Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Suppression is a form of control - the reflex may still be there, but it is controlled in as much as you do not retract your hand when the doctor gives you an injection.

The action is controlled - the impulse is not. I'm talking about the reflex, the autonomic impulse to action.

According to dictionary.com, instinct is also "A powerful motivation or impulse."
Then dictionary.com's definition is imprecise. Actually, that's dictionary.com's second meaning. You skipped over the first one:

1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli.

From a behavioral science standpoint, the word 'instinct' refers to a bird's knowledge of how to build a nest, a beaver's knowledge of how to build a dam, and a spider's knowledge of how to construct a proper web. Humans, again, are born tabula rasa, which means 'blank slate' - they have no knowledge. An infant does not even know that the pains of the hunger reflex are associated with a need for food - he must learn this implicitly by noticing the correlation between their abatement and being fed. Later, he will learn it explicitly and come to call the pain 'hunger.'

Are you speaking here of getting aroused when seing a specific person, or thinking about him/her, or are you talking about getting aroused for any (including no) reason?

A reflex is an autonomic response to sensations (not percepts or concepts). Insofar as it can be demonstrated that physical sexual arousal (for example, erection) can be achieved through purely sensory means (for example, touch), some degree of sexual arousal is reflexive.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then dictionary.com's definition is imprecise. Actually, that's dictionary.com's second meaning. You skipped over the first one:

I didn't. Dictionary.com offers 3 definitions of the word instinct, and I was merely referring to the second one. I understand that the word gets one of its meanings, depending on which context it is found in.

[...]An infant does not even know that the pains of the hunger reflex are associated with a need for food - he must learn this implicitly by noticing the correlation between their abatement and being fed. Later, he will learn it explicitly and come to call the pain 'hunger.'

[...], some degree of sexual arousal is reflexive.

Agreed on both points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you please summarize for us why you (or he) believes it is an error?

I don't think I know enough about the topic to have a qualified philosophic position. The limited part that I do understand is that we make values judgments very early on which set our emotional mechanisms in place for what is called "sexual orientation." What value judgments are these? I don't know. That's the problem.

What I do know is that as a heterosexual I do consider my way of life to be the superior one. Man/woman romance is a wonderful thing. Also I'm not keen on the physical acts of homosexuality, (I don't see the need to get into the gory details of that here, so don't ask).

But right now the field of psychology simply isn't developed enough to be able to say that the advantages of a "hetero" lifestyle are worth all the trouble to go through to change (if it were even possible today). Plus there might be physiological factors such that in some cases it might not be overcome by psychology alone. We simply don't know. The best bet for many would be to simply live the life and have the romance that is possible to them. If done right, it would certainly beat many of the twisted, corrupt, abusive, and loveless man/woman relationships out there.

(as for Dr. Peikoff, I have only heard brief quotations from his lectures, but his speaking style is very clear so it's easy to see where he is going. From what I can tell, I agree with what he says. Someday I will be able to afford the full versions and he may well enlighten me further on the subject.)

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunterrose and Inspector,

What i realise is difficult about these debates is that one can find himself debating against different people, each of whom has different convictions or understandings of different aspects of the subject at hand. The debate i carried against Mark, for example, firstly attacks Mark's position on desires (that they can not be judged unless the person ACTS on them). But then we have Qwertz stepping into this debate and he has a different take on desires (that THEY can be judged, as long as one does not drop context, etc).

Now, instead of Qwertz following the debate between me and Mark, he decides to simply assert that my line of reasoning (and analogies) is irrelevant and specious and a straw man, etc (since he holds the position that he holds on desires). And of course i would not have taken the debate in that direction if the person i was debating against held the position that desires can themselves be judged. Mark does not.

At this point blackdiamond is the primary cause of my premature baldness.

It's not a circular argument, because comparing paedophilia to homosexuality is specious until you prove that it isn't...

Argh! But you are attacking the argument against the immorality of homosexuality, not by presenting a case for the immorality of homosexual behavior, but by taking the immorality of homosexual behaviour as granted! The people you are arguing with do not take the immorality of homosexual behavior as a given! You have to demonstrate to us why you think homosexual behavior is inherently immoral, ie bad for a man's life as a man.

I am now tired of explaining this. How - HOW - can i prove that "comparing paedophilia to homosexuality is [not] specious" if my very attempts to do so are being stopped by someone who thinks the comparison is specious, before i reach my conclusion (based on the answers to my questions - from Mark). This is a form of circular argument that you apparently do not understand, Qwertz, and it is extremely difficult for one to help you there.

And no. I have not taken the immorality of homosexual behaviour as granted. It was my intention to demonstrate its immorality later, but it was first important for me to establish that desires could be judged (no one is suggesting dropping context). Unless you are omniscient, you can not know whether it is important for me to establish this before i proceed with my argument. And again, it was not to YOU (Mr./Miss Qwertz) that this 'establishment' was aimed, but to the one who does not believe that desires as such can be moral or immoral - without/before necessary accompanying action.

2. In the quote below, Qwertz continues informing me about something i have not denied, of course spicing his comments with a lot of demeaning statements.

The reason any desire or belief is immoral is not because the desire is a detached, extracontextual, universal evil, but because our desires inform our behavior (Dr. P said something like this somewhere, but again, I don't have my books handy). If the behavior is immoral, the desire is immoral. Desire does not exist in a vacuum. Desire cannot be evaluated extracontextually. Desire separated from the object of desire is meaningless. There. I've said it three different ways. Maybe it will sink in.

You are saying you hold a belief for no reason? You have not demonstrated the immorality of homosexuality even to yourself? Why do *you* think homosexuality is immoral? Stop trying to convince us and just tell us why *you* believe it. Or is that what you've been doing? Because if it is, well, it's not a very well reasoned belief.

For very clear reasons, i would personally not want to continue debate with this particular person.

(Mark has also exercised his right to discontinue debate with me - for "many reasons". i do not understand the "many reasons", but i accept. Thanks.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlackDiamond, The inter-twining of arguments by various people can get frustrating. If you know a specific person with whom you'd like to argue a specific point, and if they're willing, I suggest you and he start a thread in the debate forum. The quiet nature of that forum (only two people posting to a thread) can help. IF you want to do that, the best way would be to contact your prospective opponent by PM, and see if he's willing and if you can work out some ground rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... it was first important for me to establish that desires could be judged (no one is suggesting dropping context).

...desires as such can be moral or immoral - without/before necessary accompanying action.

What I have been trying to tell you is that evaluating the morality of a desire cannot be separated from the evaluation of the morality of the object of desire. To do so otherwise is context-dropping. The morality of the desire is determined by the morality of the object. Your second quote above contradicts your first - evaluating the morality of the desire without refering to the object of desire is context-dropping.

How can i prove that comparing paedophilia to homosexuality is not specious?
Very easily - by telling us how the objects (paedophilic behavior and homosexual behavior) are analogous. 'Specious' means 'an analogy without validity,' so I am not asking you to prove a negative, but a positive (the validity of the analogy). Tell us why homosexual behavior and paedophilic behavior are morally analogous and the analogy will no longer be specious.

It was my intention to demonstrate its immorality later.

The point you are trying to make (the desire is immoral) depends on this, though. Which is why I keep asking you to clarify it first.

In the quote below, Qwertz continues informing me about something i have not denied, of course spicing his comments with a lot of demeaning statements.

I demean your argument, because it is not sound. I do not demean you. I asked you simply to explain why you hold the belief you hold, without trying to convince us of its validity. If your conviction is strong, it should stand on its own. Just tell us in your own words why you think homosexual desire is immoral, without trying to justify it. If I'm completely missing the point, don't give up, keep hitting me over the head with it. If you're strong in your belief, then you have nothing to lose.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think everyone has agreed on the abstract principle that homosexuality would be moral if it is in the nature of a particular individual. However, the points of disagreement are as follow:

  • on the one hand, some would hold that this is an unreal hypothetical, and it cannot be in the nature of any individual to be homosexual; therefore it is not really a principle at all, just post-hoc rationalization
  • on the other side, some would say that even if homosexuality is not in an individual's nature, it may be moral under certain conditions

I doubt this gap is going to be bridged if a few hundred posts did not do the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's not stating the obvious, what has to be shown is that it is either rational or irrational for a particular individual to live his or her life as a homosexual. The talk about homosexuality being "natural" or "unnatural" reeks of a rationalistic approach to the subject. "Men and women were obviously designed to complement each other -- their parts fit together, they were 'meant' to procreate," etc., and it's therefore always unnatural to act against these facts. This eliminates at the outset (to name just two potentially relevant factors) any possible individual biological differences between individuals as well as individual, deep-seated psychological factors that may arise from early childhood experiences. (Arguing that homosexuality is or is not in "an individual's nature" is better.)

Most importantly, those who appeal to man's nature as proof of homosexuality's immorality tend to omit the crucial step of showing how that nature makes homosexuality harmful. Nature is just the start of morality. Morality is about showing that given the nature of man, acting a certain way has corresponding life-enhancing or diminishing effects. For example, Ayn Rand never said the failure to be productive is "unnatural." She showed that the nature of man is that he is self-supporting. And she demonstrated that because of this fact, being productive clearly furthers his life. She showed that it is immoral to be unproductive because given his nature, any man will stagnate or die following that course.

Since I've been participating in this thread, I've seen appeals to what's "natural" and "unnatural," but I've yet to see anyone show how man's nature makes homosexuality harmful to his life.

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subtitle of this thread "All about the masculine and the feminine" does not seem a good fit to the main title of "Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality", since there is no firm connection between a man's sexual tastes and his masculinity in the conventional sense.

Most of my gay male friends are quite masculine or "butch" in the vernacular, whereas a few are "nelly". A gay man can be an "Ennis Del Mar" or a Truman Copote or somewhere in between.

I consider myself masculine and I am sexually attracted to other masculine gay men. Nelly men are a definite sexual turn-off for me. I know enough other men with similar tastes to realize that this is not unusual.

If I brought up this subject on a gay forum, I would immediately be shouted down and told that, by being masculine and prefering masculine men, that I was denying my true nature--that to be gay I should be a finger snapping queen. So it appears to be a universal confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "masculine" gay man is a contradiction in terms.

Please define "masculine" in your own words, using genus and differentia please. I have trouble seeing how this is a contradiction. Knowing your definition might help others to concretize what you mean.

Note: Please do not use a dictionary definition. I just checked two, which had a total of nine definitions, every single one of which was circular, making it impossible to concretize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Masculine-- Possessing or exhibiting traits and actions congruent with a man's identity, including but not limited to-- stength, pride, confidence, rationality, and attraction to the oposite sex, i.e., feminine worship.

In other words, to be masculine requires traits that cause the worship of the feminine sex. Which is impossible if the feminine sex knows the male is "gay".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense, as Ayn Rand stated the essence of femininity is hero worship. A hero is by definition a male NOT a female which would be a heroine. Therefore to be feminine is to worship (be attracted) to masculinity (maleness). It then follows that the essence of masculinity should be heroine (feminine-- requiring a female) worship. There's nothing "absurd" about it. I'm just starting to get annoyed by Objectivists falling in to the politically correct trap that states that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality without providing any logical or moral reasons at all as to why this could possibly be true. It's not on me to prove a negative here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense, as Ayn Rand stated the essence of femininity is hero worship. A hero is by definition a male NOT a female which would be a heroine. Therefore to be feminine is to worship (be attracted) to masculinity (maleness). It then follows that the essence of masculinity should be heroine (feminine-- requiring a female) worship.

Without commenting on your other opinions in this thread, I do not agree that it follows that a man should in turn worship a woman. It would be more logical to say that the essence of masculinity is to be heroic. I've never thought of a hero as worshipping anything but himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...politically correct trap that states that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality without providing any logical or moral reasons at all as to why this could possibly be true. It's not on me to prove a negative here.

I think you're the one trying to prove the positive assertion that homosexuality is immoral, i.e. that it hinders man's life qua man. It is also a positive assertion to say that it is moral, i.e. it sustains man's life. I think the default position is the one of amorality.

Also, just because "Ayn Rand said that the essence of femininity is hero worship...." doesn't make it an automatically true statement.

If you define masculinity as being attracted to girls, and femininity as being attracted to boys, then you are saying in essence that in order to be either masculine or feminine one must be heterosexual. So you are saying that homosexuals are neither?

Do you see why these definitions won't work? Homosexuals are not neuter. Gender is not about sexual attraction; you don't gain your identity in regards to gender in relation to other people. Gender is an identification of your traits, not your value system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense, as Ayn Rand stated the essence of femininity is hero worship. A hero is by definition a male NOT a female which would be a heroine.

In the English language, the masculine form of a word usually assumes the feminine form. In other languages, for instance, French, saying the masculine form of a word has significance. Ayn Rand often used the masculine form of "adult human" (man), when she was referring to any adult human. She was usually very careful with word choice. Can you offer convincing evidence that she implied heroine worship was the essence of masculinity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just starting to get annoyed by Objectivists falling in to the politically correct trap that states that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality without providing any logical or moral reasons at all as to why this could possibly be true.

This is a fallacious assumption. Political correctness doesn't have to have anything to do with the position of those on here (Objectivists or otherwise) that disagree with your position.

Additionally, I agree that the onus is on you to prove that homosexuality is inherently immoral. Is it your position that all activities are immoral first until proven moral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you define masculinity as being attracted to girls, and femininity as being attracted to boys, then you are saying in essence that in order to be either masculine or feminine one must be heterosexual. So you are saying that homosexuals are neither?
i do not agree with EC's definition of masculinity, but your argument here is also fallacious. If "you define ... femininity as being attracted to boys", then homosexuals who are attracted to boys are feminine, not 'neither'!

I think you're the one trying to prove the positive assertion that homosexuality is immoral, i.e. that it hinders man's life qua man. It is also a positive assertion to say that it is moral, i.e. it sustains man's life. I think the default position is the one of amorality.

Also, just because "Ayn Rand said that the essence of femininity is hero worship...." doesn't make it an automatically true statement.

I might be wrong, but i think the "default position" of these forums is that Ayn Rand's propositions are "true statements". If you think they are not, the burden of proof is on you to show this before you can continue in any discussion that is built on the presumption of the validity of her philosophical "statements".

Perhaps i can extend this argument to the whole subject at hand (and not just to the statement on hero worship): Ayn Rand explicitly said homosexuality is immoral. With respect to Objectivism, isn't it (mostly) the responsibility (burden) of those Objectivists who disagree with her to show why they think she was wrong? This should be particularly true if you ALSO believe that Objectivism is "what Ayn Rand said and wrote" on morals, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where and when?

Edit- removed sentence that does not pertain to this thread.

I don't have the where and when, but what she actually said was that it "involves a sort of psychological immorality." Also, it was an answer to an on-the-spot question, and later, she said that homosexuality involves a heapload of psychological issues and that it is improper to make a judgment one way or the other until one fully understands the psychology.b

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...