Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Effects of Gay Marriage

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How can you separate her personal life from her philosophy? She lived and believed what she taught. She had integrity.

The fact that you cannot see why the differentiation is not only there, but that it is quite an important differentiation is troubling. In fact I have a feeling Rand would likely chastise you for such a question. Further, the integrity comment does not by any means follow your two earlier statements. Please give your response to what Kainscalia alluded to.

Now to the topic:

I think we are forgetting that many of these children that end up with same sex couples are ADOPTED or from FOSTERS. I am not sure how many people are aware of this, but I have read a few books on the state of and functions of the adoption and foster system not only in this country but internationally. It is an absolute mess and disgrace to a point few would believe without reading this information themselves. It is at times to difficult to be adopted if you are of a darker skin color (I am not suggesting this is due to racism or any other marxist nonsense), the older you get the more likely you will never be adopted, and foster families have quite a colorful history of likely sexual abuse of foster children, among many other distasteful things of equal level. Foster children (if they are even able to get a foster family) often suffer a number of issues later in life as well as while they are younger. The option is not there to have a model family, and numerous studies have shown same sex couples can produce very strong productive individuals in a quality environment. A same-sex couple adoption is almost always the better alternative for these children.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you continue to give fallacious association-by-proofs. You still haven't refuted our questions to your assertion that

- Her personal opinions are inseparable from her philosophy.

- She was "correct" in her assertion about homosexuality, an issue that she did not throughly research by her own admission.

Oh, and here's a friendly reminder that you still have not explained your radical difference in opinion from Ayn Rand regarding abortion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you accusing Miss Rand of being false? Maybe you ought to check your premises and not hers.

This is argument from intimidation and authority, all the more awful because you are using Rand, who actually argued against this, as the authority and the intimidation.

The fact remains; Ayn Rand was consistent in her personal beliefs and her philosophy. Why is that so hard for some people to wrap their heads around? She was correct in her assessment of homosexuality.

To continue the fight of the Gays vs. the Rand-Thumping Gay Haters... She didn't even "assess," not in the so-thorough way she did with everything available in her published writing. She made off-the-cuff remarks. Assuming you believe her (later amended) comments that a homo isn't right in the head, you'd need to back that up somehow -- especially since your position is not common knowledge or even commonly believed. Edited by JASKN
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not arguing from intimidation, I am stating a fact. I am not a "Rand thumping gay hater", those are your words directed at me. I don't hate gays in the least. I am merely stating the fact that Ayn Rand was consistent in her beliefs on homosexuality. Just because it was not a burgeoning issue in her day does not make what amount she said about it any less logical or truthful. There were a lot of issues like that. And still, no one as yet will come to Miss Rands defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you accusing Miss Rand of being false?

You think this isn't an argument from intimidation? You can't be serious.

I am stating a fact.

No, you're making an assertion by proxy. Rand never presented a case for her beliefs on the subject - only opinions. You're presenting her assertions (in lieu of addressing your opponent's ideas) with the apparent hope that the rest of us will fear being labeled "un-Objectivist" and shut up. You're guilty of every accusation of fallaciousness leveled at you. Sorry, guy, but you're actually going to have to put forth a little mental effort on this one. Try making your own case in your own words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a "Rand thumping gay hater", those are your words directed at me.

I was tired and grumpy, sorry; I have no hard evidence of you hating gays.

At any rate, the way I see it is you have not really done your homework on this particular issue, and you are arguing from intimidation because you're not backing up your claims with anything but your own assertions and Rand's opinion.

Edited by JASKN
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that if you have a child with a mixed-gender condition, then a gay parent would be more aware of the issues and understanding (on average) than a straight parent. However, the fact is that most children are hetrosexual and fulfil traditional gender roles. I am not talking about enforcing gender stereotypes that boys must be macho and fight, girls must play with dolls - but it is a fact that most children will fall into those categories because men and women are biologically different and evolutionary wired to seek out different roles.

Protip: BIOLOGY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. I frequently hear a lot made of the "biological differences" between men and women. Yes, the latter have innies and the former have outies, and this results in different hormonal soup and consequent physical development. HOWEVER, you are implying that there is MAN and there is WOMAN, and that is just not the case even in the strictest scientific sense. The vast majority of traits fall along a continuum, a distribution if you will, and the distribution of traits in men and in women has substantial overlap for almost anything you pick that isn't "penis y/n". And that is exactly the way evolution "intended" it (not to imply that evolution is some kind of conscious process). Human adaptability lies in our variability, and that includes gender roles/gender expression.

For what it's worth, both of my parents had pretty standard gender roles, unless you consider my mom working to be a "deviation". My dad might be a bit sensitive but only in the "sensitive his way right into a lady's pants" sense. I happen to be a rather butch, muscular lady who favors camo attire of all types and enjoys setting things on fire and playing with pointy objects. I have played more nasty contact sports than I can rattle off at the moment. I also like men and have been in a 10+ year relationship with a lovely (stereotypically masculine, if you must know) fellow that is basically marriage without the rings and the paper...they call it "living in sin", do they not? Other than the douchebaggery of other people's reactions, I do not see how being a "gender deviant" has had a negative impact on my life in any way. In fact, I see it as largely positive because I possess character traits favorable to my chosen line of work. My question to you would be this...are my future biological children (presuming my guy and I do not have any "plumbing" issues) going to be harmed by the lack of a "feminine" role model at home? How? Can you explain it to me?

Furthermore, the importance of having a strong male role model is not in dispute, their experience of their father has a huge impact on how children develop and influences their relationships in later life. I don't remember where I read it now (was a long time ago) but girls raised in lesbian environment were more promiscuous, had sex earlier and more partners than those raised in a stable hetrosexual home (interestingly, for boys there was a slight, though statistically insignificant, reduction in promiscuity and sexual partners).

Source? If you can't source it I wouldn't use it. Methodology is everything in these kinds of studies, and I say that with regards to problems on both "sides".

As I said, there is little objective evidence regarding gay parents, so one can not conclude either way but it is certainly true that children are significantly disadvantaged by single-parenthood. Obviously this does not apply to all, I am sure you can think of amazing single-parents that you know, but generally, the outcomes for children in single-parent households are a lot, lot worse. However, this is a side-issue, not relevant to the issue of gay adoption - the reasons children do poorly in single-parent homes is due to the difficulties of raising a child alone (time, money etc).

Single-parent homes and gay parents are not comparable unless the gay parent is single. I will agree with you that single-parent homes are not usually in the best interests of the children, and I have seen this effect in high-income as well as low-income single-parent families. But a gay COUPLE seeking to adopt has nothing to do with that. Look, bottom line is, all children need and deserve a loving home. If you really care about kids, and I believe you do, you would be advocating for the streamlining and simplifying of the adoption process, making private adoption easier and reducing corruption in the system, than questioning the merits of gay adoption. If you want to go more in depth into the reasons your arguments from biology are wrong, feel free to hit me back. That's sort of my "thing", bio-type discussions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not arguing from intimidation, I am stating a fact.
What fact do you think you've stated? You stated something about man's procreative nature, which is so far from being a fact that you couldn't even say what that means. What fact about Rand and her philosophy, as it pertains to homosexuality, have you stated?
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that Ayn Rand and Objectivism did not agree morally with homosexuality was because it is literally deviant human behavior, ie it moves away from and acts contrary to the organisms biological function viz a vie pro-creation. Ayn Rand understood the importance of the law of identity.

Biology does not determine man's purpose for sexual behavior, though it can determine some of the consequences. Man determine's man's purposes for sexual behavior. I've yet to read anything from Rand that suggested the purpose of sex or expressing one's sexuality was for pro-creation. It is not "literally deviant' behavior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss Rand said what she said about homosexuality in her Objectivist philsoophy - she was not apart from it - she had integrity and lived what she thought, there is no need to argue with me over it, take it up with her. Anarchy - embraces any sort of relationship because it had no morals - whereas miss Rand understand that there is a specific biological role and reason for heterosexual relationships.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss Rand said what she said about homosexuality in her Objectivist philsoophy - she was not apart from it - she had integrity and lived what she thought, there is no need to argue with me over it, take it up with her. Anarchy - embraces any sort of relationship because it had no morals - whereas miss Rand understand that there is a specific biological role and reason for heterosexual relationships.

She's dead, no one can take it up with her. Apart from that, she is not the one having problems distinguishing between her philosophy and her opinion and/or application of her philosophy; that would be you. And I will state again, to my knowledge, Rand never states that the purpose of sex is procreation. In fact, quite the opposite;

"Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion. Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values."

Of Living Death, The Voice of Reason, pg. 54.

I'm not seeing a whole lot in there about making babies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never stated the purpose of sex is procreation - I am stating that a man and a woman produce a child, thus by this account of their nature it can be deduced that the natural behavior of humans is for heterosexual relationships wether they have them or not or wether they choose to procreate or not. Is it just coincidental that a man and a woman produce a child and not a man/man woman/woman?- or is it not rather rational to assume that because they can (not must) procreate that said biology explains the nature of man qua biological functions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
or is it not rather rational to assume that because they can (not must) procreate that said biology explains the nature of man qua biological functions?

No, it is not rational to assume. What is defined as "natural" in this case, by what standard is it defined, and does it apply to all humans? How would you relate "natural" to those heterosexuals who happily have sex with the explicitly omitted purpose of procreation? Obviously, procreation is not the only consideration in a healthy, "natural" sex life, or even the most important, and thus your conclusion cannot be deduced. If "nature" goes against logic, I would hardly call that natural.

Furthermore, you are not backing up your (not necessarily related) claim that Rand shared your beliefs.

Edited by JASKN
Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said procreation was THE purpose of heterosexuals - I stated that because heterosexuals have the capacity to procreate and not homosexual relationships- that by this observation of their biological natures that it can be reasoned that it is the natural order of humans to be heterosexual. They don't ever have to procreate, but by observing a fact of their natures biologically one can deduce that their is a reason why heterosexual relationships are the natural behavior of humans. This is not an indictment against homosexuality, rather I am merely stating the case for heterosexuality in human nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said procreation was THE purpose of heterosexuals - I stated that because heterosexuals have the capacity to procreate and not homosexual relationships- that by this observation of their biological natures that it can be reasoned that it is the natural order of humans to be heterosexual. They don't ever have to procreate, but by observing a fact of their natures biologically one can deduce that their is a reason why heterosexual relationships are the natural behavior of humans. This is not an indictment against homosexuality, rather I am merely stating the case for heterosexuality in human nature.

A lot of things which are "natural" to humans, such as rape, killing of the "other", and looting for nepotism, are quite immoral, yet they are omnipresent in our history and to a large extent occur because of selective pressures. Do you really want to argue that all of those things are OK, nay mandatory, because they are "natural"?

You are losing the distinction between the most basic features that unite all members of the class "human" (hence, human nature in the strictest sense) and those things which "come naturally" to humans which are not at all exclusively moral. This is the same reason why the argument from moral intuition fails. Yes, we have moral intuitions, and they were probably shaped by natural selection, but that doesn't make them RIGHT. Only a critical, reasoning mind can determine right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Madkat, if you read my post I was speaking about biological function identifies an organisms (human) sexual nature - not fully behavioral as you claim. Ayn Rand did not project the idea that rape, killing, looting, etc were natural to humans, that is the malevolent kantian view of the universe which is not in line with Objectivism. Ayn Rand and Objectivism teach a benevolent universe concept where evil, pain, and suffering are not the norm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't ever have to procreate, but by observing a fact of their natures biologically one can deduce that their is a reason why heterosexual relationships are the natural behavior of humans. This is not an indictment against homosexuality, rather I am merely stating the case for heterosexuality in human nature.

So. Heterosexuals have the capacity to procreate hence what they do sexually is moral and correct even if they are deliberately preventing procreation because they could procreate if they wanted to?

And within heterosexual relationships sexual activity that would never produce a child is moral too? Say oral sex or other non penis/vagina intercourse?

So if you are heterosexual and completely infertile it is moral to have sex because if both partners "parts" worked in the correct way and they wanted to they would have a child by their actions?

Is this your stance on the matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said procreation was THE purpose of heterosexuals - I stated that because heterosexuals have the capacity to procreate and not homosexual relationships- that by this observation of their biological natures that it can be reasoned that it is the natural order of humans to be heterosexual. They don't ever have to procreate, but by observing a fact of their natures biologically one can deduce that their is a reason why heterosexual relationships are the natural behavior of humans. This is not an indictment against homosexuality, rather I am merely stating the case for heterosexuality in human nature.

By this reasoning, the natural course for people who don't want to have babies is homosexuality. None the less, none of the above really addresses the quote I provided from Rand.

Link to post
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...