Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Ah, mwicckens, i just saw this after i posted:

Morality applies to actions, not preferences or desires. ..Engaging in homosexual activity, however, involves no rights violations.

Mark

Clearly, morality DOES apply to preferences and/or desires, not just actions. What you are talking about here is whether something should be legal or illegal - in which case rights violations becomes critical. But morality does definitely go beyond that. Would you think it is (a)moral for one to be racist - as long as they do not act on their *preferred* ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Clearly, morality DOES apply to preferences and/or desires, not just actions.
No, it doesn't. That's the religious viewpoint, not the Objectivist one. Humans have no direct control over preferences and desires, i.e., their emotions. You can't condemn someone for something he had no choice in. No choice, no (im)morality. Further, an emotion alone has no power to harm your own life or the rights of others. It's what you do in the face of that emotion that matters.

I am not talking about ILLEGAL, but immoral. So, an action can be IMMORAL even if it does not cause harm to anyone else.
You should have quoted my next sentence: "It has also not been shown to inherently involve any other form of immorality." Of course there are immoral actions that aren't illegal. Being habitually lazy is immoral, being dishonest is immoral. The widest definition of the immoral would be, roughly, "actions that do harm to one's own life as a rational human being." (Of course I am assuming the Objectivist context here. If you disagree with the Objectivist approach to ethics, we'll never agree.)

So, to show something is immoral you need to show that it's (a) an action that (B) long-range, is harmful to the actor's life. Neither of these has been shown to apply to homosexuals (or to pedophiles who do not act on their desires).

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The desire to have sex with children is itself AT LEAST *abnormal*, even if one does not act on it. If you agree with that, then on what basis would you deny that a sexual desire for a similar sex person is also at least abnormal?
I don't deny that homosexuality is abnormal. That's an empirical, statistical truth. But lots of perfectly moral and good things are abnormal. Genius, for example. Normality is irrelevant to morality.

Finally, saying that something is very difficult to change does not say anything about whether it is right or wrong. If it CAN be changed, however difficult that is, then a rational person must struggle to change it, which is the point of human volition.
If by "it" you mean the commission of immoral actions, I agree.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, thanks for your response.

1. I wish you could answer the question on racism since you believe that only ACTIONS can be immoral. So, do you believe there is nothing wrong with being racist as long as you do not ACT on that? (if you say there is something wrong, then it is immoral - ethics is all about right and wrong. And this means you are accepting that morality goes beyond actions. If you say it is not wrong (racist beliefs), well then, we'll take it up from there!).

2. On the word 'abnormal'. I think you are equivocating a bit there, Mark. Abnormal has two senses, and you do very well know the sense in which i used it. it does not just mean 'deviating from the average' (as a genius does), it also means having a mental problem of sorts. i meant the latter. A paedophile is abnormal, no?

3. You say "Humans have no direct control over preferences and desires, i.e., their emotions. You can't condemn someone for something he had no choice in. No choice, no (im)morality. "

You might have no choice in changing the SOURCE of your emotions, but you do have a choice on whether you keep that emotion or not - by analysing whether you do in fact consciously agree with its subconscious source. So, at this level, morality DOES come in. A person might be racist because of the things he was taught as a kid - he now hates asians and he has no choice in the source of that emotion; but he CAN change it by analysing the source of his emotion and changing his position. Is this not what Rand taught?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I'm not dismissing anything.

Show me a homosexual who keeps it under wraps because he realizes that it would be collectivist to broadcast it...a homosexual who doesn't feel the need to insure that all others around her know that she is gay...a homosexual who doesn't care at all if another person knows or not...

and I'll show you a figment of your imagination.

There is at least one dismissal right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish you could answer the question on racism since you believe that only ACTIONS can be immoral. So, do you believe there is nothing wrong with being racist as long as you do not ACT on that?

We need to define terms. Racism is not primarily an emotion, or a personal preference. It's a consciously held belief that some races are inherently inferior to others. Why a person would hold this to be true and then not act on it, I can't imagine. However, if you're talking about someone, say, whose first instinct on seeing a black person is that they are inferior, and then catches himself, and doesn't let that emotion interfere with what he knows to be true, then of course he is fully moral.

if you say there is something wrong, then it is immoral - ethics is all about right and wrong.

This is not true. It would mean all mistakes are indications of immorality. Is that really your position? It's certainly not the position of Objectivsm.

On the word 'abnormal'. I think you are equivocating a bit there, Mark. Abnormal has two senses, and you do very well know the sense in which i used it. it does not just mean 'deviating from the average' (as a genius does), it also means having a mental problem of sorts. i meant the latter. A paedophile is abnormal, no?

Please don't tell me what I "very well know." If you meant "having a mental problem" that would have been a clearer choice of words. But it would have required a lot more evidence than you provided (which was none), so it never entered my mind that you meant that. Given your clarification, it seems that the argument you're making is that homosexuality is a mental illness and that mental illness always involves immorality. But you've provided no evidence for either assertion. And the relevance of pedophilia is as obscure to me as ever.

Mark

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. On the word 'abnormal'. I think you are equivocating a bit there, Mark. Abnormal has two senses, and you do very well know the sense in which i used it. it does not just mean 'deviating from the average' (as a genius does), it also means having a mental problem of sorts. i meant the latter. A paedophile is abnormal, no?

Is your claim that homosexuality is abnormal or is it a matter of choice? Or both? I ask because although you broadly say that abnormal can mean "mental problems of sorts", abnormal used in that sense can mean mental retardation. If the person has a mental retardation of being homosexual, does he really have a choice?

I would ask that rather than accusing someone of equivocating (by which you are attacking your opponent not his argument), you focus more on your clear use of terms.

For the record let me state that I haven't seen enough evidence to satisfy my mind as to whether homosexuality is clearly a matter of choice or a biological/physiological issue.

mwickens:

No, it doesn't. That's the religious viewpoint, not the Objectivist one. Humans have no direct control over preferences and desires, i.e., their emotions.
Objectivism defines ethics as follows;

It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life

The Virtue of Selfishness - p. 13 - Ayn Rand

Since the Objectivists ethics is egoism, the only real concern of how one's actions impact other people, is how that impact on other people impacts me.

The term "choices" indicates that at least that mental process is subject to ethical evaluation. The reason why "choice" (even without action) is subject to ethical evaluation is because a person's choices inevitably impact their actions and/or their life. Once a choice is made it either leads to action or inaction. For the sake of clarity, I will specify that by "action" I'm referring to 'acting consistent with the choice even if it means not acting'. Conversely, inaction would mean 'not acting consistent with the choice'. In short, "is/ought".

First and foremost, for that choice to be "good", it must be consistent with facts of reality. If the evaluation that leads to that choice is not consistent with the facts of reality, the person already has a problem even before they act. Now, assuming the person is acting on a flawed choice, that will likely compound the person's problem. However, regardless of whether the choice is good or not, if the person chooses not to act consistent with their choice, they will also have problems. The only good scenario is to correctly identify reality and act consistent with that identification.

Also, your statement indicates to me that we may not have the same understanding of emotions with respect to Objectivist epistemology. Before I go into that I would ask, what do you mean by "direct control" over one's emotions and desires?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The desire to have sex with children is itself AT LEAST *abnormal*... Then on what basis would you deny that a sexual desire for a similar sex person is also at least abnormal?

The point i am making is that we can judge homosexuality as immoral... without complete knowledge of the psychological roots.

It might be helpful to separate desire qua biological impetus from desire qua volitional disposition. I think the point mwickens was making was that biological impetuses have no moral status, any more than hunger as a desire does.

Volitional desires are fair game, I suppose, but you'd still have to show why homosexuality is immoral in the first place. Even if there is a biological impetus for the homosexuality of some, some people IMO choose to experiment, and regardless of whether the desire is of biological and/or volitional status, action would have moral status, and thus I agree that homosexuality in action is not exempt from moral scrutiny.

That said, I think homosexual sex is has the same moral status as having heterosexual sex with redheads: none. So obviously we have different conclusions as to what that moral status is.

I would also object to the idea that an adult of the same sex is a "similar sex person" to a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the Objectivists ethics is egoism, the only real concern of how one's actions impact other people, is how that impact on other people impacts me.

The term "choices" indicates that at least that mental process is subject to ethical evaluation.

Yes, I agree. When I said only actions are open to moral evaluation, I was trying to distinguish actions from emotions and other psychological attributes that are not under the immediate control of an individual. At any point in time, these things are simply facts. For example, it is a fact that heterosexuals are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex and that homosexuals are attracted to those of the same sex. (This is aside from whether you see homosexual activity as moral or immoral.) And, if you find that you are tremendously envious of successful, happy people, that is a fact, a fact that in itself is inappropriate to judge morally.

But I was unclear that by actions I mean actions of consciousness, too. Rationality, after all, is the cardinal virtue. Working to understand one's psychology, for example, is a virtue, and evading that effort is a vice. To take the last example above, the thinking you did or failed to do that lead you to be envious is open to moral judgment, as is what you choose to do about it. The same goes for homosexuality (about which see more below).

Also, your statement indicates to me that we may not have the same understanding of emotions with respect to Objectivist epistemology. Before I go into that I would ask, what do you mean by "direct control" over one's emotions and desires?

I hope the above clarifies it a bit. Rereading my post, I see again that I was too anxious to argue against the idea that emotions and psychological states can be morally judged and was unclear. I meant that the experiencing of these emotions and states is not under your control at the moment you experience them. You do have control over emotions and psychological states to the extent that your thought and actions were responsible for them. And you have control over them to the extent that you can evaluate them and work to change any that need to improved and can be improved through better thinking and action.

To return to the subject of homosexuality, I'll just state briefly how I see it relating to the above.

The causes of homosexuality are unknown, even by experts who make it their life's work to find out. But the plausible theories are that it is either biological -- and therefore out of the realm of choice and morality -- or deeply ingrained psychologically at a very early age, which would also make it inappropriate to judge morally (unless you want to blame a five-year-old for not having proper male and female role models or for not making the correct judgments at that age).

Just as the causes of homosexuality are murky, the steps an individual would have to take to change his orientation are a mystery. Biochemistry and psychology have no methods to offer. The only people who claim to be able to "cure" homosexuality are religious fundamentalists whose methods have consistently proven to be fraudulent and ineffective. So even a homosexual who would prefer to be heterosexual has no way of effecting that change. Again, with no action possible, it is inappropriate to morally condemn a person for remaining homosexual.

Lastly, a hypothetical point about whether a person should want to change his sexual orientation if it were possible. The questions in that case would be: First, is homosexual romantic involvement and sexual behavior inherently worse for your life compared to the heterosexual equivalents? And second, how much effort would be involved? If the answers are (1) yes, heterosexuality is better and (2) all you need to do is take this pill, then it's obvious you should do it, and that not doing so would be immoral. But if the answers are yes, and it will take 20 years of intensive therapy, a perfectly moral decision would be to make the best life you can as a homosexual. (I do not consider the possibility of remaining celibate and alone -- that's obviously a disastrous course.) And if the answer to the first question is no, heterosexuality holds no significant benefits over homosexuality to your life, then it's also moral to remain homosexual.

Personally, I am not ready to say that being heterosexual is clearly superior for one's long-term happiness (and given my own homosexuality, I find it very difficult to even imagine the alternative), but I think it's a plausible position to take. However, given the fact that this fundamental aspect of a person's psychology is not open to change, no one who knows it should spend much time thinking about the prospect. Obsessing over what you can't change, after all, is clearly an (immoral) waste of time. :o

Mark

P.S.: Thanks, RationalCop, for asking the questions. Answering them helped me clarify my thinking on this subject.

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rereading my post, I see again that I was too anxious to argue against the idea that emotions and psychological states can be morally judged and was unclear. I meant that the experiencing of these emotions and states is not under your control at the moment you experience them. You do have control over emotions and psychological states to the extent that your thought and actions were responsible for them. And you have control over them to the extent that you can evaluate them and work to change any that need to improved and can be improved through better thinking and action.

I agree with most of this, Mark. But you now seem to be suggesting that there are some emotions that can not be changed or "improved". The objectivist doctrine of "free will" suggests that you can change anything about yourself (keeping the context of discussion, of course).

To return to the subject of homosexuality, I'll just state briefly how I see it relating to the above.

The causes of homosexuality are unknown, even by experts who make it their life's work to find out. But the plausible theories are that it is either biological -- and therefore out of the realm of choice and morality -- or deeply ingrained psychologically at a very early age, which would also make it inappropriate to judge morally (unless you want to blame a five-year-old for not having proper male and female role models or for not making the correct judgments at that age).

No one would blame a child for whatever psychologogical influences they had. But when they grow up, it is their responsibility to correct whatever bad psychological problems/preferences/emotions that might have resulted from those unfortunate influences.

2. When i said "mental problem of sorts" i wanted to avoid the implication of "mental retardation". A more accurate term would be "psychological problems". Very normal people do have, for example, a fear of heights or other phobias (irrational fears). I call these fears 'abnormal', not in the sense that a genius is abnormal, but in the sense that it is not the 'normal' psychological response of a rational human to heights, etc. I hope that bit is settled.

Just as the causes of homosexuality are murky, the steps an individual would have to take to change his orientation are a mystery. Biochemistry and psychology have no methods to offer. The only people who claim to be able to "cure" homosexuality are religious fundamentalists whose methods have consistently proven to be fraudulent and ineffective. So even a homosexual who would prefer to be heterosexual has no way of effecting that change. Again, with no action possible, it is inappropriate to morally condemn a person for remaining homosexual.

IF homosexuality is psychologically caused, then it is not only religious fundamentalists who offer the cure; objectivism does as well.

I want to bring back the subject of paedophilia at this stage. If you now agree that a particular desire can be morally wrong, would you classify a desire to have sex with children as morally wrong?

The reason i am using the paedophilia parallel is simply that if you can say "it is wrong", i want to know on what basis you would make that judgment since even in this area, the psychology/biology is incomplete and the "routes to change" are also as "murky". OR do you still believe we can not judge the paedophile's preferences because they are not "actions"'?

Lastly, a hypothetical point about whether a person should want to change his sexual orientation if it were possible. The questions in that case would be: First, is homosexual romantic involvement and sexual behavior inherently worse for your life compared to the heterosexual equivalents? And second, how much effort would be involved? If the answers are (1) yes, heterosexuality is better and (2) all you need to do is take this pill, then it's obvious you should do it, and that not doing so would be immoral. But if the answers are yes, and it will take 20 years of intensive therapy, a perfectly moral decision would be to make the best life you can as a homosexual. (I do not consider the possibility of remaining celibate and alone -- that's obviously a disastrous course.) And if the answer to the first question is no, heterosexuality holds no significant benefits over homosexuality to your life, then it's also moral to remain homosexual.

I think we can say that about any other psychological problem. By your reasoning, if a person finds that it will take too long to stop being alcoholic, he should continue with the habit and make the best out of it. Your argument that it is CLEARLY harmful to him in this case does not hold if it remains true that the therapy would take "twenty years". And since he has no choice in the matter any more, being already alcoholic, by your reasoning there is nothing immoral with his alcoholism.

P.S.: Thanks, RationalCop, for asking the questions. Answering them helped me clarify my thinking on this subject.

I wonder why you did not thank me for originating the questions that led to RationalCop disagreeing with your responses in the first place! But anyway. i understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to bring back the subject of paedophilia at this stage. If you now agree that a particular desire can be morally wrong, would you classify a desire to have sex with children as morally wrong?

You keep talking about pedophilia, but it is not analogous. Pedophilia, acted upon, involves the initiation of force against a human being incapable of giving informed consent. Homosexuality, except in the case of pedophile homosexuals, involves consenting adults. As Eddie Izzard would say, "There's a crowbar seperation there". This smells like a strawman to me.

Secondly, you have not proven that homosexuality is "bad psychology" that needs to be corrected. If you want to establish that you think there's something wrong with homosexuality, do that. Taking a person who chooses life, and whose goals are being productive and happy, explain why they necessarily need to change their sexual preference to meet those goals.

But you now seem to be suggesting that there are some emotions that can not be changed or "improved". The objectivist doctrine of "free will" suggests that you can change anything about yourself (keeping the context of discussion, of course).

You are conflating changing "anything" from changing emotions. I'd like to you to show me where Objectivism says you can change your sexual preference as part of "free will". The above quote suggests you are equating sexual preferrence to an emotion. If so, establish that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The objectivist doctrine of "free will" suggests that you can change anything about yourself (keeping the context of discussion, of course).

It does not. Biological factors are not changeable through an exercise of will. As for psychological causes, the primitive state of psychology cannot be glossed over by saying "but we have free will." If you have a method of changing one's sexual orientation purely via the exercise of free will, you should let the world know.

I want to bring back the subject of paedophilia at this stage. If you now agree that a particular desire can be morally wrong, would you classify a desire to have sex with children as morally wrong?

The reason i am using the paedophilia parallel is simply that if you can say "it is wrong", i want to know on what basis you would make that judgment since even in this area, the psychology/biology is incomplete and the "routes to change" are also as "murky". OR do you still believe we can not judge the paedophile's preferences because they are not "actions"'?

I have answered this already. A pedophile's decision to act on his predisposition is clearly immoral. The predisposition itself is likely due to deep rooted psychological issues that he had no control over when it was formed. To the extent that this is true, no moral judgment is appropriate. How he conducts himself given his unfortunate situation is open to judgment.

By your reasoning, if a person finds that it will take too long to stop being alcoholic, he should continue with the habit and make the best out of it. Your argument that it is CLEARLY harmful to him in this case does not hold if it remains true that the therapy would take "twenty years". And since he has no choice in the matter any more, being already alcoholic, by your reasoning there is nothing immoral with his alcoholism.

The analogy is inapt. The comparison would have to be between an alcoholic choosing to stop drinking and a homosexual choosing to stop having romantic relationships with same-sex partners. Both of these are clearly under volitional control and no one is arguing otherwise. But overindulgence in alcohol is clearly bad for one's long-term happiness, while I explicitly mentioned my view that abstaining from romantic relationships altogether would always be a worse choice. There's only so far I'm willing to go in a hypothetical, but if you want to push the issue then yes, if abstinence or dutiful participation in heterosexual relationships that one feels nothing for could be shown to be a choice superior to homosexual relationships, then that would be the moral course. Good luck making that argument.

Mark

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First rational cop.

I will say this again. The only aspect i am isolating from paedophilia as an analogy concerns its ROOTS or SOURCE, not whether one acts on it or not. The analogy connects with the DESIRE aspect of homosexuality, not whether one acts on this desire (for a similar sex) or not. When we take this aspect of DESIRE alone (not actions), can we pass moral judgment on at least one of these desires? (i.e. the paedophile's desire). If we CAN pass moral judgment on it, then i was just wondering what the basis of that judgment - on that DESIRE (not action on the desire) - would be. The reason i am asking this is that Mark and others (maybe even you) have argued that for us to pass moral judgment on homosexuality itself, we would need to have sufficient facts from the field of psychology / biology. In the absence of such facts, in an area which is still "murky", we can not judge the homosexual desire. And yet this same "absence of facts" exists in the area of paedophilia, so how come we can pass judgment in that area and not in the other (assuming we can)? (Remember i am not talking about acting on these desires, but on the desires themselves - i.e., deciding to keep them once one has identified them).

Finally, the rational cop wrote : "You are conflating changing "anything" from changing emotions. I'd like to you to show me where Objectivism says you can change your sexual preference as part of "free will". The above quote suggests you are equating sexual preferrence to an emotion. If so, establish that."

Rational cop, i am talking about the sexual desire for fellow men (for a male homosexual) - it's a desire, therefore it is an emotion. Or do you want me to establish that desires are emotions?

Now Mark.

Mark, i think you and rational cop might still have slightly different understandings of Objectivist ethics, so you might want to ignore the above statement (to rational cop) for now. I think rational cop does believe that moral judgment can extend to desires (particularly after you decide to keep them and not to pursue the task of changing them through dealing with your premises or thoughts that led to them.) You, on the other hand, seems to not really accept this.

I have answered this already. A pedophile's decision to act on his predisposition is clearly immoral. The predisposition itself is likely due to deep rooted psychological issues that he had no control over when it was formed. To the extent that this is true, no moral judgment is appropriate. How he conducts himself given his unfortunate situation ...

Mark

Mark, no - you have not answered my question 'already' and neither have you answered it now. I did not EARLIER ask "is a paedophile's decision to act on his predisposition immoral?" neither did i ask "what is the predisposition due to?" You are setting up straw men to evade the actual question i asked. The question i asked involves only desires. in other words, "would you say the DESIRE to have sex with children - not the 'predisposition', but the DESIRE itself - is morally right or not?" In short, would you consider a person who says, "i have these desires to have sex with children, and i really enjoy these sorts of fantasies" as equal to a man who says, " i really enjoy the fantasies of having sex with women?" Would you judge both situations as "amoral" or would you call the first guy a "pervert" for making such a statement?

[i hope you will not focus on the word 'enjoy' now and judge it as the one which is immoral, because if the fantasy -or desire - is itself not immoral, then even the 'enjoying' would not be immoral.]

The reason i am focusing on the paedophile, once again, is so that i might ask you the question above (see what i wrote to rational cop now).

Thank you both for your stimulating responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have not answered my question 'already' and neither have you answered it now. I did not EARLIER ask "is a paedophile's decision to act on his predisposition immoral?" neither did i ask "what is the predisposition due to?" You are setting up straw men to evade the actual question i asked. The question i asked involves only desires.

I can't see where you think I avoided your question. I said:

"The predisposition itself is likely due to deep rooted psychological issues that he had no control over when it was formed. To the extent that this is true, no moral judgment is appropriate.

How much clearer could I be? "Desires" by themselves are not things that can be morally judged. They are automatic. You do not decide to have a certain desire. You just experience it. Then, you need to recognize the fact, decide what caused it, and what to do about it. My supposed "straw men" were merely me taking pains to distinguish three separate elements of "being X" where X is a label that applies to someone who is disposed to experience certain desires: the roots of those desires, that fact of their existence, and what a person does about it. The first can sometimes be judged morally, the second never, and the third always.

Mark

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it not a fundemental part of human nature for a man to act as a man, and a woman to act as a woman?
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.

Gender is NOT at all like racial identities.

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.

To evade that these differences exist and to puposely act against one's nature (identity) as a male or female is why homosexuality is immoral.

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?

What if everyone made the choice to become homosexual?
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.

How could such a choice be pro-life qua man if the end result would be extiction of our entire species?

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.

If that decision is anti-life (and it is), then how can it moral for individuals to decide to make such an anti-life decision?
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?

How can it be considered moral for a man to act effeminently like a female evading his identity as a man? It can't be.

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.

Objectivists or anyone can't use "reason" in an attempt to negate a self-evident fact of reality.
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.

The last thing we need is "Objectivists" stating that the choice to follow mans proper sexuality qua man is not subject to moral evaluation.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analogy connects with the DESIRE aspect of homosexuality, not whether one acts on this desire (for a similar sex) or not. When we take this aspect of DESIRE alone (not actions), can we pass moral judgment on at least one of these desires?

I think your attempt to seperate the desire itself from acting on the desire is the problem with the analogy. There is a specific identifiable reason why a pedophile should NOT act on his desire which I mentioned in my last post. There is no specific identifiable reason, at least that I have seen yet, as to why a homosexual should not act on his desire.

Whether or not the pedophile acts on his desire, he has a bad outcome. If he acts, he violates the rights of a child by initiating force. If he doesn't act, he is tormented by not being able to act. Even though the later choice is the proper choice, he will still be tormented by not being able to act on his desire. Either outcome is self-destructive. That is why I think it is proper to morally evaluate pedophilia. Regardless of the origin, he is either self-destructive or self-destructive and harmful to others.

IMHO, the same thing CANNOT be said about homosexuality, regardless of it's origin.

That said, I think it's premature to encapsulate homosexuality as simply the sexual desire for a member of the same sex. You use the terminology "desire aspect of homosexuality" as though you recognize it has more than one element, so what other aspects are there that may or may not determine whether one is a homosexual or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Desires" by themselves are not things that can be morally judged. They are automatic. You do not decide to have a certain desire. You just experience it. Then, you need to recognize the fact, decide what caused it, and what to do about it.

I think we still have some disagreement. The purpose of morally evaluating anything is to determine it's impact, good or bad, on one's life. Desires themselves, even if they are automatic, can be very destructive or very beneficial to our lives. To exempt them from moral evaluation is hazardous, even if they are seemingly "directly uncontrolable".

Now, as it relates to the topic at hand, I have serious reservations that homosexuality, if it were simply a desire, just automatically manifests itself one day out of the blue with no warning to the person whatsoever. If it does, I would suspect the person has been evading for quite some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he acts, he violates the rights of a child by initiating force. If he doesn't act, he is tormented by not being able to act. Even though the later choice is the proper choice, he will still be tormented by not being able to act on his desire. Either outcome is self-destructive. That is why I think it is proper to morally evaluate pedophilia.

I don't follow this. If these are his only two choices, then surely choosing the less destructive option is moral.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we still have some disagreement. The purpose of morally evaluating anything is to determine it's impact, good or bad, on one's life. Desires themselves, even if they are automatic, can be very destructive or very beneficial to our lives. To exempt them from moral evaluation is hazardous, even if they are seemingly "directly uncontrolable".

Yes, it sounds like we do disagree. Not everything that is harmful to one's life is immoral. Only harmful things that are the direct result of a human choice to act against what one knows to be true can be said to be immoral. An earthquake is bad for one's life, but it is not immoral. Being born mentally retarded is bad for one's life, but it is not immoral. Errors are harmful to your life, but they are not immoral. Morality requires choice.

"[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." AR, Atlas Shrugged.

Now, as it relates to the topic at hand, I have serious reservations that homosexuality, if it were simply a desire, just automatically manifests itself one day out of the blue with no warning to the person whatsoever. If it does, I would suspect the person has been evading for quite some time.

Well, it may be that "desire" is not quite the right word. I meant it broadly, in reference to any preference, urge, attraction, etc., that one might experience. Whether we call it a "desire" or not, by all accounts I'm aware of, heterosexual or homosexual attraction does present itself out of the blue, usually around puberty. Can you describe how it might manifest itself to a person in some intermediate form, and at a late enough stage that a person is capable of evaluating it rationally (such that failure to do so would constitute evasion)?

Mark

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow this. If these are his only two choices, then surely choosing the less destructive option is moral.

Mark

Even though the later choice is the proper choice,

IF he only has two choices, I recognized which one was the proper moral choice. But even the "proper" choice is self-destructive. Do you think it is natural to be saddled with a sexual preference that inherently involves violating the rights of another human being?

An earthquake is bad for one's life,

You just made a moral evaluation on an earthquake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just made a moral evaluation on an earthquake.

Nope, I didn't at all. I said it was bad for one's life. The whole point of my post was to state my position that morality applies only to actions taken by choice, that "good" and "bad" do not equal "moral" and "immoral." The words are not interchangeable. The immoral is a species of the bad. The moral is a species of the good.

Is it your position that earthquakes and errors are immoral?

Mark

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Cross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it your position that earthquakes and errors are immoral?

Mark

I'm forgetting my fact and value lessons. I would be wrong to state that just because earthquakes are bad for life, that they are immoral. Earthquakes are metaphysically given facts.

Desires on the other hand, are not, they are "man-made" facts. Determining the roots of the given desire would determine whether it is initially subject to moral evaluation, but I still contend a continued desire is subject to evaluation.

I would like you to answer the question I asked above, if you are willing;

Do you think it is natural to be saddled with a sexual preference that inherently involves violating the rights of another human being?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm forgetting my fact and value lessons. I would be wrong to state that just because earthquakes are bad for life, that they are immoral. Earthquakes are metaphysically given facts.

Desires on the other hand, are not, they are "man-made" facts.

OK, but errors are "man-made" facts, too. Do you believe errors are immoral? It is not the fact that something is "man-made" that makes it open to moral evaluation, but that a person chose an action knowing that it was against his long-term best interests.

Do you think it is natural to be saddled with a sexual preference that inherently involves violating the rights of another human being?

"Natural" is not a very clear term, but I would say it is quite obviously incredibly, sadly detrimental to one's life.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 that I understand, are you saying that men are beautiful acontextually?

Also, are you saying that someone "just being themself" is beautiful acontextually?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...