Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Cross

Regulars
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Cross's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I think the reason why there are men who find other men attractive, is simply because men are beautiful. That's not to say women aren't. A things identity, just being itself, is pretty much a beautiful thing. I don't think the beauty of human being's is a subjective thing. I mean I think when we recognize something beautiful, it's because it actually is. Men are beautiful. Mankind is beautiful, and interesting and fascinating. So why are there some men preoccupied with the beauty of other men? I think because, as I said, they are beautiful, or often can be, and yet the rest of men seem to ignore this. Not only that, but deny it, and ridicule another man's response to it. The rest of men react either negatively to the beauty of their own sex, even if that's just indifference. Indifference is just showing no sign of acknowledgment for something obviously true. If a woman acknowledges it, is she not seeing something actually true? For myself, I know why I focused on the same sex as far back as I can remember. It was because it was something actually missing from my life. When I say "my life", I mean the world I was in was acting to divorce me from something true. That truth was missing from the social context, and so too I lacked it, needed it. I needed, and do need acceptance of reality on principle. That means, regarding the issue other men, that they are not properly an object of revulsion, on any level. I mean sexually, a sexual level or any other. They are not in and of themselves. We have a world generally acting as if this isn't so. When you have a cultural standard which denies some reality, or aspect of, it's no wonder that reality is cornered into a minority of people. If homosexual behavior is regarded as bad or evil or just inferior, to heterosexual behavior, and so heterosexual behavior is approved, encouraged, expected, presumed as always desirable, and where every bias is for it and against ever diverging from it, then I don't see why it's a mystery a relative few individuals focus exclusively on it. The reason why is although sex is just as good and valid between those of the same sex as with the opposite, the moral standard is that it's only right with the opposite. Hence the majority/minority dichotomy. It's just pushing some truth into a corner. It's also why it gets exaggerated in that corner too, you know, the whole "flamboyancy" thing. Like I said before, "gay" men respond effeminately to the world around them so as not to have a "heterosexual" presumption put on them by others. That's an example of the "forced-corner-exaggeration" effect. The question with homosexuality is always essentially "what makes someone gay?". I know what I find attractive about other men, and I don't need a psychologist to tell me about it. The fact is men are beautiful, and I see no reason to deny it. I'm considered "gay" on this point alone, even though I think I can make a decent case for why it's just a response to something objectively true of my fellow human beings: they are beautiful, male and female. Just noticing it about males is enough to label you as "gay", which is nothing more than a social stigma. By the way, I don't label myself as gay because I think I know enough to know it's not a realistic judgment. It's based on something unnecessary. I also mostly just focus on males, and I know why that is too. It's because it's given to me by the world I live in to over-focus on it because everyone else is always so busy denying and ignoring it. I know my over-playing it is a response to others under-playing it. I mean being "gay" is like some mission one is inadvertently assigned because of stupid social sexual standards. Why am I "gay"? It's because I can't help noticing what everyone is pretending isn't true. The social denial of the obvious is what makes me see it. I mean I become over-focused on seeing other men sexually because it's everyone around me who's pointing it out to me by their denial of it. I mean they deny it in the sense of how I'm acknowledging it, that it's valid for me too, as a male, the sexuality of other men. That's the denial, that men can rightfully connect that way. My focus is given to me by them, by this cultural atmosphere. Yes, my father had something to do with it. So did my mother. However, the truth is I'm still seeing something actually true for myself. It's not a dysfunction to see this truth. The dysfunction is having to choose partial truths, with each one having a social consequence of society assigning you a different status based on which truth you see. If you see one truth, the social assignment divorces you from another, where that other is socially invalid for you as long as you associate yourself with the former. So admitting another guy is pretty great, socially discredits you from the predominant group. To be in that group one has to constantly reinforce one's social status of disassociation with anything of the kind. You can't even like the other sex because there is no social context for it's fulfillment, without the requisite sacrifice of something else true. You have to betray one thing, one part of reality, to have another. Otherwise, there's no credibility for the other. Another example of the dysfunction is that my mother, and other religious people told me homosexuality is a sin. Saying that forces me to look for the sin in it. I mean pointing to something as sin is pointing to something. With that being the focus of the world concerning it, I look at it myself and see it's not true. So I then respond as such. They'd inadvertently pointed it out to me. Growing up where all males never touched affectionately, except in the most careful hesitant manner, never kissed or held hands, or spoke directly affectionately to one another, even in simple matters - all this focuses people, like me on what's missing. For some people it becomes so overwhelmingly obvious that something’s being ignored. You know why? Because you are being ignored, something of your humanity is. Not just you, but the chips have to fall somewhere. If they could fall on everyone equally, then sanctions against homosexuality wouldn't work. There'd be none. You know why? Because there is nothing really to explain this extensive cultural lack, yet there it is. All there is is the bible "explaining" it as God said men shouldn’t do this, so that is supposed to be good enough to explain something so hugely missing from everyday life. Some people become "gay" because the world keeps forgetting something. What it keeps forgetting is the source of the constant remembering of those who see what's lost, see what's just always being left behind for no good reason. What I see people forgetting in everyday life is what I'm being constantly reminded of. It's the omission I can't help focusing on. I always say to myself, that if I were a woman I'd be focused on women for the very same reason. There is a very very extensive cultural omission in everyday life in how people treat each other, and it's that emptiness, that void if you will, that gets filled with people like me. Someone has to exist in that place that others have abandoned. Why? Because it really does exists. The identity of that place is the space between two men (mostly men) that keeps being left empty with no meaning in it. The only thing ever officially allowed to fill it is either aggression of pseudo- aggression. I mean that's mostly the case except for the lightest touches of actual affection. There's just this everyday lack of affection, mostly amongst males, then there is so much about culture aimed at being a substitute for it, a diversion from it. It's usually all the stuff prototypical males love, like aggression-based activities where it's basically just men fighting. Call it "sports" or whatever; it's all just fighting to me. Anyway, there's my amateur analysis of the "straight majority/gay minority" cultural correlation. By the way, I consider the interest in trying to rationalize this majority/minority dichotomy (straight/gay dichotomy) as each group having some distinct physiological characteristic different from one another, as also just another attempt to condemn homosexuality, because it's the same argument of homosexuality being contrary to human nature, even if it's only "most" people's human nature. That still makes it something that can contradict humanity. That idea that some group of human beings has some physiologically distinct nature apart from everyone else explaining why they behave differently than the larger, stronger group, to me is reminiscent of some very very dangerous ideas. It's a diversion from the obvious reality: the social, moral and sometimes legal sanctions against it. What else does one need to explain the relative rarity of the activity? It's at the very least a more rational place to start looking for an explanation, that is if one intends to find the truth
  2. A person's gender doesn't distinguish their fundamental nature as human. Of course one has to act according to what one is. However, the first thing to disguingusih what one is apart from anything else is the distinction "human". Yes, a human male is a human male and a human female a human female. The basis of their commonality is the principle they share. The basis of human relationships is that they are human. Morality is not founded upon any lesser distinction than what makes a human being human, rather than something else. Your fundamantal acts pertain to your fundamental identity as a rational animal. It's that distinction which ought to essentially characterize all of one's actions. How is that not so? The first thing to consider in how one acts is not what gender you are. Yes it is. I disagree. Gender is like race in that it is a secondary characteristic of a human, the primary characteristic being your humanity. Gender is different, of course, because it's not race. The analogy simply has to do with gender and race not being the essential characteristic of a human being. It's not essentail to you primary thoughts and actions as human. For instance, maleness is a characteristic common to other things not human. Race also has it's other counter parts, like different breeds of dogs. So they are similar in that respect: they are not the basis for human morality. They're not because they are not the basis for human identity. Gender is like race in that neither are a matter of choice, and so not open to moral judgment, to make moral judgements on the basis of them. If it's wrong for a male to have sex with another male, then gender is deciding morality. If I choose to be with a male, and that's wrong, then what makes us both right morally, that is our moral choices, are being disregarded because of our sex. Suddenly, even if I'm an absoluetly honest person, and the man I'm with is too, we are both immoral for choosing each other. Why? Because in some way nobody is capable of showing is true, us being together involves some form of dishonesty with ourselves. For that to be true, you have to show how us being together is unequivocally some form of self-destruction for each of us. What aspect of reality am I, or he having to evade for us to have sex? What part of him, either intellectuall or physically am I ignoring by the full acknowledgment of him that is part and parcel of a truly commited full romantic loving sexy sexual act with him? By the way, the most important difference between gender and race is that gender is a broader physicological distinction than race. That's true. It is more fundamental than race, but it's not more fundamental than being a human being in the first place. However, male and female are not two counterpart species which must have sex together for the fulfillment of their respective identities. Male and female are male and female humans. They have the same essential identity. I'm not evading the differences. I'm denying that those differences translate into same-sex sex violating anyone's fundamantel nature, and so can be said to be immoral. There is no known basis for claiming that same-sex sex is intrinsically damaging, either practically or intellectually or emotionally, to an individual. It's like your saying it's wrong to have sex with your own species, because you're making out male and female to be that different, and my species, male, requires that separate species, female. If it is "against" one's nature, then where is the damage done by it for contradicting one's nature? How can you say something is against human nature without being able to point to the harm caused as proof of it.? Unless that proof can be shown, then homosexual sex should be given the benefit of the doubt. People comdemn homosexuality first, and then wonder about if they're wrong later. What's the condemnation based on in the first place? I don't think that's possible. Both sexes exist. There's no more reason to write off sex with the other sex, than with the same, not just as a matter of principle. Why would nobody be interested in the other sex? That's just as irrational as some blanket condemnation of homosexuality. Besides, my premise is that same-sex sex exists for the same reason opposite-sex sex exists, that is because there are two sexes. That is the human condition, and so barring any practical harm from doing so, and seeing as how human beings have sex out of their mutual humanity, both of these basic forms of sexual behavior have to occur. Sex is good, and if something is good, then without some solid reason not to do it, people will. They will for the same reason water runs down hill - because it's free to. This is why the main obstacle to homosexual behavior has always been chosen social sanctions. I don't think a person properly lives their life for the sake of "future generations", for non-existent "future" people, let alone living for other people now. That's not a very Objectivist sentiment. Besides, if people just lived free of unecessary sexual inhibitions, the human race is sure to continue. The choice isn't everyone be gay, or everyone be straight, that only one form of sex can be right. The issue is that, without uncalled for moral restraints, it can be just as easy to love a male as a female, that same-sex sex is valid, and that the sexes involved in someones sexual relationship dont' invalidate it, whatever sexual combo it is. All I see in a sexual act, either between two men, two women, a male and a female, what have you, is barring force or fraud, then it's completely pro-life, as in respect for life. Sex is all about a positive response to human value, so without any solid reason to indict a sexual act as anti-life, this has no basis. There's no clear indication that it is anti-life. If it were in fact anti-life to sleep with another man, then what part of either man's life, their individual beings, is destroyed by it? Their non-existent progeny? You're saying that effeminacy is integral to homosexual behavior. I think alot of men make it integral thoguh, just to avoid being presumed straight. Unless there is a clrear indication that one is open to one's own sex sexually, then culturally they are presumed not to be. That's the going standard. However, a male doesn't stop being a male - regardless of what he does with another male, so why would he have to pretend otherwise? There is nothing in the act itself which necessitates effeminacy. The act itself also doesn't necessitate any such pretense. Having sex with another man doesn't change what a man is, so how could the act itself preclude a man's respect for what he is? A man as a man is capable of taking such an act - for what he is - without negating any part of his identity. It doesn't change him. Your identity is immutable, regardless of what you do with it, unless what you do is outside of what your identity is capable of and so causes you harm. That's basically my point: there's nothing about same-sex behavior that's inherently corruptive of one's actual identity. If there is, no one’s ever shown it. Same-sex sexual behavior doesn't itself require that one deny any part of one's identity. In other words, as far as reality is concerned there's no prohibition. The premise of reality for ones actions simply shows it to be an issue of persoanl freedom, which of course involves the personal freedom of others as well. Effemincay also isn't the only way in which a man can evade his musculinity. Exaggeration is the other side of that coin. Exaggerating your masculinity is just as unrealistic. You can act as if you're more than what you are, just as much as you can act less than. Both are equally wrong. However, people seldom criticize the exaggeration. The exaggeration often passes as masculininty itself. I agree though that deliberately trying to understate one's masculinity is also wrong. What self-evident fact is being negated? Two sexes exist, yes, which is why sex happens with both. Short of some reason on this earth why it shouldn't, there's no valid reason to withold one's good-will regarding it. All I said is a person's sex isn't a moral issue. A sexual act can be moral or immoral, but it's not gender that decides it. You can be just as morally responsible or irresponsible with a member of the opposite sex as with the same. So what does gender have to do with the moral status of your relationship, your sex life? Of course one's sexual life is subject to moral evalution, but gender isn't the proper criteria for that evaluation? How on this earth does gender trump actual moral issues, you know issues of choice: honesty, integrity, respect, loyalty, courage etc..., the list goes on. Morality is not a gender issue. Neither is race, or body type, hair color, eye color, foot size, penis length etc... Choice is a moral issue, not the physiologically given traits of a person. Comdemning the act of sex between members of the same sex is a moralization of a non-choice, hence non-moral issue, gender. Yes, the act of sex is a choice, but it's moral status rests upon the moral choices of it's participants. Gender is not a moral choice for either, so neither should the moral status of their choice to be with one another be based on it. If I can choose my gender, that means equating this physiological characteristic with my volition. Your volitional faculty, your conciousness, your choosing mechanism, your mind, is the source of morality. That's why moral judgemnts are aimed at what people do with it, how they choose. To reject somebody on the basis of their sex is not basing one's choice for another on the choices of that other. To choose them or reject them on the primary basis of what they have no choice about is ignoring morality altogether. That's what's wrong with sexual orientation itself, is that it's not a focus on moral choices, where the first thing one looks for in another person is what sex they are instead, as if morality is secondary. People generally treat morality in the way in which they ought to treat gender, as a secondary issue one accepts for the sake of the love they have for a person because of who that person has made themselves to be. If you are going to make a sexual choice, that is a moral choice, regarding someone, and you’re going to make it on the basis of his or her sex, then the moral revulsion you may experience is moral revulsion against his or her sex itself. This is what happens when morality becomes a matter of everything except what's open to choice. Having sex with a man is open to choice, yes, so is having sex with him because he's a man. It's also open to choice to do it on the basis of what he does and what he thinks, and judge his sex to be just what it is, not a factor that can change his worth to you.
  3. Although I see allot has been discussed since this question was posted, I'll just respond firstly to the initial question. What do I think? Well, first let me qualify what I'd use "homosexuality" to refer to. I'd use it to refer to homosexual experiences across the board, and not just within the confines of a particular class of individuals. When you ask if it's immoral etc, I'll answer it as referring to experiences rather than just as an "orientation". Experiences include thoughts, acts and emotions. So, in short, all of it, or anything homosexual. I don't think it's immoral and I think the matter of choice is a bit complicated. It's not immoral because there is no basis to judge it immoral on, no basis in reality. If anyone knows of one, then please come forward. Homosexuality cannot be objectively demonstrated to be, in any way, in and of itself, harmful or contrary to human nature. It’s never been demonstrated to be. One can objectively consider any homosexual act, for instance to examine it either introspectively or by objective participation in, and discover homosexual acts are wholly innocent. What criteria I myself chose to test this is to ask myself what actual harm could I see in it. For instance compare a slap on the face with a kiss on the cheek: one is undeniably harmful while the other is not. In other words, there are some acts which violate your actual physical integrity - cause pain because of their nature - and some acts that are completely consistent with one's actual physical integrity which not only cause no harm but feed one's sense of worthiness. A homosexual act is entirely capable of the latter. It also can cause no harm “psychologically” as long as one is aware of what one is doing. For instance if one insists on judging homosexual sex by a masculine/feminine paradigm instead of just two males sexually relating as males, then one is going to suffer for it. Why? Because you’re not being objective about it. If you are a male and you are with another male, then that is the case. It is what it is. So all other things being equal, I'd say homosexuality is moral. Of course, as with any sexual experience or act, people can engage in them either on good terms or destructive ones. However, there is no solid reason to doubt, or be suspicious of, the value of homosexual experience qua the experience. That quote from Any Rand, as someone mentioned, is an opinion Ayn Rand didn't trouble herself to substantiate with anything. That insubstantial revulsion is something with homosexuality to take very important note of. In every instance of someone disparaging homosexuality I've ever come across, all I've ever seen is the same baseless condemnation. If there is a valid base on which to condemn it, no one's ever come forward with it. People don't give reasons for their objection to homosexuality. They either base their objection on the authority of their feelings, as Ayn Rand did, or on an appeal to some faith-based moral standard, like what's written in the bible. I think it's important to take note that the most virulent attacks against homosexuality in any society are faith-based. In our society, no one is more vocal in their condemnation of it as a vice, than Christians. Their primary argument? God, via the bible, said not to. Is it any coincidence that those most opposed to homosexuality are also those most inclined to believe in the supernatural? In other words, they just tend to be the most unreasonable people. Personally, I don't think this is a coincidence. I've tried to think of some basis in reality on which to condemn it, and I always come up with nothing. So I can't see any other way to condemn it except by reference to a standard besides reality. What I think is homosexuality, as in acts, thoughts and feelings directed at members of the same sex are wholly moral and good. There is nothing about them that conflict with morality. It's a positive experience compared to the negative experience of just rejecting those experiences. There's no demonstrative basis on which to reject it as a matter of personal principle. There's never been any good cause offered to doubt or suspect that homosexual experiences are in any way intrinsically bad. Is it a choice? I don't think it's a choice to be confronted in life by the opportunity. That opportunity is integral to the human condition, being as how there are two sexes. So the opportunity isn't a choice; it's a part of life. So neither is it a choice that one feels something about it. One's awareness of that aspect of the human condition forces one to feel something about it, and I think the feeling is either primarily positive or negative. One makes the estimation. When I say "feeling" here, I mean there is a at least a subconscious estimation of the opportunity for homosexual experience which life faces each person with, as either an opportunity for something good or bad. I think everybody invariably makes this judgment, and I think it's a part of life that one cannot escape it. Most people however don't identify what they've based their judgment on. It’s an interesting thing to note that considering homosexual acts is integral to life. It doesn’t come from anything unnecessary. It’s connected to facts necessary for human existence. So the question is what does reality itself indicate is the right way to feel about it. That is, what does one base that estimation on? How do you substantiate either your "disgust" or your regard for homosexual experiences? If reality is to decide it, is there anything of reality that answers the question as to goodness or badness of it, in the negative? Anything of reality which answers it in the positive? I've taken an honest look at it myself and have failed to find any fact that would indict homosexual experience as bad. Not only that, but every relevant fact I know of supports the goodness of it. So my conclusion is that homosexual experience in and of itself is a positive experience, morally, physically, intellectually. I have to qualify this however and say I'd only engage in homosexuality within the context of a relationship with someone I actually cared enough about. That's a tall order too. When I say "homosexual experience" and list that as including acts thoughts, emotions, I'm thinking of experiences where the intellectual part and the emotional and physical are an integrated whole. I think that only comes in the form of someone you seriously care for that much. So homosexual experiences aren't immoral, or moral because they are homosexual. There is no reason on which to morally judge these experiences on the basis of the people's gender's who engage in them. We don't make moral judgments of people based on their gender in other instances. It's sexist. I don't see why people can't see the same thing here. To say that it's immoral for man to be with a man, because that is something for a woman to do, is as bad as saying it's immoral for a woman to change a tire because that's a man's job. It's ridiculous. The gender of a person you have sex with has nothing to do with the morality or immorality of the situation. Of course the situation of having sex with someone can be judged as moral or immoral, just not on the basis of the sexes involved. For instance, are you both being honest with each other? Honesty is moral criteria, but not gender. Gender has nothing to do with the moral status of the choice. There is no more reason anyone can show to make moral judgments on the basis of gender in this instance as in any other. I mean has anyone noticed that such a question as to whether homosexuality is moral, ties morality to something other than a person's chosen thoughts and actions? It ties it to gender. You are asking if something is morally wrong say for a male to do because he is male, that his maleness is what he has to be concerned about in sorting out moral issues. Morality is not a gender issue. It's a human issue. It has to do with the essential principle of a human being. Gender is a secondary thing. You could say gender is a "measurement" which morality has to omit. You can't make moral decisions, moral judgments on the basis of gender. Tying morality to gender is a mistake. Morality is more important. Morality comes from the essential dynamic of man as a "rational animal". That's the principle. That definition of man isn't gender-specific. So, neither should morality be. So asking if homosexuality is moral or immoral takes morality to be less than what it is, on the same level as gender, but gender doesn't define what a human being is. It’s the same mistake people make when basing moral judgments on race, that a person is more or less worthy because of their race. Fifty years ago, you could ask if it was moral for a white man to marry a black woman. These are physiological characteristics that don’t define what a human being is. “Rational Animal”, remember? Gender is a physiological characteristic like race. It’s not what makes you human. It’s not how you define a human being. Sexual love ought to be tied to what’s most important and only conditional upon that.
×
×
  • Create New...