Automatic values

[brian0918]

Yet, this is the "scientific evidence" that supposedly supports the "morality" of homosexuality.

Maybe some gay rights supporters use this as evidence, but they don't all claim this. Likewise, some, but not all, members of this forum universally adhere to the primacy of volition in human existence.

Just as some people will disregard human rights when it is convenient to support preconceptions, others will disregard free will and adhere to biological nature to support preconceptions. It is thus possible for such individuals to construct contradictions such as "what I want to do with my life is not what's best for me", or more specifically, "it is wrong for me to show affection for the person I love, in a way that we mutually agree would be the culmination of our love for eachother."

Edited July 21, 2008 by brian0918

[KevinDW78]

Yet, this is the "scientific evidence" that supposedly supports the "morality" of homosexuality.

Sometimes it is (incorrectly) and sometimes it isn't. There is a lot of DNA research being done examining whether homosexuality is being genetic (just google "homosexuality dna" or "gay gene") which is (usually) the argument that is made in asserting that homosexuality is not immoral.

Though this is admittedly still in an inconclusive phase, if it is scientifically proven that homosexuality is genetic, it then becomes a different argument disassociated from any other species and JUST dealing with humans.

Edited July 21, 2008 by KevinDW78

[nochrieaz]

My view on homosexuality is that yes, it is chosen and that it's immoral, but no, chosing to continue to be gay is not necessarily immoral.

My argument runs as follows: Human beings are born tabula rasa, and as such they create everything about their character; including sexual preference. In accordance with an individual's nature, the rational choice for a man is to seek psycho-sexual domination of a woman. This is EC's point about "the unity of the body and the soul." This is an accomplishment of the individual - using his mind's ability to fulfill his greatest potential - and to the extent it is his choice, it is a moral accomplishment.

Conversely, when a child is raised improperly, his views on sexuality can become mixed. A man can, for whatever reason, develop a habituated (but not necessarily consistent) desire to be dominated. This is also, to an extent, the result of the individual's choice, and in allowing it to remain unresolved in the malleable time of his adolescence, he is selling himself short. To that extent, he is acting immorally. However, because it is not completely the result of his choice (his parents should have offered guidance), if, as a fully formed adult, he deems the effort needed to correct this psychological issue as outweighed by the pleasure he has already learned to achieve in a homosexual relationship, then he would be immoral to try to correct his error.

I think that the disparity between the potentiality for happiness in a loving, supportive heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one is negligible. Unfortunately, many homosexual relationships are not loving and supportive; and I believe that this is essentially due to the fact that homosexuals are mentally ill to some degree.

My position is analogous to my position on a highly intelligent plumber. The man, as a youth, was never shown the potential his mind possessed, and as a result he never aspired to become more than a blue collar worker. To the extent that he was lazy and didn't seek it out himself - since he, by definition, would be only one around to sense it - he behaved immorallly. However, should he now, years later, when he realizes what he was capable of at the beginning of his adulthood, forego all of the knowledge, the mastery of his trade, and the fond sentiment involved in his being a plumber merely to achieve some hypothetical "higher goal" of being a doctor? I don't think so.

Edited July 21, 2008 by nochrieaz

[brian0918]

they create everything about their character; including sexual preference. In accordance with an individual's nature, the rational choice for a man is to seek psycho-sexual domination of a woman.

And if that tabula-rasa individual feels sexually-attracted to someone of the same sex, or both sexes - then what? Do they disregard that aspect of their nature, and instead look at the scientific evidence for the evolution of man, or look to animals, to determine what exactly their "true nature" is?

Or is such an entity as I've described above not possible?

Edited July 21, 2008 by brian0918

[DavidOdden]

In accordance with an individual's nature, the rational choice for a man is to seek psycho-sexual domination of a woman.

This is the point that's in contention, so you can't just stipulate it as though it is self-evident. You have to integrate the findamental facts of an individual's specific nature with the nature of sexual attraction to determine what the rational choice for a particular individual.

[nochrieaz]

This is the point that's in contention, so you can't just stipulate it as though it is self-evident.

I didn't. I gave you my view. I could list a number of fundamental facts, but you'd probably reject them as inconclusive, and you'd be right to do so. However, there is a preponderence of evidence: The fact that a penis fits into a vagina, the fact that homosexual relationships tend to mirror heterosexual ones (a "male" role and a "female" role), the fact that child rearing is one of life's greatest joys for a great number of people who can't/aren't distinguished in another field, etc...

I never said that my view was conclusive. However, given humanity's limited knowledge on the subject as of right now, I believe it is immoral to flout the tremendously greater amount of evidence which suggests it's psychologically based and to treat the smaller, opposite group of knowledge (eg: "my personal experience") as conclusive just so one can be "safe" from doing any introspecting.

[brian0918]

I believe it is immoral to flout the tremendously greater amount of evidence which suggests it's psychologically based

Nobody [in this discussion] is arguing that it isn't psychologically-based. What is wrong with it being the product of volition rather than the product of evolution? - that is the entire basis for the debate.

Edited July 21, 2008 by brian0918

[EC]

Nobody [in this discussion] is arguing that it isn't psychologically-based. What is wrong with it being the product of volition rather than the product of evolution? - that is the entire basis for the debate.

Finally we are getting somewhere. Is it now safe to assume that most here will no longer argue that homosexuality is not a product of volition, i.e., that it is a choice, at least implicitly at a young age?

If so we can move to the next point that I think is beyond contention--that *any* choice that is open to human volition is also open to moral judgment.

That just leaves the last part--that it involve a contradiction of man's nature to be sexually attracted to other men. I say it's self-evident even to a child that males and females are different and it also perceptually evident that the two compliment each other. This is the source of the contradiction--denying that this is evident and proper and then acting contrary to those facts. Man can choose toact against his nature as a rational animal and all that implies but he is not free from the effects of that basic contradiction. The effects might be extremely mild; such as never being accepted by the general public (which is a minor concern to a selfish individual) to what I think is the more important immorality, knowing at a deep and possibly unadmitted level that one is living a life contrary to how a man is supposed to live derived from the fact of his physical, hormonal, and emotional differences from a woman.

If the essence of femininity is hero worship, it follows that the essence of masculenity is to be a hero. What happens when two males are simultaneously trying to be hero's and hero worshippers at the same time. Phychological chaos that is the root of immorality.

[~Sophia~]

Is it now safe to assume that most here will no longer argue that homosexuality is not a product of volition, i.e., that it is a choice, at least implicitly at a young age?

Perhaps sometimes, but I don't think that that is true in every case.

Dr. Sandra Witelson and Dr. Cheryl McCormick found that there is a higher proportion of left-handers in the homosexual population than in a general population (a result replicated in subsequent studies and now accepted as fact). Handedness is a sign of how the brain is organized. In other research, Dr. Witelson had found that left-handers have a larger region of the posterior corpus callosum (the thick band of nerve fibers connecting the two hemispheres). They also found that the posterior part of the corpus callosum is larger in homosexual than heterosexual men.

The researchers then performed a correlational analysis which included size of the corpus callosum, and test scores scores on language, visual, spatial, and finger dexterity tests. They reported that by using all these variables, they were able to predict sexual orientation in 95% of the cases.

The reasons maybe genetic or of postnatal origin (or both) but there ARE evidence that, at least in some cases, there is something physically different between the two sexual orientation groups.

[agrippa1]

Before I even contemplate doing so, I'd like you to acknowledge the invalidity of the claim "since reptiles operate instinctively and man descended from reptiles, may operates instinctively". I want you to cleanly cut the cord with this "because lower animals do it...." reasoning.

Acknowledged.

I have no problem allowing for the possibility that man does not share instinctive behavior with all other animals. If you can argue that instincts, by definition, are not subject to rational volition, then we are in agreement, at least on a semantic level.

[KendallJ]

I say it's self-evident even to a child that males and females are different and it also perceptually evident that the two compliment each other.

Well, that certainly covers the physical piece. Unfortunately, this logic could also morally condemn any couple who chooses to engage in sex for the purpose of physical enjoyment since it is perceptually evident that them's procreation parts. As such, the essential of a relationship depends on much more than the physical purpose of a body part. In fact, since one could have an emotionally and psychologically fulfilling relationship without ever actually reproducing, one coudl argue that the emotional and psychological aspects of such relationships are far more essential than the physical.

Phychological chaos that is the root of immorality.

Yeah, unfortunately you're not so quick with the perceptually self-evident piece when it comes to the emotional or psychological, but you've used that as a starting basis. I'd question it.

The fact is, your logic used to be appealing to me, and it isn't any longer. Mostly because there is some evidence to indicate that hormones, and other physiological factors may actually differ in homosexuals, as Sophia has pointed out.

[Starling]

We seem to have drifted from the original topic. Regarding earlier posts, I've seen this confusion over instincts arise many times because no one bothers to define their terms. Psychologists have a definition for instinct, which is an unlearned, complex behavior, such as a spider spinning a web. Given the same space to work in, any two spiders of the same species will spin identical webs because there is no choice or thought about how to do it. They just do. Another classic example is nest building in birds. Obviously birds have no opportunity to learn nest building from their parents since the nest is already built when they're born and the offspring leave before the next nest is built, and yet when it comes time to build a nest every bird can do it.

Psychologists distinguish instinct from reflexes, which are automatic behaviors on the simple muscular level, like a baby gripping and sucking. These behaviors are simple in the sense that they require one mental step (suck) as opposed to many (pick up twig, fly back to tree, put twig here, find another twig, etc.). Humans do have reflexes, but they do not have instincts. People usually respond to this assertion by claiming sex in an instinct in humans. I don't mean to argue from intimidation here, but anyone who thinks that either has their head in the sand or is a virgin (or both). Evidence to the contrary is probably available from your own experience, and also in movies, books, and the newspaper (consider the stories of couples who "couldn't get pregnant" only to learn that they had never had sex). Not even reproduction is an instinct for humans, let alone moral judgment.

Whether or not something in our DNA inclines us toward one choice or another (which I doubt), any behavior beyond simple reflexes is ultimately our own choice, as evidenced by the fact that different people (even genetically identical people) can and do make different choices in identical circumstances.

[Marc K.]

If you can argue that instincts, by definition, are not subject to rational volition, then we are in agreement, at least on a semantic level.

Does the definition match reality?... you found the escape hatch: is it valid? If not I hope you brought a parachute.

Which action of man's do you think he performs instinctually? Now test it. Can this behavior be overridden by volition or not?

[EC]

Perhaps sometimes, but I don't think that that is true in every case.

Dr. Sandra Witelson and Dr. Cheryl McCormick found that there is a higher proportion of left-handers in the homosexual population than in a general population (a result replicated in subsequent studies and now accepted as fact). Handedness is a sign of how the brain is organized. In other research, Dr. Witelson had found that left-handers have a larger region of the posterior corpus callosum (the thick band of nerve fibers connecting the two hemispheres). They also found that the posterior part of the corpus callosum is larger in homosexual than heterosexual men.

The researchers then performed a correlational analysis which included size of the corpus callosum, and test scores scores on language, visual, spatial, and finger dexterity tests. They reported that by using all these variables, they were able to predict sexual orientation in 95% of the cases.

The reasons maybe genetic or of postnatal origin (or both) but there ARE evidence that, at least in some cases, there is something physically different between the two sexual orientation groups.

Why can't the reverse be true? I.e., what if the choice to become a homosexual lead to these differences in the brain. Their thinking is different from hetero thinking thus it follows that the wiring of the brain that encodes this thinking is going to be different. What I'm saying is the differences in thinking cause the differences that these researchers see in the data, not the other way around as is claimed.

By the way, I'm left-handed, and I am definitely not gay. Though, this may have to do with left-handed, and thus right-brained people, are generally more sensitive and intellectual. Therefore, in early life it would be easier to misjudge their nature because they are more sensitive to what others think in an aloof sort of way. This could be a cause for the choice to become homosexual in many instances. Others become social outcasts. Others become Objectivists, and so on.

My guess would be that if the "gay brains" of one sex were compared to the "straight brains" of the opposite sex similar correlations would be found because in a sense the homosexual is thinking similar to a straight person of the opposite sex, and the brains would thus be similarly encoded.

[KevinDW78]

Why can't the reverse be true?

Well, since you are left handed, can you choose to be right handed? Why not? If not, then this line of reasoning has hit a dead end because your volitional choice to now be right-handed cannot cause your brain to change in the way Sohpia described.

Edited July 22, 2008 by KevinDW78

[EC]

Well, that certainly covers the physical piece. Unfortunately, this logic could also morally condemn any couple who chooses to engage in sex for the purpose of physical enjoyment since it is perceptually evident that them's procreation parts.

Not true. I'm not saying that because the two sexes are self-evidently sexually compatible that sex can only be for procreation. That flies in the face of what we know from our own experience. Sex is good. And it is the ultimate celebration of two souls who love one another.

As such, the essential of a relationship depends on much more than the physical purpose of a body part. In fact, since one could have an emotionally and psychologically fulfilling relationship without ever actually reproducing, one coudl argue that the emotional and psychological aspects of such relationships are far more essential than the physical.

Agreed, like I said above. However, while most of the sexual aspects of humans is without a doubt mentally derived, man is a union of body and soul, and therefore the form of his or her body must also be included in any sexual situation also. Mind and body must be considered NOT just one or the other.

Yeah, unfortunately you're not so quick with the perceptually self-evident piece when it comes to the emotional or psychological, but you've used that as a starting basis.

Actually, I am. Man is creature of body and soul, and both are important and must not contradict one another. My starting base is not body over soul as you claim, but both taken together.

I'd question it.

Then, as I explained above, you are questioning a straw man.

The fact is, your logic used to be appealing to me, and it isn't any longer.Mostly because there is some evidence to indicate that hormones, and other physiological factors may actually differ in homosexuals, as Sophia has pointed out.

"My logic" is *logic*, i.e., the art or science of non-contradictory identification, applied to the best of my ability, given the premises that I've previously laid out. The premises that have been "attacked" by others have so far all been straw men or, misuse or interpretation of the scientific data.

[JASKN]

Why can't the reverse be true? I.e., what if the choice to become a homosexual lead to these differences in the brain.

Your flaw (I can't think of one more fundamental here) is saying that a person chooses his sexual orientation, when in simple fact he does not. There is never a conscious choice, like whether to go to the mall or a movie, or series of choices, as in "choosing" an outlook on life. I challenge you to find anyone who can remember choosing anything even remotely related to being attracted to a particular sex. It isn't a choice, it just is.

Sooner or later, with enough study and research, we will understand what makes a person gay or not. As for now, in every known way there has never been a choice concerning sexuality. By your reasoning you must also concede that you have chosen heterosexuality. Otherwise you must concede that there is something innate in you that determines your sexuality, or at least something you never had control over. On either side, your argument that it is in man's nature only to be heterosexual has been proven false, since man can obviously go either way just fine.

Perhaps you are using "nature" to mean "best," as opposed to "what is possible," for a man. In that case, of course I will ask, "Best, for whom?" Your standards are ambiguous.

[agrippa1]

Does the definition match reality?... you found the escape hatch: is it valid? If not I hope you brought a parachute.

Which action of man's do you think he performs instinctually? Now test it. Can this behavior be overridden by volition or not?

My point is that such a definition would be made in order to support the premise that instincts do not exist in man.

Rand makes a case for automatic values in man as evidenced by the pleasure/pain mechanism. Sex would seem to be the strongest example of behavior influenced by the pleasure mechanism. Is it a coincidence that sex is responsible for survival of the species but not survival of the individual? And can the sex drive be overridden by volition? It would seem that answer is yes.

I'm not looking for an escape hatch or a parachute. I believe that man exhibits instinctual behavior that he is able to overcome through reason.

[KendallJ]

Not true. I'm not saying that because the two sexes are self-evidently sexually compatible that sex can only be for procreation. That flies in the face of what we know from our own experience. Sex is good. And it is the ultimate celebration of two souls who love one another.

Agreed, like I said above. However, while most of the sexual aspects of humans is without a doubt mentally derived, man is a union of body and soul, and therefore the form of his or her body must also be included in any sexual situation also. Mind and body must be considered NOT just one or the other.

It's interesting to me that the empirical existence of sex divorced from procreation is enough to let you divorce the ethics of sex and procreation from your 2nd paragraph here. Why not true of homosexuality.

The 2nd paragraph simply is a tool to say that it is irrelevant what someone it thinking or feeling, that physicality trumps all. Yet that is not so well applied to the first senario.

When you say that the "form must also be included", could you walk me through that? Tab A fitting into slot B is certianly only one possible mechanism of sexual gratification, and certainly no essential to it. Such "form" however, is very essential to procreation, in fact the only thing that it can be said to be necessary and sufficient for. Yet that physical form is not to be considered in the moral evalution of sex as procreation at all. I'm having a bit of trouble seeing how exactly you're "including" the form.

I'm not suggesting that the question of homosexuality is not open. I'm suggesting that your line of thinking is a form intrincisism. At OCON 06, Locke and Kenner both gave their opinion of homosexuality, given what evidence they had (it was a split opinion). However at no time did their logic include a "tab A into slot B" sort of assessment. This in the class on SEX and Romance. It turned instead on the volitional nature of the choice.

[brian0918]

Finally we are getting somewhere. Is it now safe to assume that most here will no longer argue that homosexuality is not a product of volition, i.e., that it is a choice, at least implicitly at a young age?

Yes, if you will also no longer argue that heterosexuality is similarly not a product of volition. That is exactly what the person I was responding to was claiming, after all - see the quoted text in #29 or the original post right before that.

I say it's self-evident even to a child that males and females are different

Agreed.

and it also perceptually evident that the two compliment each other.

In what way? Do you mean that a child sees a lot of men and women together? Boys and girls certainly don't get along when they're young. Or did your school have some means of keeping the cootie infestation under control? Or are we no longer talking about a child's perception, but instead that of some knowledgeable outside observer? That would be a false analogy, then, because you assume that a child has a full understanding of the potential purpose of sexual organs for procreation when that child develops a sexual attraction for one or the other sex.

This is the source of the contradiction--denying that this is evident and proper and then acting contrary to those facts.

Define "proper"? Proper for procreation - necessary and sufficient - certainly. Yes, a man and woman must put their sexual organs together to make a baby. But that is only the evolved purpose. All animals act according to their evolved purpose. It is only man that can define his own purposes. It is it thus possible for a person to have the intention of sexual gratification without the intention of procreation. Man has created a new purpose, and the methods of fulfilling that purpose are left up to the individual to decide.

By your rationale, it is likewise immoral to masturbate. My hand is not a woman, after all; my hand cannot be a hero worshipper. It is a contradictory identification on my part to use my hand for a purpose that is naturally a purpose of women, correct? Could it also be immoral, then, to write with your feet (or hands for that matter)? Or to walk on your hands? Or to swallow swords? Or to smoke? These all involve using your various body parts for purposes invented by man that are not in accordance with the natural purposes of those body parts.

how a man is supposed to live derived from the fact of his physical, hormonal, and emotional differences from a woman.

This all assumes the only possible purpose for sexual organs is procreation. Sexual gratification is another purpose.

Edited July 22, 2008 by brian0918

[brian0918]

By the way, I'm left-handed, and I am definitely not gay.

Or maybe you know you are "at a deep and possibly unadmitted level."

My guess would be that if the "gay brains" of one sex were compared to the "straight brains" of the opposite sex similar correlations would be found because in a sense the homosexual is thinking similar to a straight person of the opposite sex, and the brains would thus be similarly encoded.

I have seen gay men who were more masculine than straight men, and vice versa. The same with gay/straight women. If you're simply trying to claim that there are only two types of brains, and that those two types determine whether you are either "hero"/"hero worshipper", or "masculine"/"feminine", or "gay"/"straight", I think you would be wrong in doing so. You would first need to show some evidence that this is the case.

[KevinDW78]

Or maybe you know you are "at a deep and possibly unadmitted level."

Let's not go there.

[brian0918]

However, while most of the sexual aspects of humans is without a doubt mentally derived, man is a union of body and soul, and therefore the form of his or her body must also be included in any sexual situation also.

All you seem to be saying is that in order for an individual to feel sexual gratification, he/she must involve the organ that gives the feeling of sexual gratification. You have said nothing about whether there should morally be only one way of accomplishing that gratification.

"My logic" is *logic*, i.e., the art or science of non-contradictory identification

I think the problem is that your identification of what a man is depends on your identification of what a woman is, and vice versa.

Reply to KevinDW78

Let's not go there.

I'm left-handed too, so I could have the same claim thrown at me by a similarly crass individual.

Edited July 22, 2008 by brian0918

[EC]

Could it also be immoral, then, to write with your feet (or hands for that matter)? Or to walk on your hands? Or to swallow swords? Or to smoke? These all involve using your various body parts for purposes invented by man that are not in accordance with the natural purposes of those body parts.

italics mine

Yes, and I was going to use this as an analogy a couple of weeks ago, but forgot. A man could choose to be a "hand-walker". Maybe he started doing it for reasons he doesn't even remember at a young age. I'm sure out of six billion and some odd people there is a few who do this, it could be possible this "hand-walker" could be otherwise rational--maybe even an Objectivist. The guy lives an otherwise "normal" life except that he walks around on his hands instead of using his perfectly good legs and feet. These (his feet) he uses in the same way a "normal" man uses his hands. He figured out how to write with them, eat with them (which a "normal" outside observer at a restaurant would probably find to be "disgusting"), i.e, to do everything with his feet that he should be doing with his perfectly good hands. So while our "hand-walker" otherwise lives a perfectly "normal" life and is otherwise rational--in the depths of his soul, at a young age and for reasons he might not even understand he has chosen to live contrary to his identity as a man. This fundamental contradiction is immoral because it is a contradiction of one's nature.

Would I judge this man as completely or even mostly immoral if he lived an otherwise rational and productive life? No. I would, however, say that this man can not be completely moral because he has chosen to live contrary to his nature as a man that must be a union of body and soul. It is irrelevent when this choice took place or even if he even remembers making it; he probably doesn't, because it was probably an implicit decision that developed over time during his early youth. This does not negate the fact, though, that he is living a contradicition of his identity at a fundamental level, and that any contradiction that is maintained implies some degree of immorality.

Thank you for reminding me of that. It helps me make my point, and I had meant to write this analogy before, but contrary to popular opinion here, this subject actually means really little to me, as I think the immorality involved is minor at worst, and doesn't in general affect me in any way.

Let's not go there.

I knew that was going to leave me open to that "interpretation". Trust me, no part of me is gay. Period. lol

[EC]

All you seem to be saying is that in order for an individual to feel sexual gratification, he/she must involve the organ that gives the feeling of sexual gratification. You have said nothing about whether there should morally be only one way of accomplishing that gratification.

Wow... you guys are missing the forest for the trees. I would never imply something for man that doesn't include the use of volition. On the same token, just because man possesses volition doesn't somehow negate the importance of his physical body. The two must be taken together, because metaphysically, they are equally important when deciding how a man ought to act.

I think the problem is that your identification of what a man is depends on your identification of what a woman is, and vice versa.

Wrong. I used the word essence as, and for the same reason, Miss Rand does when I discussed this line of thought. An essence is a concept'ss most important attribute, but it by no means includes everything that the concept does.

Edited July 22, 2008 by EC