Long pause while I wait for that to sink in for everyone.)

To me, this is where the whole thing gets kind of sticky. As I see it, "normalcy" is a collectivist notion...it is that which is "socially acceptable behavior."

"Socially acceptable behavior" implies collectivist assent.

Of course "Anti-social behavior" is seen as another form of collectivism.

I hate to be the one to bust everyone's bubble...but the minute you have two or more people in agreement upon something, it immediately becomes a collectivist notion.

Or maybe I'm just displaying novice thinking. Having studied Objectivism for a decade and a half, I'd hate for that to be the case because it demonstrates that I'm not quite as clever as I think I am...oh, well.

Back to the issue at hand: either I've misspoken or I'm being misunderstood. Of course there are going to be exceptions to any rule. There's a school of thought that exceptions often tend to define the rule.

Again, I may be showing myself a novice here, but it seems to me that there is an opposite for everything. To me, one of the key fundamentals of everything is Newton's Law that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

I believe (notice those two words, please, everyone,) that one can also extrapolate from that "for everything, there is an equal and opposite." It's the very nature of duality...and this IS a dualistic world.

I don't deny that there are "well-balanced" homosexuals out there; I simply maintain that I've not yet met one.

The most well-balanced homosexual that I've ever met STILL has "parental issues."

As I said earlier, modern psychology would have one believe that EVERYONE has unresolved issues. Perhaps this is true, perhaps not. I certainly know hundreds of heterosexuals who display symptoms of "mental illness."

The only assertion that I've made is that homosexuality seems to me to be either a mental illness in and of itself OR a symptom of further mental illness.

This has caused some controversy in this thread. People have spoken out about well-balanced homosexuals that they personally know...which could be just as big a coincidence as me having only encountered unbalanced homosexuals.

Thus, a vicious circle develops.

If I've misrepresented this point, please allow me to apologize and clarify: It is MY EXPERIENCE that every homosexual that I have encountered displays evidence of other neuroses. I do not intend to discount that there are exceptions...I'm not interested in making blanket statements here, nor do I wish to give the impression that I think homosexuals are "evil."

Many of the homosexuals that I know are very nice people...when they aren't having their frequent emotional breakdowns.

5. I never meant to suggest that exceptions weren't possible...I only intended to convey that I, personally, have not encountered any.

I've also never encountered a Norweigan...but I'm certain they exist.

I'll state again that I firmly believe that without an opposite, nothing is possible. Without darkness to define the opposite state, there would be no definition of light.

However, the presence of light does not prove the non-existence of darkness. In the same manner, homosexuals who seem to have no "mental illness" do not disprove that there are those who do.

6. Out of curiosity, what would the "scientific method" accept as causal proof in this case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You're the one dismissing all contrary anecdotal evidence a priori as flawed.

2. It's presumptuous (among many other worse things) to attain consistency by dismissing the inconsistencies out of hand.

3. How do you know all the normal, mentally healthy people around you are straight?

4. Maybe dozens of them are gay and you just don't know it.

5. And in any case, you've basically reduced yourself to saying that all the gays you meet are flamboyantly neurotic from the get-go, but all the gays I've met are repressing their disorders so well that after months or years of friendship or family interaction I still can't recognize it.

6. That's no better than a Freudian therapist saying that no evidence of neurosis is a sure sign of repression of neuroses. "No true Scotsman" and all that, you know.

7. You're the one complaining about all the dozens of crazy gay people you keep meeting.

1. I'm not dismissing anything. I'm simply offering an alternative argument. You don't have a problem with that, do you?

2. I'm dismissing no inconsistencies...I've not encountered any personally, so there is nothing for me to dismiss.

3. I don't. Again...I'm not saying that straight people are automatically mentally healthy. Heterosexuals can be just as screwed up as the homosexual examples I've given.

4. It's possible. I don't proclaim to have "gaydar." Unless a homosexual is openly so, I don't know. In fact, I seem to recall using "Hank" as an example of someone who had to TELL me he was gay before I knew it.

Not all homosexuals are flamboyant and obvious.

5. I suggest you re-read my initial post a little more closely. Not ALL of these people were "flamboyantly neurotic." I had to get to know them as people before I could make the observations about them that I have made.

You see...these people have all been friends of mine at various times in my life. They are not people I have simply spent a couple of hours around one evening. I've KNOWN these people on a personal level for years.

6. That is, of course, a ridiculous statement...I agree with you there. It is not my intention to offer a parallel view. You've said that you know exceptions to my theory...I'm simply asking you if you have as many facts at your disposal as I do? Are you a close confidant of these people? Do they tell you the intimate details of their lives? Do they confide in you their deepest secrets?

Because my example do and have. That's how I'm able to make the assertions that I make about them.

7. I'm not "complaining about all the crazy gay people I meet." I am offering examples from my experience to back up my argument. I would expect someone who can toss out "a priori" in a post to understand that that is how one conducts a discussion.

Adrian, I feel it necessary to point out to you that while this IS my first "objectivist" forum...it is not my first forum ever.

I recognize the tactics of attacking one's opponent in an argument (i.e., "YOU'RE the one doing such-and-such," which you've used twice in this post,) and am nonplussed by it.

The only thing you are accomplishing here is undercutting your own credibility.

But without the causal link, you've still just put forward one big coincidence :worry:

As has everyone who states that homosexuality IS NOT a mental illness but hasn't provided a causal link to show that is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has everyone who states that homosexuality IS NOT a mental illness but hasn't provided a causal link to show that is not.

Logically, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a thing. The burden of proof always lies on the side making the positive assertion.

I hate to be the one to bust everyone's bubble...but the minute you have two or more people in agreement upon something, it immediately becomes a collectivist notion.

So, you regard it as impossible for two or more people to arrive at an agreement using independent reasoning?

Again, I may be showing myself a novice here, but it seems to me that there is an opposite for everything. To me, one of the key fundamentals of everything is Newton's Law that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Newton's law is a law of Physics, and doesn't apply outside that context. Philosophically, the law of causality is something different, which is discussed in detail on pages 12-17 of OPAR.

I believe (notice those two words, please, everyone,) that one can also extrapolate from that "for everything, there is an equal and opposite." It's the very nature of duality...and this IS a dualistic world.

...I'll state again that I firmly believe that without an opposite, nothing is possible. Without darkness to define the opposite state, there would be no definition of light.

Getting Eastern on us, eh? :worry:

6. Out of curiosity, what would the "scientific method" accept as causal proof in this case?

That's a question for a psychologist. All Philosophy has to say on the subject is that a causal link must be identified for an inductive generalization to be valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logically, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a thing. The burden of proof always lies on the side making the positive assertion.

I understand where you're coming from...and I agree.

But, to say that "homosexuality IS NOT a mental illness" is not an attempt to prove non-existence. On the contrary, it is an assertion of the existence of "well-balanced" homosexuality.

Which I say doesn't exist according to my experiences (notice those last four words, please.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading EC's last post, I realized there is a significant need in this topic for some ground rule definitions in order to differentiate between the as-yet-unidentified cause of homosexual behavior and the behavior itself: Homosexuality is the underlying cause, and unless you are here to say that homosexuality and heterosexuality are chosen, phrases like "the morality of homosexuality" should not enter your vocabulary here.

In arguing about the issue, I usually find it useful to use the following delineation:

Homosexual - any person who prefers sexual partners of the same gender. The term does not imply any action, but rather a part of the person's identity. Whether this is a chosen part of their identity or an unchosen one may be debated, but statements like "homosexuals act in contradiction to their identity" is an inappropriate formulation. Also, I dare you to ask a homosexual man if he thinks he could, based solely on taste, switch from women to men and actually chose to prefer them. The underlying cause of the preference may not yet be known, but it seems to be biological, and it is certainly part of a person's identity.

Homosexual Behavior - the set of chosen actions expressly restricted to the manifestation of homosexuality, i.e. the actions involved in sexual relations between members of the same gender. This does not include lisping, sashaying, cross-dressing or worrying about who wore Reese Witherspoon's 'vintage' Chanel dress at the Golden Globes, any more that the term heterosexual behavior would include belching, drinking beer, womanizing or worrying about whether or not the Steelers really can beat the Seahawks next Sunday.

Gay - any person who chooses to behave in a manner consistent with common stereotypes of homosexuals as part of his identification as a homosexual. This does include the above examples if the person uses them to identify himself as gay, either to others or to himself. A person with a natural lisp does not fall here, even if he is homosexual. Only voluntary, chosen affects apply here.

EC's argument (I'll do his essentializing for him) must mean that that the essence of masculinity is "engaging in sex with a woman." This is clearly not recognizable "nearly from birth." His argument would also hold that men who have never had any sex are not masculine, and that masturbation is immoral.

The stereotypical gender roles, which have been put forth by countless sex educators since the 70s, are described as being recognizable by very young children. These are the parts of sex ed where they teach you that young children need both an authoritative, strong and productive male figure to provide conditional love and a fragile, emotional, submissive female figure to provide unconditional love in order to develop into healthy adults. I'm not going to argue the merits of gender roles, but I will point out that EC also seems to be including all this extra non-essential crap in with his definitions of masculinity and femininity. But just because EC has never seen an authoritative, strong and productive homosexual male, he thinks he can get away with it.

As we all possess a rational faculty, any one of us can choose to exhibit traits of the other gender, of course-- any this is what homosexuals do in nearly all aspects of their life.

I never use those tacky emoticons. They interrupt the flow of the written word, and they're trite and overused. I make the exception here because it is necessary: :worry:

Not all homosexuals (see above) are simpering sissies! I would however agree that most gays (see above) are. I would also agree that being gay (see above) can be extremely immoral. But homosexual behavior (see above) can be just as moral or immoral as heterosexual behavior (see above), depending on the intellectual motivations behind the behavior. I would never agree that homosexuality (see above) per se is immoral - no man is immoral by virtue of his identity unless that identity is chosen.

A homosexual has several options: He can choose to engage in homosexual behavior or not, and he can (independent of the first choice) choose to be gay or not. These choices can be debated as moral or immoral. Homosexuality itself however cannot, since preference alone is not an action.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where you're coming from...and I agree.

But, to say that "homosexuality IS NOT a mental illness" is not an attempt to prove non-existence. On the contrary, it is an assertion of the existence of "well-balanced" homosexuality.

Which I say doesn't exist according to my experiences (notice those last four words, please.)

The burden of proof would lie with your opposition if they were asserting a causal link between homosexuality and mental wellness. They are not doing this. Rather, they are denying the existence of any causal connection between sexual orientation and mental health.

In arguing about the issue, I usually find it useful to use the following delineation:

For the ease of discussion, I have no problem adopting that terminology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Neither has anyone else who holds an opposing view.

Yes I have. Post #608.

4. Okay...so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that I should show a link between homosexual behavior and other deviant behavior.
No, I'm saying you have to show a strong causal relationship between the two - something in the nature of homosexuality which invariably leads to mental illness in the absence of intervening factors.

I hate to be the one to bust everyone's bubble...but the minute you have two or more people in agreement upon something, it immediately becomes a collectivist notion.

Only true if one person only believes the thing because the other does. If both people arrive at the same conclusion by observing the facts, then later get together and find they agree, there is nothing collectivist about it.

[E]ither I've misspoken or I'm being misunderstood. Of course there are going to be exceptions to any rule. There's a school of thought that exceptions often tend to define the rule.

You said that you had been lead to believe, based on your observation, that

Homosexuality is either a.) a symptom of mental illness or b.) a mental illness itself.
The conclusion is wrong, but you also should not have arrived at it based on the evidence you listed then and subsequently, because you never made even so much as an hypothesis about what it was about the nature of homosexuality that makes it fit the definition of a mental illness. It's like saying "all men have feet, and all men are mortal, so having feet and mortality are the same thing." You say basically "all these men are homosexual, and all these men have mental illnesses, so homosexuality must be a mental illness." You don't show how homosexuality fits the definition of a mental illness in its own right.

I won't address the dualism arguments. That's for another thread.

I don't deny that there are "well-balanced" homosexuals out there; I simply maintain that I've not yet met one.

That you know of. I would argue that, due to social mores, personal reticence, or the simple unimportance of the issue, that you have in fact met one, perhaps many, without knowing it. Earlier (others and) I made good arguments to the fact that homosexuals who feel compelled to share their homosexuality as part of something that defines how they live their lives (and thus be more likely to let you know that they are homosexuals) are also very likely to be self-loathing and collectivist (and thus more prone to exhibit mental illnesses). This also explains the strong correlation between people who you know to be gay and their mental illnesses. But it is the self-loathing and collectivism which cause the bad behavior. Not the homosexuality.

If I've misrepresented this point, please allow me to apologize and clarify: It is MY EXPERIENCE that every homosexual that I have encountered displays evidence of other neuroses. I do not intend to discount that there are exceptions...I'm not interested in making blanket statements here, nor do I wish to give the impression that I think homosexuals are "evil."

Here is the source of the confusion. See, Objectivism doesn't care how it seems to you, or what your experience is in the matter - it only cares about what is. Most of us here are used to dealing with the situation of being presented with an assertation and then reasoning about its validity, rather than whether or not the assertation was sufficient based on the evidence (though we can do that, too.) When new, contradictory evidence is introduced, the habit of Objectivism is to incorporate the evidence and modify the conclusion, not to dwell on whether or not the original conclusion was arrived at correctly.

5. I never meant to suggest that exceptions weren't possible...I only intended to convey that I, personally, have not encountered any.

But even though you accept the existence of exceptions, you do not modify your conclusion to account for them. This is the sticking point.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, what would the "scientific method" accept as causal proof [of homosexuality being either a form or symptom of mental illness?]
I suppose you would have to state why "mentally healthy homosexual" is a contradiction.

[Mentally healthy homosexuality] doesn't exist according to my experiences.
That's not a good statement, unless by "experiences," you mean "direct perceptions." In that case the statement is understandable, though virtually meaningless to the discussion (being at best coincidental.)

Experiences are more than what one directly perceives, though. E.g. your experiences in the full context tells you that Norweigans exist, and making a statement to the contrary would be as inaccurate as the quoted one.

Go Steelers :worry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which I say doesn't exist according to my experiences (notice those last four words, please.)

Your emphasis of the last four words goes directly to my point. Standing by your conclusion (homosexuality is a mental illness) now that you have accepted that well balanced homosexuals exist as exceptions is subjective, not objective.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, i am new to these forums, so my point might have been made by someone else already. So, here goes:

If we accept the homosexual claim that they are born that way, why can't we then also accept the claim of those paedophiles who might claim that they are born that way? Do we need to first understand the psychological causes of paedophilia before we judge it as 'abnormal' at the very least? Should we postpone judgment (of paedophilia) to the day when biologists/psychologists will fully understand the roots of paedophilia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, "blackDiamond", would you then claim that pedophiles don't have psychological reasons for their inclinations? I don't find it difficult to believe that some of them have such deep-seated psychological problems, that they should be locked up for ever.

Break this down into two "phases":

  • wanting to perform an act (motivation)
  • performing the act (action)

It isn't far-fetched to think that the psychological motivation of at least some homosexuals is so deep-seated, that it is not practical to change it. As for the next "phase" (i.e. action), they are in the happy position that there are other adults who feel the same way and therefore they do no harm. So, we have a happy ending.

Of course they have volition. I wager that most, if not all, can be in heterosexual relationships if they will it. Indeed, most gays will argue that that is just what people like them have done for ages. However, why should they?

Caveat: I've never known any openly gay person, so maybe I should just shut up after this post :worry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we accept the homosexual claim that they are born that way, why can't we then also accept the claim of those paedophiles who might claim that they are born that way? Do we need to first understand the psychological causes of paedophilia before we judge it as 'abnormal' at the very least? Should we postpone judgment (of paedophilia) to the day when biologists/psychologists will fully understand the roots of paedophilia?

I think there is some evidence that pedophiles -- people attracted to children sexually -- do become that way very early in life and that it is very hard for them to change that. They are known to be practically unreformable and require constant supervision to ensure they don't reoffend.

What this has to do with the debate here, however, is unclear (except perhaps as evidence that sexual preferences of any sort are deeply-ingrained and difficult, if not impossible, to change). Morality applies to actions, not preferences or desires. Acting on pedophilia is clearly immoral because it involves violating the rights of the children involved. They do not have the ability to consent. A person who has pedophilic desires yet never acts on them, on the other hand, is not immoral, qua those desires.

Engaging in homosexual activity, however, involves no rights violations. It has also not been shown to inherently involve any other form of immorality.

Mark

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mwickens,

The point i am making is that we can judge homosexuality as immoral just as we DO judge paedophilia as immoral (or don't we?) - even without complete knowledge of the psychological roots of either of the two.

I am not talking about ILLEGAL, but immoral. So, an action can be IMMORAL even if it does not cause harm to anyone else.

The desire to have sex with children is itself AT LEAST *abnormal*, even if one does not act on it. If you agree with that, then on what basis would you deny that a sexual desire for a similar sex person is also at least abnormal?

Finally, saying that something is very difficult to change does not say anything about whether it is right or wrong. If it CAN be changed, however difficult that is, then a rational person must struggle to change it, which is the point of human volition.

(softwarenerd, you and i are probably on the same side on this!).

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...