Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[kainscalia]

This is just disgusting....

First of all, you mentioned what an Objectivist should be preouccupied with. Well, Ayn Rand's position on masculinity and femininity is quite clear. First you can read the famous quote regarding a woman president. Then I suggest you read The Fountainhead, specifically the part where Roark takes Dominique. That's Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It also shows that Ayn Rand fully understood the sexual polarity between men and women, and she did so without any compromise.

Rand, also, despite all of the praise and acclaim she deserves, was a woman of her time in many different ways. She simply couldn't conceive of a woman who didn't want to worship a man but, for example, wanted to be a hero herself and have a Romantic Love companion who was in his (or her?) own right a hero. Roark taking Dominique is one expression of Romantic Love, but it is not the only expression, either.

The idea of freeing oneself from gender roles is the most evil idea that has come from feminism. It's objective is destruction, and it is not the destruction of something bad for the sake of something good, it is instead based on pure malevolence. The purpoise of such ideas are to destroy men(and as a result of that they also seek to destroy any proper women) because they are men, because these people hate and fear men. By convincing a lot of men that they have no balls these feminists have succeeded very well.

I don't have "Balls", I have courage- and you would need to have courage to have escaped from where I escaped and survived what I survived- and it does not come from my testicles but from my mind and my principles. My cousin Alexandra put a would-be-rapist in the hospital because she is a consummate martial artist, whereas if she had been waiting for a heroic rescue perhaps another would have been her fate-- after all, women can't be heroes, they must worship them, isn't that true? The idea that gonads are not what determines your tastes, behavior or personality is not a destruction of man, it is the enhancement of the individual. I respect my mind too much to enslave its behavior to my penis- rather, I dictate and the rest of my consciously-controllable body is to serve. I am not separating mind and body, I am recognizing that my body has certain characteristics, but by no means those characteristics will dictate the contents of my mind. Gender Roles, not physical gender, are social constructs that are essentially, for the most part, package deals with a great deal of hangups. The power of being strong and assertive is not exclusive to men in character, whilst men may have higher muscular density and women may have higher agility and a lower center of gravity, to tie the characteristics of our individual personalities into molds of action deemed Masculine or Feminine is a maneuver definitely worthy of Sigmund Freud.

What it is, essentially, is sexuality without identity. It's sex without purpoise - perversion rather than celebration.

I truly do wonder how much you people actually do know when you say things like these. I am not bluffing in the least when I say my relationship with my partner, founded on Romantic Love, has a level of integrity, commitment and strength that very few ever seem to match. And then I read tripe like the above, and I have to wonder...

We are not individuals regardless of gender. We are individuals of a specific indentity, a specific nature, and gender is part of our identity.

So we are individuals but only up to a certain point- after that, we are our genders? Interesting.

Now you are being stupid.

Not any more stupid than when you suggested that in a same sex relationship one of the partners must "act like the man/woman."

[brian0918]

Obviously I didn't care and decided to give my answer to your question rather than allow another to speculate as to my meaning, as I would have a "problem" with that.

But you're taking my original reply out of context. I was replying to JJJJ's interpretation of your post, not the real meaning (according to you) of your post. That was the entire point of my reply - he was opposed to what he believed you were saying, but then presented something similar. This is entirely separate from whether or not what he believed you said was equivalent to what you believe you said.

Edited July 29, 2008 by brian0918

[brian0918]

my relatively random and disjointed defensive remarks against all the various "whack-a-mole" attacks presented to me.

You know, whack-a-mole doesn't work so well if the ground (your rationale) isn't full of holes.

[Michael F. Greaves]

In my paper on the Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality, I argued that: "The psychological experience of sexuality is rooted in one's positive evaluation of his sex as an integrated, individuating element of self -- and it is experienced to the fullest through psychological visibility in the context of a romantic love relationship." Experiencing sexuality as a value means experiencing one's gender as a value. How is it possible to experience one's gender as a value? Read my paper to find out.

If my arguments are valid -- if it is legitimate to experience one's gender as a value, and if one can experience the full reflection of this value only through perceiving the opposite sex -- then an argument can be made that homosexuality is suboptimal. Why? Because there is an element of psychological visibility that is unattainable to one who is romantic only with members of the same sex.

Excellent post, Dan; and I will add your paper to my reading list.

However, I don't think that your argument is perfectly sound. I think that you are making an unstated assumption: that homos and heteros, of the same physical sex, experience gender the same way. I believe that they usually do not.

There is strong scientific evidence that most homo men displayed gender-variant behaviour as small boys. It certainly was true in my case. I started to hide such behaviour when I was 5 or 6, but gender-variant feelings are a part of my sexuality. I don't think that your argument is valid for me, but I am reserving judgement on your work for now.

My take on the morality of being homo is incredibly simple: I hold that being true to yourself is a moral requirement. It would be immoral for me to live a straight life. However, self-destructive behaviour is highly immoral, so this prescribes serious limitations on my activities, for the sake of hygiene and safety. This is the only satisfactory resolution possible, in my judgement.

Being straight might be more optimal for some theoretical alternate variation of my self; but not for my actual self. So the term "suboptimal" may be problematic in this context, except in reference to my point about safety.

[EC]

You know, whack-a-mole doesn't work so well if the ground (your rationale) isn't full of holes.

Of course, the mole doesn't understand that while he is creating his holes that when he comes upon solid ground in a beautiful yard, he is merely a nuisance, and can be dispatched of quickly with a sharp trap relatively quickly and easily by the mind of the man who doesn't like the mole attempting futilely to ruin his solid ground.

[KendallJ]

Of course, the mole doesn't understand that while he is creating his holes that when he comes upon solid ground in a beautiful yard, he is merely a nuisance, and can be dispatched of quickly with a sharp trap relatively quickly and easily by the mind of the man who doesn't like the mole attempting futilely to ruin his solid ground.

Oh, God, what next. "I know you are, but what am I" ?

[eriatarka]

homosexuality is suboptimal.

Well bisexuality is the most 'optimal' sexual orientation in the sense that you arent arbitrarily ruling out half the world's population in advance. And I think theres a reasonable amounf of evidence evidence (in the form of sexual orientations in other societies, and psychological studies such as Kinsey's) to support the claim that if people have a 'natural' sexual orientation independent of social conditioning then its quite likely to be bisexuality. So yeah, homosexuality is suboptimal sure - but so is heterosexuality.

Because there is an element of psychological visibility that is unattainable to one who is romantic only with members of the same sex

Assume that the gay man is in a similar situation. He has inherited a psychological predisposition from childhood which makes it impossible for him to experience some elements of romantic love to the fullest.

Yes, and theres something being denied to people who are only romantic with members of the opposite sex. Male-on-male love has been considered the most 'pure' type of love at several points in history (ancient Greece being the most obvious example, and its been relatively common among the upper classes/intelligentsia in several European countries) - your childhood predispositions are causing you to 'miss out' on just as much as the homosexual's. I think that objecively speaking, bisexuality is the 'best' sexual orientation - but since we only have a limited ability to 'choose' our orientations, most of us are stuck with what we have. Edited July 29, 2008 by eriatarka

[EC]

Oh, God, what next. "I know you are, but what am I" ?

Sorry Pee-Wee, not tonight.

[Capitalism Forever]

I may have understood objectivism totally wrong, but dont you see the difference between happiness, the state of mind, and pleasure, a sensation that has no permanent effect.

Yes, pleasure is something different from happiness, but the point is that they are both emotions--and emotions are not tools of cognition.

Happiness is that state of mind which proceeds from achieving your values. Thus, like all other emotions, happiness depends on what your values are. And your values may be rational or irrational ones.

A good example for both the difference between pleasure and happiness, and the difference between happiness and life qua man, is Mother Theresa. She did not experience much pleasure in her life--but she was happy, because she thought she was achieving her values (i.e. going to Heaven by means of living an unpleasurable, altruistic life on Earth). But did she live qua man? No, she didn't, she was a total failure in that respect. Her happiness was based on irrational values--irrational because not founded on the objective requirements of life qua man. So how do we judge her? Taking happiness as the standard of value, she was an absolute heroine. According to Objectivism, she was a miserable wretch.

[dan_edge]

Oh, God, what next. "I know you are, but what am I" ?

Jeez, Kendall. You're so gay.

--Dan Edge

[eriatarka]

Yes, pleasure is something different from happiness, but the point is that they are both emotions--and emotions are not tools of cognition.

Happiness is that state of mind which proceeds from achieving your values. Thus, like all other emotions, happiness depends on what your values are. And your values may be rational or irrational ones.

I disagree with this - if a person could be happy by accepting irrational values, then whats the point of being rational? It wont make me any happier, so why shoud I bother?

No, happyness isnt an emotion - its a state of mind (a different thing entirely), and one which is much more likely to be enjoyed by people with rational and life-affirming values. People who have accepted horrible values generally dont seem to be happy.

Edited July 29, 2008 by eriatarka

[Capitalism Forever]

I disagree with this - if a person could be happy by accepting irrational values, then whats the point of being rational?

Well, if happiness IS your standard, then there is no point. It all boils down to what your standard of value is.

The only catch is that if you are irrational and happy, Objectivists will still call you immoral. Whether or not that detracts from your happiness is up to you...

[eriatarka]

Well, if happiness IS your standard, then there is no point. It all boils down to what your standard of value is.

The only catch is that if you are irrational and happy, Objectivists will still call you immoral. Whether or not that detracts from your happiness is up to you...

This doesnt not seem compatible with the Objectivist stance on happiness.

Happiness

Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness—to value the failure of your values—is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.

But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/happiness.html

If one could be happy and irrational then there would be no point in being rational. However this is generally not the case - the reason why its wrong to pursue irrational aims isnt because it results in 'irrational happiness', its because it normally doesnt result in happiness at all.

Edited July 29, 2008 by eriatarka

[dan_edge]

Excellent post, Dan; and I will add your paper to my reading list.

However, I don't think that your argument is perfectly sound. I think that you are making an unstated assumption: that homos and heteros, of the same physical sex, experience gender the same way. I believe that they usually do not.

There is strong scientific evidence that most homo men displayed gender-variant behaviour as small boys.

...

Being straight might be more optimal for some theoretical alternate variation of my self; but not for my actual self. So the term "suboptimal" may be problematic in this context, except in reference to my point about safety.

Michael,

I appreciate your comments.

You're right, there are physiological elements that can come into play here. Perhaps I should have specified that my comments were directed towards homosexuals without physiological gender-related abnormalities. As little as I know about being gay, I know even less about transvestites, girls with extra testosterone, etc., so I chose not to even comment on that.

The issue is very complex, and I'm no expert, which is why I labeled my comments as a brainstorm of opinions. I hope you enjoy my essay if you get the chance to read it. I always appreciate good feedback.

--Dan Edge

[Capitalism Forever]

If one could be happy and irrational then there would be no point in being rational. However this is generally not the case - the reason why its wrong to pursue irrational aims isnt because it results in 'irrational happiness', its because it normally doesnt result in happiness at all.

What do you make of the Mother Theresa example then? Or more generally, the example of people who find happiness in religion? Religion is destructive and never leads to life, but it can make some people, whose lives are sustained by the more rational elements of the culture, happy.

Now, it is true that their kind of happiness is not the same as ours. Our kind of happiness is the happiness of a living organism succeeding in its goal: the preservation of its own life. It is a happiness stemming out of the production of objective values through reason and rationally-based action. It is a happiness accompanied, as a norm, by pleasure, not pain; a happiness fully compatible with all the needs of your body and, generally, with life on Earth. None of this can be said about a Christian's happiness.

But the point is that none of this matters if the standard is happiness. A happy Christian could ask: "Well, I'm happy, and that's all that matters, so why should I worry about things like life on Earth and the needs of my body and reason and all the rest of that irrelevant stuff? Happiness should be the master and objectivity should be its servant, not the other way around."

The answer to that question is, simply put, that our kind of happiness is far better than theirs. But better by what standard? By the standard of our goal as living organisms: life.

While I don't disagree with the essence of the quote you gave, I do find its phrasing a bit unfortunate. It is clear to me that it uses "happiness" in the sense of our kind of happiness, and pretty much as a synonym of "life qua man." That can indeed not be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. But in the same quote, the definition of happiness is given as "that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values"--a definition that the pursuit and achievement of irrational whims does fit. And elsewhere in Miss Rand's writings and in OPAR, it is made quite clear that the standard of value is man's life--which is an existential fact, not a state of consciousness.

[Alfa]

Why is a penis more important in determining your values than, say, having an extra finger? Why does a specific body part imply having certain values? Why does anything beyond the content of your mind determine what you value?

And what of hermaphrodites? Are they incapable of having values? Surely the two competing body parts cancel out their respective values, leaving the individual amoral and apathetic about existence...

Because having a penis, and the implications of it, have far greater impact on your values. I think Dan Edge put it very well in stating that it's about valuing ones gender, which is best done in contrast to the opposite sex.

I do not know how hermaphrodites experience sexuality but they should certainly have a different set of values. I suppose they must suffer from a difficult conflict, but as for everyone else their own lives are their standard for value(that is, their own existence in accordance to their specific identity is their standard for value).

What is "his own nature"? Why do you get to define what is "his own nature"? Why is it that whenever he does something you disagree with, you frame it as him "denying facts" and "denying his nature", but when he likewise chooses something you agree with, you frame it as him "accepting reality". Do you really believe that all that is involved in rational thought is framing situations in a way that supports your conclusions, entirely separate from context and the facts of reality?

I do not define what is "his own nature". I'm just trying to point at the difference between man and woman and say that to fully appreciate that difference they must stand in contrast to each other. That is also essential for them to fully appreciate their own gender and sexuality. I cannot see how anything else would be possible at a coneptual level(unless there are some gender-confusion issues - i'm not sure how to deal with that).

It does? Maybe you are able to oversimplify things by only choosing to see two categories. Does that mean there really are only two psychological categories? You have shown no evidence to support this.

There are two opposites - men and women. Psycologically though, I suppose that you can find more categories, but what are these categories based on?

According to who? You? If a man says he fully appreciates his masculinity when he is with another man, can you rationally argue that he is wrong without assuming that he has an innate "nature" that is always true regardless of his perceptions and rational conclusions?

But I am trying to rationally argue that he is born with a certain nature.

Again you think you are providing evidence by framing a situation in a way that supports your conclusion. You have provided no evidence or rationale. When a heterosexual acts heterosexually, you frame it as "acting according to one's nature". When a homosexual acts homosexually, you frame it as "contradicting one's nature" or "trying to fake it". You have not provided any actual reasoning, though.

Well, what would you call it when a homosexual couple acts like a heterosexual couple? And if they act in a more homosexual way, then we are back to what I have argued earlier about contrasts. Do you have a better way to "frame it"?

[KevinDW78]

Well, what would you call it when a homosexual couple acts like a heterosexual couple?

A homosexual couple.

[RationalBiker]

I'm going to keep following the thread to see if anyone presents any real evidence of evasion or harm being done to the individual UNIVERSALLY by homosexuality. The evidence I have seen so far only suggests that homosexuals suffer from similar pitfalls that face all relationships. Until then, I don't see any value for me to continue participating. This lengthy thread still hasn't made that connection as far as I see.

[KevinDW78]

This lengthy thread still hasn't made that connection as far as I see.

But we're almost at 60 pages of inconclusive speculation and hearsay!

[EC]

I've know I've said this before, but I believe this will be my last post in this thread. I still plan on writing that essay and will post it in a new thread and on my new blog--Atlantis-- http://atlantis-is-real.blogspot.com/ when it is complete. Just don't hold your breath waiting. It will get done, but in terms of priorities of things I need to do, writing that is near the bottom.

I do have a series of quotes from AS and VOS that will provide the backbone for my reasoning though. Here they are:

Man has no automatic code of survival. He has no automatic course of action, no automatic set of values. His senses do not tell him automatically what is good for him or evil, what will benefit his life or endanger it, what goals he should pursue and what means will achieve them, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. His own consciousness has to discover the answers to all these questions--but his consciousness will not function automatically. Man, the highest living species on this earth--the being whose consciousness has a limitless capacity for gaining knowledge--man is the only living entity born without any guarantee of remaining conscious at all. Man's particular distinction from all other living species is the fact that his consciousness is volitional.

... Emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which furthers man's values or threatens them, that which is for him or against him--lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit or loss.

But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body--the standard of value operating his emotional mechanism, is not. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are "tabula rasa." It is man's cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program--and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.

But since the work of man's mind is not automatic, his values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking or of his evasions: Man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought--or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone's authority, by some form of social osmosis or blind imitation. Emotions are produced by man's premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.

Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give hm joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer. The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher. If a man desires and pursues contradictions--if he wants to have his cake and eat it, too--he disintegrates his consciousness; he turns his inner life into a civil war of blind forces engaged in dark, incoherent, pointless, meaningless conflicts (which, incidentally, is the inner state of most people today).

"Learn to distinguish the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing to correct it; only a mystic would judge human beings by the standard of the impossible, automatic omniscience. But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought. That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that which you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul. Make every allowance for errors of knowledge; do not forgive or accept any breach of morality. Give the benefit of the doubt to those who seek to know; but treat as potential killers those specimens of insolent depravity who make demands upon you, announcing that they have and seek no reasons, proclaiming, as a license, that they 'just feel it'--or those who reject an irrefutable argument by saying: 'It's only logic,' which means: 'It's only reality.' The only realm opposed to reality is the realm and premise of death."

Bold mine.

It is the last quoted passage from AS, especially the part I highlighted in bold face, that leads me to infer that homosexuality is immoral based on the premises from the first couple of quotes taken from VOS.

[KevinDW78]

but treat as potential killers those specimens of insolent depravity who make demands upon you, announcing that they have and seek no reasons, proclaiming, as a license, that they 'just feel it'

Nobody has been arguing that homosexuality must be moral because it "just feels" like it is. In fact most people have been arguing from a point that your first quote supports:

But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body

The arguments have been that one's homosexuality is determined by the nature of his body

If this is all you've got, I'd give up now.

Edited August 13, 2008 by KevinDW78

[EC]

The arguments have been that one's homosexuality is determined by the nature of his body

If this is all you've got, I'd give up now.

Yea, but they also simultaneously argue that sexuality is soul-fulfilling, i.e., a need derived of man's mind. But that is a contradiction. Either sexuality and romance is a result of volition or it is a result of biological determinism. It can't be a result of both because A is A. Since I know that man has free-will, that implies that sexual/romantic desires are a result thereof.

Let your desires be ruled by reason.(Appetitus Rationi Pareat)--Cicero

Edited August 13, 2008 by EC

[~Sophia~]

Yea, but they also simultaneously argue that sexuality is soul-fulfilling, i.e., a need derived of man's mind. But that is a contradiction. Either sexuality and romance is a result of volition or it is a result of biological determinism. It can't be a result of both because A is A. Since I know that man has free-will, that implies that sexual/romantic desires are a result thereof.

Let your desires be ruled by reason.(Appetitus Rationi Pareat)--Cicero

There is no conflict between the two. Sexual orientation is biological (given) but sexual attraction toward a particular person of that sex is not (volitional choice). If is when we are trying to pick a romantic partner that we should be ruled by reason, by our values. It is the relationship with a specific individual which makes sexual experience soul-fulfilling (or not just any person of that sex).

[EC]

There is no conflict between the two. Sexual orientation is biological (given) but sexual attraction toward a particular person of that sex is not (volitional choice).

I disagree with your first premise, i.e., that orientation is the biologically given. I've yet to see any evidence that backs up that assertion, instead all the data I've gathered via my own senses seems to point out that quite the opposite is true.

I will ask you again to provide any links, that include this data (not just its interpretation) that supports this assertion so that I can analyze it objectively.

Edited August 13, 2008 by EC

[~Sophia~]

I disagree with your first premise, i.e., that orientation is the biologically given. I've yet to see any evidence that backs up that assertion, instead all the data I've gathered via my own senses seems to point out that quite the opposite is true.

I will ask you again to provide any links, that include this data (not just its interpretation) that supports this assertion so that I can analyze it objectively.

More precisely my position is that biological, psychological and social factors shape sexual identity at an early age for most people. These preferences typically stem from a combination of temperamental factors (biological) and environmental factors that occur in a child's life.

Genes + Brain Wiring + Prenatal Hormonal Environment = Temperament

Parents + Peers + Experiences = Environment

Temperament + Environment = Sexual Orientation

A common contributor to same-sex attractions is a disruption in the development of gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person's view of his or her sense of masculinity or femininity which is formed through the relationships (and perceptions) that a child has with the same-sex parent and same-sex peers - and it has been shown that child's temperament is a strong factor here. This process of gender identification begins approximately between age two and a half and four.

Please note just how young of an age that is. A child is set on a particular path from then on which affects their brain development as well (brain structure further changes or shapes itself in a particular way with use) - further enforcing them on that path. Perhaps if you interfere at that moment things can be changed but I do not think things can be significantly altered years later (when they reach puberty and adulthood) in terms of changing their sexual orientation. Our brain changes the most up until the age of seven.

If you would like to read over some recent analysis regarding biological factors - you should look at research done on the influence of prenatal-hormons on a developing brain, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain.