Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Whom (i.e., which person) one finds sexually attractive is determined by one's character.  But as to which sex one finds sexually attractive, that may be different matter.  I don't think one can choose to be sexually attracted to either one (or even both) of the sexes.

I think that's a good way of putting it. Even if a homosexual can't but help to be attracted to their own sex, they can still demonstrate the volitional attribute of character by choosing a person of high moral value. The principle is the same allthough in the context of a same sex attraction.

I too would appreciate if John Galt would provide some links. I have read alot over the past few years that is similar by I don't have it handy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In reply to the original post:

(I didn't read the whole thread, so if someone posted this then simply disregard it)

If sexual orientation is subject to choice, then whether it is moral or immoral is judged by the same standard as any other choice would be. Have anyone's rights been violated by that choice?

If it is not subject to choice, then it is not a question of morality, just as eating food is not a question of morality.

Whatever the case may be, homosexuality should not be forbidden, because that would be immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too would like to see some citations of your sources. The one actual study you mentioned about the 50 men seems flawed to me, even as you presented it--for starters, so far you've presented correlation but not causation--and for some reason I suspect that it's not an objective study. But aside from that, I'd just like to make one simple point:

Researchers make homosexual baboons and chimpanzees for various research studies.

Human beings are not baboons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am extraordinarily pleased by the thoughtfulness of the replies I have received. I would want some evidence, myself. I dug through my files and found that faded, manually typed research paper I wrote back in 1984 or so. Unfortunately, I can't provide any live links because the research was done the old fashioned way: through printed sources. One point I'd like to make: I wasn't some scientist searching for a rare and elusive truth. I was a college kid looking for an easy topic! If I could do the necessary research in about 4 or 6 hours, 20 years ago, just think of what could be done now? ;)

For those who want to follow up, here's the list:

Shideler, Lindberg and Lasley, "Estrogen behavior correlative in the reproductive behavior of the Ruffed Lemur," from Hormones and Behavior 17, 249-263 (1983)

Phoenix, Jensen and Chambers, "Female sexual behavior displayed by androgenized female Rhesus Macaques," Hormones and Behavior 17, 146-151 (1983)

Martensz and Everitt, "Effects of passive immunization against testosterone on the sexual activity of female Rhesus monkeys," Journal of Endricronology (1982), 271-282

Glick, Brenner, Jensen and Phoenix, "Moxestrol (R2858), Estradiol Benzoate, and sexual behavior or Cynomolgus Macaques," Hormones and Behavior 16, 94-106 (1982)

Wilson, Gordon and Collins, "Serum 17b-estradiol and progesterone associated with mating behavior during early pregnancy in female Rhesus monkeys," Hormones and Behavior 16, 94-106 (1982)

Machael and Zumpe, "Influence of olfactory signals on the reproductive behavior of social groups of Rhesus monkeys," Journal of Endricronology 95, 189-205 (1982)

Gray and Gorzolka, “Adrenal steroid interactions in female sexual behavior, a review,” Psychoneuroendricronology vol. 5, 269-285 (1980)

Kester, Green, Finch and Williams, “Prenatal female hormone administration and psychosexual development in human males,” Psychoneuroendricrinology vol 5, 157-175 (1980)

V. Kuevi et al, “Plasma amines and hormone changes in post-partum blues,” Clinical Endricrinology 19, 39-46 (1983)

Vogt, Coe, Lowe and Levine, “Behavior and pituitary adrenal response by adult squirrel monkeys to mother-infant separation,” Psychoneuroendricrinology vol 5, 191-190 (1980)

Gonzalez, Gunnar and Levine, “Behavioral and hormonal responses to social disruption and infant stimuli in female Rhesus monkeys,” Psychoneuroendricrinology vol 6, no.1, 53-64 (1981)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
My view on the subject is completely based on the physical nature of man, and the fact that he should not reject it. 

I debated with myself as to whether or not I should resurrect this thread, but upon reading this particular position I thought I needed to respond.

I do not see how homosexuality equates to a man rejecting his physical nature. This has been asserted but not supported. I don’t understand what the “compatibility” worth seeking is.

If we are merely talking about matching body parts than the male body is just as capable of pleasing a man as a female body, especially given that a gay man does not have any desire to interact with that female body. Not seeking a romantic relationship with another man would be rejecting a nature of a different sort. Perhaps I am missing some key portion of the argument.

Since I have not spoken up on this before I should state my general view on this topic: Whether it occurs by choice or by genetics I do not see how homosexuality can be declared immoral.

Promiscuity and self-destructive behavior is certainly immoral- but homosexuality hardly has a corner on that market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't really accept that some decisions are forced upon you by your bilogical nature.

Well if you're correct then that would mean anyone could behave in a homosexual or heterosexual manner. Of course this doesn't mean they would like what they were doing; just that they could do it.

But I disagree with this; I think you are compelled by your biology. Let's do a thought experiment. I assume you're a man, but if not please substitute the following for the correct body parts. I also assume you are a heterosexual.

Now imagine [pornographic content deleted by moderator; referred to having sex with another man]; imagine yourself enjoying it; imagine yourself wanting more.

What I've said above is not some strange attempt to insult you, but I do assume that as a heterosexual you find thinking about such things to be disgusting; which brings me to my point. I've never had to personally give homosexual behavior a try to know I would never want to do it; the mere thought disgusts me in the same way that the thought of eating my own feces disgusts me.

I think that this disgust reaction is NOT some social / moral reaction; instead I think this is a reaction compelled by your biology. Why don't we eat our own poop? Because it smells bad (among other reasons). Why does it smell bad? Because our brain (the “smells bad, stay away” center activates) tells us so.

Social or moral conditioning was not required for me to not want to eat my own poop; I am aware of no baby that would try to do such a thing. I think the same is true for being gay; no one had to tell me "don't do it" it's just something I naturally wouldn't do.

You can prove inductively that freewill exists.

I'd be interested to see that proof.

To the best of our knowledge the universe is ruled by deterministic laws. Why should we make a special case against determinism in the one small case of human beings?

I'm not trying to be flippant here; this is one of the parts of Rand's philosophy I've always had difficulty with.

Edited by Capitalism Forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be interested to see that proof.

To the best of our knowledge the universe is ruled by deterministic laws.  Why should we make a special case against determinism in the one small case of human beings?

I'm not trying to be flippant here; this is one of the parts of Rand's philosophy I've always had difficulty with.

hmm, from what I understand, the existence of freewill is axiomatic. So no, it cannot be "proved".

You can have great difficulty with the concept of freewill if you have the wrong conception of causality. (I know I did.)

Causality is simply the fact that every entity acts according to its nature.

Man is by nature an animal with volitional consciousness. Therefore, insorfar as he is aware of them, he chooses the actions that are open to him by virtue of the facts of reality. The given circumstances--the facts of reality and his own nature--strictly limit the the choices open to him, but they do not "determine" which choice he will choose.

Not all actions are chosen, of course. That fact that he may slip and fall, or get sick and die, without choosing to is a result of his nature as an animal--a physical being and thereby subject to the laws of physics.

What is so difficult with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all actions are chosen, of course.  That fact that he may slip and fall, or get sick and die, without choosing to is a result of his nature as an animal--a physical being and thereby subject to the laws of physics.

What is so difficult with that?

Well, as far as I understand things all phenomenon we see around us has some cause behind it.

On a pool table the eight ball will hit the six ball and we can clearly see that the six ball then reacts in accordance to the natural laws surrounding the fact of it being hit by the eight ball, the surface it is rolling on, etc. The six ball had no other choice to react but the way it did. (I know, I know; "choice" is a bad word in the last sentence because a six ball cannot "chose" in any manner about anything but I can't think of another good word to fit.)

We also know that when you mix certain chemicals, certain reactions will result; every time and without fail. That's how we discovered chemistry, and ultimately that predictability is what makes the world comprehensible.

In both these examples, if we were given enough information before hand, we would be able to use the deterministic laws our science has discovered to know what the outcome would be with 100% certainty.

We also know that we are wholly materialistic creatures that live in a physical universe. We do not have souls that interact with our bodies through some supernatural connection; we are all meat.

So the physical universe around us is deterministic in that all things have a cause and effect, and that things could have come out no other way because of those laws. We also know that we are all meat and are made of no different stuff than the rest of the universe; therefore our meat must also obey these determinist laws and cannot behave in any other way.

Our brains, which are in our heads, are also part of that meat and they contain the "person" that we recognize in the frontal lobe section. It is also wholly meat and therefore must be governed by the deterministic laws of our universe. Therefore at any given point the chemical reactions in our brains that make up our thoughts and memories and our "person" are thus effects of previous causes and thus cannot be any other way then the way they are.

Therefore, unless we have some force that can act in violation of the universe's deterministic laws (like a soul) then human beings do not have free will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to take the time to read all the other posts in this thread. So, I don't know if any of this has been said or not. In most cases, there are a few exceptions, I don't find it very difficult to discern whether a person is gay or not. Gay women usually have slightly more masculine facial features than heterosexual women and their voice is slightly more masculine as well. I think this is due to an increased level of testosterone. Gay men usually have more feminine mannerisms and usually have a more feminine quality to their voice than do straight men. I think this is due to an increased level of estrogen. (Of course, these are just my observations and are not based on any scientific findings.)

That said, I doubt it is possible for these hormonal changes to be caused by one's volitional consciousness. However, it may be possible for them to be caused by one's subconscious, which would put the question of homosexuality out morality and into psychology. I don't know if homosexuality is innate. I think it is probably acquired around the time of puberty, by what means -- I don't know.

As a side note, there are homosexual Objectivists who don't seem to be morally hindered by their sexual preference (i.e. they seem quite happy and successful).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social or moral conditioning was not required for me to not want to eat my own poop; I am aware of no baby that would try to do such a thing.  I think the same is true for being gay; no one had to tell me "don't do it" it's just something I naturally wouldn't do.

I totally agree, BlueWind.

I think that most everything one finds sexually attractive about another person is due to the summation of one's values judgements, EXCEPT the sex of the person to whom one is attracted. This is, according to my own hypothesis, due to sensory differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Someone stated earlier...

You have no sense which tells you if you should be sexually attracted to someone...

I'm not so sure that's entirely true, and there seems to be a lot of scientific evidence to indicate that smell definately plays some part in sexual attraction.

My own hypothesis of the origin of sexual orientation (which I apply only to males because I've seen evidence that it might not apply fully to females) is that it lies in the olfactory receptors and how they are (or which ones are) connected to the sexual centers of the brain. The natural scents given off by people (assuming good hygene) differ because of several factors, with hormones (and consequently, sex) being one of the major ones. I think that, in heterosexual men, some sexual area(s) of the brain are stimulated when chemicals given off by (some/most?) females are sensed; in homosexual men, it's the chemicals given off by (some/most?) males that provide the same stimulation. The details of this (e.g., whether the difference is caused by missing, present, malformed, or mis-wired receptors, or lies in the brain itself) I cannot speculate on.

I think this can explain how sexual orientation can be innate, while most or all other aspects of sexual attraction are based on values. I have not stated the entire hypothesis (which also discusses bisexuality) here. I simply want to show that it's possible to have an innate determining factor behind one's preferences if that factor is due to a difference in sensory perception.

I want to make one important distinction here. When I say above that a certain sexual part or parts of the brain are stimulated, I am not saying that the person becomes sexually aroused from this alone, at least not past infancy. I think that the stimulation causes the person (probably beginning in infancy) to associate the qualities of certain attributes (e.g., skin texture, vocal tone, general body shape, hairyness, ...) of one sex with sexual arousal, while the quality of those same attributes in the other sex have no special association at all. Thus, I am NOT advocating that humans have pheromones or pheromonal responses like some animals; they most certainly do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see how homosexuality equates to a man rejecting his physical nature. This has been asserted but not supported.

In addition, "physical nature" has not been identified. What do we mean?

Is being female having two X chromosomes? Is being male having a penis? What about hermaphrodites -- genetic females exposed to high concentrations of testosterone in utero who have male-appearing genitalia?

Is being male or female a matter of blood levels of estrogen and testosterone? Is it determined by having a male or female BRAIN? There is evidence that the brain has a lot to do with it.

There are male/female differences in the hypothalamus with evidence that male homosexuals have brain structures more like females. There is the story told in As Nature Made Him : The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl by John Colapinto, sold by SRB, about a male castrated and surgically altered to have female genitalia as an infant, raised as a girl from birth, and given female hormones at puberty. He never really felt like a female and grew up sexually desiring women and eventually marrying one. Since he had female genitalia, hormones, and upbringing, it seems reasonable that his sense of "maleness" was caused by something in his BRAIN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since he had female genitalia, hormones, and upbringing, it seems reasonable that his sense of "maleness" was caused by something in his BRAIN.

I'm still confused about as to what this suggests. That sexual orientation is a matter of choice or biology? You say that "maleness" was caused by something in the "brain." Do you mean in a physical structure of the brain, or something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how this debate has evolved in the 15 pages of posts. I haven't read them all but will because this topic is very important to me.

Now I know nothing about the theory that supports as the cause for homosexuality purely physical-biological causes. I know more about psychology as the cause. The former theory may explain why some gay men act too "feminine" and some women act too "masculine". I see it similar to obesity; for some it is a physical problem, for others it is psychological.

My intense attraction to men stems from various factors in my childhood. Over time I have been able to gradually identify these factors and I'm sure that I will do so even more over my lifetime. Although these factors can be identified, the "passion" is hard to change. To transfer my passion to the opposite sex, I predict will take decades of therapy. So since I seek my happiness, I want to have sex NOW, or in the near future. I want to choose a man for a long term relationship and work on that relationship.

To try to change my sexuality in therapy would be a huge sacrifice. It would probably require abstinence. This path I see as quite silly. So I choose the path of my own happiness. The interesting thing is, is that as I evolve in character, and am able to define better what I want in another man, it will only reinforce my desire to find the right MAN.

I've also passed the point of no return since I have discovered the magnificent and awesome and ecstatic activities that two men can perform together. Since men have penises they can have much more fun than two women can, though two women can have much pleasure too.

As to personality, I do not act "feminine". Actually many people are surprised when they find out my homosexuality. They are even more in doubt when I point out a beautiful women. I'm still human so I know what a beautiful women is! But I am capable of diverging from acting "optimally masculine" but I call it more childishness. I think that most men who are married and passionately in love can admit to in some contexts acting "feminine" with their wives. I call it affection. I would be capable of a lot more affection if we lived in a better world. If I lived in Atlantis I would dance more, I would probably take up ballet; I would sing as high as I can; who knows what else. I would be more interested in those creations that Martha Stewart has promoted in her successful career.

I think that's enough for now of my benevolent rant.

Americo. ;):P:);)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side note, there are homosexual Objectivists who don't seem to be morally hindered by their sexual preference (i.e. they seem quite happy and successful).

I know quite a few gay Objectivists and I agree. (Some are quite well-known and respected, but it is not my place to "out" anyone without their consent).

In general I have found that sexual preference correlates with the things that matter to me when judging people -- honesty, intelligence, ambition, abilities, knowledge, objectivity, independence, fairness, etc -- about as much as eye color does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still confused about as to what this suggests. That sexual orientation is a matter of choice or biology? You say that "maleness" was caused by something in the "brain." Do you mean in a physical structure of the brain, or something else?

I'm not sure, but there is some evidence that both choice AND biology are involved.

There is a certain area in the hypothalamus that is reported to be larger in heterosexual males than in females and in gay males. The hypothalamus is the area of the brain controlling sleep, hunger, and other primitive "urges" we share with lower animals. Also, lower animals are usually, but not always, heterosexual but they are not volitional.

Also, studies were done in which rats were given the hormones of the opposite sex while in utero. The result was that as adults, they usually had the secondary sexual characteristics and exhibited the behavior of the opposite sex. It appears the hormones did something.

All of this evidence is suggestive, but none of this is conclusive. Further research needs to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm, from what I understand, the existence of freewill is axiomatic.  So no, it cannot be "proved".

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

In order for something to be an axiom, the ramifications of denying that axiom should be apparent. In the instance of the axiom of existence, if one rejects existence, its implications become quite clear, as we all know.

But in the case of free will, rejecting such an "axiom" does not put the person in the same place. To say "no free will" is equivalent to saying "we are determined" which does not necessarily lead to the destruction of philosophical inquiry as does the rejection of any other axiom.

Causality is simply the fact that every entity acts according to its nature.

Man is by nature an animal with volitional consciousness.  Therefore, insorfar as he is aware of them, he chooses the actions that are open to him by virtue of the facts of reality.  The given circumstances--the facts of reality and his own nature--strictly limit the the choices open to him, but they do not "determine" which choice he will choose.

You do realize that you offer no argument here, right?

Man has a concept-forming consciousness, not a reality-altering consciousness (which would be a requirement for these "choices" you speak off). You define causality as "the fact that every entity acts according to its nature" without a basis. The traditional definition: cause => effect seems much more fitting, and until I see you debunk that definition, your essential argument remains flawed.

Not all actions are chosen, of course.  That fact that he may slip and fall, or get sick and die, without choosing to is a result of his nature as an animal--a physical being and thereby subject to the laws of physics.

But somehow, the fact that humans possess volitional consciousness somehow grants us immunity to the laws of physics? That's not what you're saying, is it!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

No. Tom is correct. The very notion of "proof" presupposes free will. In fact, without free will epistemology itself loses all meaning.

You define causality as "the fact that every entity acts according to its nature" without a basis.
The basis for causality is the law of identity, a thing is what it is. To exist is to have identity. Causality, then, is the law of identity applied to action. The nature of an entity determines the kind of action possible to it.

The traditional definition: cause => effect seems much more fitting, and until I see you debunk that definition, your essential argument remains flawed.

Yours is not a definition, but rather just a circular statement.

But somehow, the fact that humans possess volitional consciousness somehow grants us immunity to the laws of physics?  That's not what you're saying, is it!?

Of course that is not what Tom said. Why would you think so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I with you on your post, as a homosexual male I too think the same way. The only "stereotypical homosexual attribute" I think I have is my strong interest in art, confusion with sports, and my calm, mello demeanor.

I don’t want to get involved in the debate, other than say that in addition to the above tastes, I am also soft-spoken, like to wear colorful Hawaiian shirts… and very much like women. What does that say that say about the size of my hypothalamus?

I guess the exception is that I don’t dance at all, though I would like to learn – mostly for the benefit of my female company. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man who earns much less than his wife, lives in a house owned by her, drives a car paid for by her money, etc., is a miserable failure and can never really be proud of himself, as to live qua man involves the creation of wealth--material wealth--and by accepting wealth he hasn't earned, he admits that he is incapable of creating wealth himself. On the other hand, a woman who needs to buy herself a husband is also a failure, as she admits that she is incapable of winning a man's admiration qua woman--i.e. by being beautiful and lovely.

But if both the wife and husband are billionaires--remember, we are talking about ideal cases--then it doesn't matter much which of them has more billions; they are both successful.

In summary, I would say that if a woman marries a man for his money, that means success for both, but if a man marries a woman for her money, that means failure for both.

:rolleyes: Marriage is a partnership. If one partner is lazy and unproductive s/he is a parasite . But if both partners have productive careers, yet one happens to earn more than the other, so what? Note that in both cases gender is irrelevant; both partners should contribute to the shared household to the best of their abilities.

A man's admiration of a woman should not be based primarily on beauty, nor should a woman's admiration of a man be based primarily on physical strength. These may play some role in initial attraction but ultimately they are superficial; what matters is beliefs, values, character, etc. These are the same for both sexes (and for that matter physical attractiveness and strength are also not exclusive to one sex or the other.)

I dredge this up because some Objectivists seem to base their opposition to homosexuality on the idea that men and women have fundamentally different characteristics (other than the obvious anatomical ones) that require any proper romantic relationship to be between two different and complementary sexes. I really do not see any evidence for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Capitalism Forever @ Dec 27 2003, 01:49 PM)

A man who earns much less than his wife, lives in a house owned by her, drives a car paid for by her money, etc., is a miserable failure and can never really be proud of himself, as to live qua man involves the creation of wealth--material wealth--and by accepting wealth he hasn't earned, he admits that he is incapable of creating wealth himself. On the other hand, a woman who needs to buy herself a husband is also a failure, as she admits that she is incapable of winning a man's admiration qua woman--i.e. by being beautiful and lovely.

But if both the wife and husband are billionaires--remember, we are talking about ideal cases--then it doesn't matter much which of them has more billions; they are both successful.

In summary, I would say that if a woman marries a man for his money, that means success for both, but if a man marries a woman for her money, that means failure for both.

This is a testament of rationalism if I have ever seen it. What if this man you are talking about is married to Oprah? How many men out there are in the ballpark of her wealth? You are playing with words with no reference to reality (or actual people for that matter). Why is he a miserable failure? You said he earns much less than his wife, but he stills earns something right?

Here, let's take a peek at reality for a moment. Let's say we have a beautiful actress - Cathrine Zeta-Jones (before she defiled herself to Douglas-bastard!), and she sees a beautiful painting in a gallery and she meets the painter and falls in love with him. The man is truly a great artist and is entirely devoted to painting. Let's say he makes some money at it, but it pales greatly in comparison to her wealth. Let's say they marry, and he moves into her house. Is this man a wretch and a loser?

Or let's just two ordinary people are in love, they are married, they have their future ahead of them et all. Then one day he, through no moral fault of his own, gets in an accident that seriously impairs his "wealth producing ability". She still loves him and will gladly assume the heavier burden while he (does not wallow away because that would change the nature of the example) tries to regain his position in the world, or find a new way to be productive. Is he a maggot? I defy you to prove it in either case.

As per your last paragraph. A woman that marries for money is a whore. A man that marries for money is a gigalo.

I dredge this up because I was horrified by how removed from concretes it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The man is truly a great artist and is entirely devoted to painting. Let's say he makes some money at it, but it pales greatly in comparison to her wealth. Let's say they marry, and he moves into her house. Is this man a wretch and a loser?

This example made me think of Frank O'Conner. Did he make any significant income compared to AR's?

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...