Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

For whom, and why?

For those who live by Objectivist ethics, and advocate rational selfishness.

Because it's embarrasing to witness people who allegedly share the same ideals try to pervert them into fitting their own prejudice views.

There is only ONE valid arguement, and that is: "Homosexuality isn't determined by genetical disposition, it is rather the result of a conscious choice."

There are no scientifical evidence for this being true. You cannot base your arguement on false premises and wishful thinking.

And even if this was proven right, the intellectual entanglement that it entails is complicated and would not give us a clear answer to the moral implications involved without a lengthy discussion - a discussions that should find place then. Not now, when there is no premise.

If you seek irrational and unfounded gayhating, I advice you to discard objectivism. It is not for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This thread is now on its tenth page.  Is anything new being said here that has not already been said on previous pages?  If not, then I suggest we drop the topic, as it is only going in circles.

It's been so many circles my head is reeling. I agree with your suggestion.

Over and out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we now need a definition of "physical incompatibility." No, not CapFo's illustrations of men and women, but what it means to be physically incompatible.

Because by all of my experience and understanding, there is no such physical incompatibility, as the expression is used here, in homosexual sexual relationships. I don't think there is any way to prove that a homosexual relationship between ideal homosexual men is not ideal. (The very notion begs the question even.)

This:

There is no way two men can complement each other to the extent that the ideal man and the ideal woman do.

is little more than an assertion made on the grounds of CapFo's own heterosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only ONE valid arguement, and that is: "Homosexuality isn't determined by genetical disposition, it is rather the result of a conscious choice."

We haven't had an arguement against freewill for three pages. The discussion here is whether the values leading to homosexuality are necessarily immoral.

This will be my last post in this thread until someone posts some evidence one way or the other...

RadCap: close the discussion if people start talking about biology again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thought of having sexual intercourse with one make me want to wash my mouth out with soap.

...

I was also shocked by Rand's view of homosexuality though my shock lessened when I remembered the times she was living in … I found it strange that they believe a person became a homosexual because of some sort of denial of the opposite sex’s body.

Aah, the times she lived in. THAT musta been the source of her ideas!

Interesting. You describe the thought of sex with a woman in almost exactly the way that you condemn as "strange" when said by Rand and Branden.

I've generally seen two arguments defending why homosexuality isn't moral (I haven't read the entire thread here, sorry).

1) Homosexuals have no choice.

I think the people in this forum aren't taking this view. Good. :P

2) What difference does it make? Gender--and sexuality--are arbitrary! Man, woman, whatever.

An interest fact that this theory doesn't integrate real well is that very few people are switch-hitters (and those few are so extremely hedonistic as to almost caricatures of the archtype).

For the record, Rand's concept of femininity was "the desire to look up to a man." It wasn't the straw man of the Victorian era's mounted-on-a-pedestal porcelain doll. Nor was it the clinging-vine (whom Rand condemned). It was a view of woman as a strong, independant virtuous person who sought a man for her husband to whom she could look up. She looks up not to a human virtue that she lacks, but to a man's masculinity.

I've been told by someone who knew her personally that she said, but didn't publish, her view that masculinity is "strength, confidence."

Now, either she meant that masculinity isnt'a virtue at all (which I don't think is correct), or that it was a uniquely masculine virtue (which integrates with every fact of existence I can think of).

Every heterosexual man will understand what she meant by masculinity. No, not the macho, bullshit, tough-guy crap. No, not driving a jacked-up pickup truck full of beer and girls to NASCAR.

I think she meant the strength to regard women, in the sexual and romantic context, qua values. The same way he regards any other value: something to gain and keep if he can. I think she meant the confidence to think not only that he can gain and keep such a value, but that he deserves it.

To any woman who reads this, my observation is this. It is extraordinarily difficult to even think about what goes on in the opposite gender's mind. I know, I've spent a few years thinking about femininity and what goes on in the minds of women. I think that, with great effort, one can achieve a basic understanding. Integration is impossible because to a man, the female context isn't part of the facts of existence (and vice versa).

At this point, I would like to note that the sexual act is only possible when the man is able to perform it. In a rational, loving relationship between a man and a woman, of course the man doesn't force himself on the woman. There are times when he's in the mood, but she isn't. Often in such cases, she will agree--and usually ends up in the mood before too long. There are times when she's in the mood, but he isn't. In such cases, if she can't seduce him, sex is impossible.

The biology (not to mention the physiology, which I have not discussed) of this leads to two quite different roles. The man has to "be interested" in the woman, for sex to be possible. The woman has to interest the man (the meaning of "seduce").

Observe that shopping malls are dedicated mostly to things that enhance the ability of women to interest men. Some of these things would be rejected by any rational person, except for sex and romance, such as high heels, make up, etc.

The different roles are valuer and valuee.

One could say that a homomosexual man doesn't have this kind of strength or confidence. More directly, he doesn't see himself and valuer, or the woman as valuee. I refer to the kind of homosexual male that I think is interested in Objectivism. I do not refer to the homosexual dominant who finds sexual value in demeaning men, the bisexual who sexually values anything with two legs, or the lesbian who uses sexuality to make a communist political statement.

The kind of homosexual man that I refer to has no idea what has caused him to be homosexual (nor any idea that heterosexual men look at women differently than he looks at men). He may theorize that it's genetic. He may defend it as arbitrary--but then again, he isn't able to choose to value women sexually even though he has tried.

This kind of homosexual man has a mind-body dichotomy. He views himself as a sexual value, like a woman, but has the body of a man. His homosexual relationships do not give him the kind of lifelong happiness that a normal man's sexual and romantic relationship with his wife gives him. Sometimes, he eschews sex. Sometimes, he submits to what his parnter (if the dominant type, above) demands.

But it is not inherently a stable relationship, because it is in contravention of reality. A homosexual man is a man, even if he doesn't really understand what that means. Even if he consciously says it doesn't matter what he sexually values. A is still A.

One other thing makes it profoundly difficult to think about homosexuality or femininity. Unless you're over 50 or so, you grew up in a feminist culture. This is much more than just emphasizing trucks to girls and nursing to boys. Just as femininity is the desire to look up to a man, feminism is the desire to destroy man.

It does this by pushing girls into a mind-body dichotomy, and pushing boys into a different kind of mind-body dichotomy.

Every word taught in school about this is politically-correct dogma. Every word on TV and most words in movies. Hell, even articles on software development in magazines! I have never met a female embedded software developer in over 15 years, including numeous trade shows, etc. But I have read many an article, "the embedded software engineer ... she will want to use this algorithm."

The point being that there is a vicious anti-man agenda, and that it's being pushed with all of the power and all of the money of government. It has been so for decades. It is so pervasive that, for those growing up in it, it's hard to see out of.

Thought my words may feel wrong, I ask that you consider them with reason (and in particular, try to think inductively rather than deductively from "axioms" you've swallowed without question.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biology (not to mention the physiology, which I have not discussed) of this leads to two quite different roles.  The man has to "be interested" in the woman, for sex to be possible.  The woman has to interest the man (the meaning of "seduce").

This is a key point that I do not understand. It seems both man and woman have to seduce, and both man and woman have to be interested. I would say, however, that the means of seduction are different for a man and woman. A woman seduces a man by her femininity; a man seduces a woman by his masculinity.

So what is wrong with a homosexual man who can't be seduced by femininity, but only by masculinity, or a homosexual woman who can't be seduced by masculinity, but only by femininity?

I have problems with your characterization of bisexuals, too...and with your package-deal of arbitrary (point #2) to include both optional and changeable at whim...but I'll ignore those for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a key point that I do not understand. It seems both man and woman have to seduce, and both man and woman have to be interested. I would say, however, that the means of seduction are different for a man and woman. A woman seduces a man by her femininity; a man seduces a woman by his masculinity.

I think the point is that a man is physically incapable of sex if he is not interested, which is not the case with a woman.

In a romantic relationship it is of course the case that either both are interested or sex doesn't happen - the meaning of "romantic relationship" is contradicted otherwise.

Mark Peters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's so, I'm not sure how it's relevant or proves anything.

If I understand Ayn Rand's view of masculinity/femininity correctly (and I believe Bearster based his own view on that), that physical fact is the fundamental basis for why masculinity/femininity are what they are.

I think that issue is related to, but not central to the "Is homosexuality immoral?" question. I've stated my view here before, but I think the whole thing comes down to "Is sexuality as such a product of volition or of genetics?". If it is the latter, then no form of sexuality is subject to moral judgment in any form. If it is the former, then the question becomes "Is it directly volitional or indirectly?", and only if it is directly volitional could it be subject to moral judgment.

I'm firmly in the camp that says it _cannot_ be genetic (because that implies the doctrine of innate ideas), and that it is indirectly volitional, i.e., it is the summary of a large number of value judgments made while growing up.

This seems so straightforward to me, that I'm continually baffled as to why this is a controversial issue at all.

Mark Peters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First you say:

Then:

Are you saying that those value judgements are not subject to moral judgement?

No, I'm not. I'm saying the end result isn't.

Another example of the same thing is a person's psychology. That is also the end result of many value judgments. You can't, for example, call somebody immoral because he has psychological problems. Yet another example is an emotion - also a product of subconsciously held value judgments, also improper to judge morally.

In fact, all of these, sexuality, psychology, and an emotion are very closely related and the result of the same basic process. I would say that a person's sexuality and emotional makeup are both aspects of his psychology, and all of them are indirectly volitional.

Mark Peters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't, for example, call somebody immoral because he has psychological problems.

Not only can I do this, I must.

You say that values are to be judged, but that their resulting actions/feelings are not.

Honestly, this entire concept of "indirect volition" seems downright absurd to me. Seems to me like you are merely speaking of choices which one fails to consider properly, and then supposing that these choices are exempt from judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole thing comes down to "Is sexuality as such a product of volition or of genetics?".

This seems like a false dichotomy, since it doesnt have to be one 'or' the other. It could easily be partly genetic and partly volitional (ie you are able to choose, but your choice is partly limited by your genes).

Not only can I do this, I must..
Only if he is control of those problems, otherwise you are seperating volition from morality. People can only be morally responsible for their CHOICES, not for what they are.

Honestly, this entire concept of "indirect volition" seems downright absurd to me.  Seems to me like you are merely speaking of choices which one fails to consider properly, and then supposing that these choices are exempt from judgement.
Its strange terminology, but it kind of makes sense. He seems to be using 'direct volitional' to refer to short-term choices (such as "should I go and get food?") , as opposed to 'long term' choices. Something like being good at football is probably 'indirectly volitional' by this usage. I couldnt just get on a football field and 'will' myself to be a good player, but I could make the choice to learn how to play and spend many years practicing. Other things like your capacity for pain/talents/weaknesses/etc are 'indirectly volitional' by this definition, since you could improve them by spending the appropriate amount of time practicing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That an emotion as such, and a person's psychology as such are not properly subject to moral judgment is a well-established view in Objectivism. Consequently, rather than rehash (probably badly) here what is already present in the literature, I'll just suggest that people research the literature.

Having said that, I agree with what I think "poohat" said: that if somebody has a psychological problem, knows that he does, but does nothing about it (when doing something is both possible and non-sacrificial), that is subject to moral judgment. But then that's not judging the psychology, it's judging the refusal to act.

Regarding the claim that sexuality could be partly genetic and partly volitional, I'll just repeat what I wrote: it is _impossible_ for sexuality to be genetic in any way because that implies the doctrine of innate ideas. I expected those who disagree to pick up on that and challenge it, rather than just arbitrarily assert the possibility of genetics being a factor. Those who believe that have the burden of proof (which applies even to claims of _possibility_). Part of that burden of proof involves integration, i.e., showing that the conclusion does not contradict other knowledge, in this case, that we know that ideas (including values) are not innate.

The "indirectly volitional" terminology shouldn't be strange in any way, unless there's some other terminology within Objectivism that means the same thing. After all, a tenet of Objectivism is that emotions are caused by subconsciously held value judgments. Doesn't that make an emotion volitional, though not _directly_ volitional, i.e., you don't choose to feel an emotion, you just do?

Mark Peters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poohat:

It could easily be partly genetic and partly volitional (ie you are able to choose, but your choice is partly limited by your genes).
I will let IdeaSave's answer to this statement stand.

Only if he is control of those problems, otherwise you are seperating volition from morality. People can only be morally responsible for their CHOICES, not for what they are.

We have already decided that these are choices we are discussing. So this statement is meaningless.

IdeaSave:

I understand what you are talking about, but it does not exempt homosexuality from moral judgement. You are correct in saying that a man's psychology itself is exempt from moral judgement, but the actions resulting from that psychology are not.

A man's moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions--not on the basis of inferences (usually, spurious) about his subconscious.
"The Psychology of 'Psychologizing,'" The Objectivist, March 1971.

So, all of this direct/indirect volition, as it relates to actions, is completely meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

« Honestly, this entire concept of "indirect volition" seems downright absurd to me. »

Is downright absurd. A thing is volitional or not.

« This seems like a false dichotomy, since it doesnt have to be one 'or' the other. It could easily be partly genetic and partly volitional (ie you are able to choose, but your choice is partly limited by your genes). »

It is not a false dichotomy; it is a true dichotomy. Either volition exists, in which case all human action is by volition; or it doesn't, in which case all human action is determined (to mean: not by volition).

« Only if he is control of those problems, otherwise you are seperating volition from morality. »

And one is only not in control if there is a genetic defect. In all other cases, one either judges or chooses the blindness of wilful unconsciousness.

« That an emotion as such, and a person's psychology as such are not properly subject to moral judgment is a well-established view in Objectivism. »

That virtues and values are properly subject to moral judgment is true; "well-established view", unless you testify otherwise, appears to be an appeal to authority (the logical fallacy of); and emotions are the product of values.

« that if somebody has a psychological problem, knows that he does, but does nothing about it »

Or if it is plainly apparent and he refuses to acknowledge it and instead shows himself only the blindness of wilful unconsciousness. (I'm going to have to start using that phrase more often.)

« this is not just true. »

Grammar check: This is just not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to try to clarify what IdeaSave said.

(One kind of) homosexuality is the adult result of deep integration errors made in early childhood.

What's the moral status of this kind of homosexuality? Does one adopt the intrinsicist/dogmatist position and condemn such a person to perpetual sin? Or does one acknowledge that the adult homosexuality is not choosing this consciously?

This is what I think he meant by indirect volition. Yes, it was volitional choices that led to homosexuality. No, they weren't consciously made by the adult.

I think it's self-evident that homosexuality is not "good". If given the choice, any rational man would choose heterosexuality. The argument that homosexuality is just one alternative among a cornucopia of equal alternatives disgusts me.

Absent the choice, I think homosexuals should try to seek what happiness they can. If it's possible by a process of introspection, perhaps aided by a rational psychologist, to get to the root of the problem and correct it, then that would be the best course of action.

A topic for a separate thread is that I think it's possible for a man to build error upon error, and/or evasion upon evasion until his mind has tied itself into a knot which it can't later untie. An analogy would be that volition gives one a choice to shoot oneself in the foot, but once one does that, one does not heal by a different act of volition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a completely unrelated thread, someone said:

both men [Francisco and Rearden]take complete advantage of her [Dagny].

It would aid in understanding my first post (page 11) to ask why does this person not ask about Dagny taking advantage of Franciso and Rearden!

What is it about male and female that in cheap sex such as a one-night-stand involves the man using the woman, and not the other way around?

What facts of existence give rise to the expression "feminine vulnerability" and why is there no expression "masculine vulnerability"?

Could it be that in sex, the woman is the value sought by the man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On an unrelated note, why is Poohat still being tolerated here?

There's something intrinsically dishonest about approaching philosophy like a comparative literature course, or a Chinese restaurant menu.

"Well, in the Confucion system, it's held that... but of course, Kant said this and Hegel developed Kant's idea into this... I would think that the Objectivist school would admit that..."

UGH! :)

Either one's mind is looking for the truth, and one acknowledges that Rand wrote it down in black and white, or I think one doesn't belong in a forum like 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...