Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

"Violate" is what a rapist does to his victim. I was talking of force--of moving the woman's body without asking her for permission; and of trespassing--of "entering" the woman's body, again without asking for permission.
The initiation of force without someone's permission is most certainly a violation of their right to their body.

You don't ask, "May I kiss you please?" You know you can presume her permission to kiss her.
If her permission is there, then it is not force, nor violation. It is mutually consented to. Edited by IAmMetaphysical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would be interested in an example of a romantic relationship where:
  • Neither person notices the other; or,
  • Neither expresses interest in the other; or,
  • Neither does anything to win the heart of the other; or
  • Neither of them initiates a sexual act; or
  • Neither of them engages in a sexual act.

It is physically impossible for a romantic relationship to take place if any of the steps I outlined fails to occur. Whatever happens instead is not a romantic relationship but a fantasy, a criminal rape, or "Platonic love."

But this is in no way related to the scenario you presented. In that scenario, you ascribed certain specific aspects of these behaviors exclusively to the man or the woman and did not justify why those behaviors are gender specific.

It is a primary goal for both.
People who go out 'looking for love' are valuing love over the object of love. Romantic love is not an end in itself, and so cannot be a primary goal. It is desireable, it is a value, but it is not an essential aspect of a healthy human being's life. An otherwise virtuous person who dies never having known romance is neither immoral nor less a Man for it.

I meant what I wrote to say the specific thing I wrote; there is no intended "suggestion" with respect to more general contexts.

Again, I'm not suggesting anything other than the specific things I wrote.

Another thing I'm not suggesting.

But all statements imply their contrapositives. If you say that women must go out of their ways to attract men, but that men need only do "what they want to do anyway" to attract women, the contrapositive says that a woman who does not go out of her way is incapable of attracting a man, and that women are incapable of attracting men by doing "what they want to do anyway" like men can. All statements have implications.

Is "violation" another word you think I was "suggesting" ? I never used it.
But you did use these words:

As the next step, someone has to initiate sexual intimacy--for example, kiss the other on the mouth. There is always an element of force or intrusion involved this; to stay with the kissing example, the kisser has to "pry open" the mouth of the kissee, or even if it opens readily, he has to "trespass" into it. It is an expression of physical strength and undauntedness on the part of the actor, and a feeling of being overpowered and "taken in hand" on the part of the person being acted upon. Which of these does a man aspire for, and which does a woman crave?

...

"Violate" is what a rapist does to his victim. I was talking of force--of moving the woman's body without asking her for permission; and of trespassing--of "entering" the woman's body, again without asking for permission.

Bold is mine.

That would be a first kiss on the cheek, or on the forehead.
But why does it have to be? Why must a kiss on the cheek or forehead precede a kiss on the mouth? You have only said that someone must initiate a sexual relationship: you have not provided any evidence to support this. Why does there have to be one initator? Why can't sex be initiated mutually? Two people who share enough of the same values could concieveably think in such similar ways that both decide to initiate a sexual relationship at the same time. Dagny and Francisco, for example.

A "strong, mutual recognition of shared values" does not automatically result in a romantic relationship. It can bring about some romantically neutral intimacy, such as a pat on the shoulder or a hug or the kinds of kisses I mentioned. But a kiss on the neck, or on any other erogenous part, is more than just an expression of shared values: it doesn't merely say, "I like you" ; it says, "I like you, and I presume you don't mind if I take possession of your body."

Sure, but that possession is mutual, and nothing in the corpus suggests that romantic love requires anything more than a strong, mutual recognition of shared values, other than perhaps the implication that romantic love only applies to the strongest such mutual recognition (and hence the derivative value of monogamy). As Dagny finds men with whom she shares a stronger set of values, she moves her romantic interests accordingly, from Francisco, to Rearden, and finally to Galt.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this is in no way related to the scenario you presented. In that scenario, you ascribed certain specific aspects of these behaviors exclusively to the man or the woman and did not justify why those behaviors are gender specific.

It's not necessary to explain everything down to first principles if we can agree at that level that an observation is basically true. Which of those behaviours do you believe are not gender specific? OR - let me ask it differently: do you believe there is even one of these behaviours (or others not mentioned here) that should properly be displayed by males (or females) only? Can you give us the 'why' for that?

An otherwise virtuous person who dies never having known romance is neither immoral nor less a Man for it.

A red herring. So, you have no problem with the celibacy doctrine (or practice) of "otherwise virtuous" catholic priests and nuns?

But all statements imply their contrapositives. If you say that women must go out of their ways to attract men...

Who said this?

It's not "out of their way". And that's the point. It's their nature - or comes from their nature - and as far as i can tell, they love it!

Why must a kiss on the cheek or forehead precede a kiss on the mouth?

Someone said this?

You have only said that someone must initiate a sexual relationship: you have not provided any evidence to support this.

How will it happen if it's not initiated? (You demand evidence for quite a lot of things, apparently).

Why does there have to be one initator? Why can't sex be initiated mutually?

Please describe a situation of 'mutual inititation' of, um, anything. not just sex. anything. it's not just about 'deciding'. it's about ACTING. The woman can indeed 'decide' earlier than than the man (in her head) - but who should ACT first? (or can they both 'act first'?)

Dagny and Francisco, for example...

You have told us in very unequivocal terms that Ayn Rand's thinking on the issue of homosexuality was wrong. This comes from her thinking on sexuality in general (obviously). it's now baffling that you keep referring to fictional passages in her other writings that would surely be biased by her thinking on this subject - which you have judged as wrong. :)

Finally, the issue of violation.

But you did use these words ...

You stressed the wrong parts of "these words". You should have stressed this ...

As the next step, someone has to initiate sexual intimacy--for example, kiss the other on the mouth. There is always an element of force or intrusion involved this; to stay with the kissing example, the kisser has to "pry open" the mouth of the kissee, or even if it opens readily, he has to "trespass" [notice the quotation marks] into it. It is an expression of physical strength and undauntedness on the part of the actor, and a feeling of being overpowered and "taken in hand" on the part of the person being acted upon. Which of these does a man aspire for, and which does a woman crave

I hope you see where your accusation is misguided. Same answer for IAmMetaphysical's post above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If her permission is there, then it is not force, nor violation. It is mutually consented to.

Sometimes a word has more than one meaning. When you sit down on a chair, you are initiating force against it in the Newtonian sense, but you wouldn't expect anyone to report you to the police for that.

Sure, you do have the woman's consent to kiss her, but it is a passive kind of consent. She never told you you may kiss her. She never signed a contract or clicked an "I agree to the romantic terms above" button. All you know is that she seems interested in you romantically. Your action goes with the implicit comment, "I know you didn't give me permission to do this, but I figure you don't mind it. You'll correct me if I'm wrong."

If it is reasonable to presume her consent, then your action is not force in the criminal sense. But you are always applying force to her body in the Newtonian sense, and also in the sense that you are doing something that requires her consent without having asked for it.

A good, "high-contrast" illustration of what I am talking about is the way Roark initiated his relationship with Dominique. It illustrates the idea of "force" I have in mind in its most intensive form. As I recently explained on another thread:

It just occurred to me that much of the confusion probably comes from the fact that we have a single word for the crime of rape and the mere action of raping--that is, physically overcoming--a woman. So, for those who are still confused, perhaps the following clarification could help:
  • The crime of rape consists of raping a woman who does not want you. Roard did not do this.
  • If you know that the woman wants you to rape her, then it is not a crime to do so; in fact, it's a gift. This is what Roark did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is 'best' for all Men to be rational, and to eat, because these are essential for his survival. But would you say that, since Ayn Rand held them as an ideal, it follows that it is 'best' for all Men to be industrialists...

This argument would be valid if my (or CF's) reasoning for heterosexuality being 'best' was simply "since Ayn Rand held [it] as ideal". Is that what you have gathered from this whole thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not necessary to explain everything down to first principles if we can agree at that level that an observation is basically true. Which of those behaviours do you believe are not gender specific? OR - let me ask it differently: do you believe there is even one of these behaviours (or others not mentioned here) that should properly be displayed by males (or females) only? Can you give us the 'why' for that?

For clarity's sake, let's say that I do not agree at this level that your observation is basically true, so please do explain it down to first principles. I would greatly appreciate it. Let's say that I do not see any reason why any specific behavior should be exclusively ascribed to the man or the woman.

A red herring. So, you have no problem with the celibacy doctrine (or practice) of "otherwise virtuous" catholic priests and nuns?
This is quite a different matter entirely: nuns and priests who practice celibacy are actively avoiding sex and romance. My suggestion was of someone who simply never happened to have a romantic relationship, not someone who was practicing celibacy.

Who said this?

If you mean about contrapositives, it's a basic formulation of logic: if all P are Q, then it follows that no P are non-Q. If you mean about women going out of their way:

The first step is taken by the woman, usually long before she has even met the man; it can be summed up by the word primping, and includes things such as buying fancy clothes, styling her hair, putting on makeup, and the like. The purpose of this is to make her beautiful, and while she is still single, she is likely to do it with a conscious view to making men notice her.

This has no counterpart among men. If the man wants to be noticed by women, he needs to do what he wants to do anyway: gain strength and wealth--physically, materially, intellectually, and morally. While he is probably aware that it will make him more attractive to women, that is not his primary purpose in doing so, only a secondary benefit.

The implication, whether CF meant it or not, is either 1) women must 'primp,' above and beyond their primary goals of living a rationally-self-interested life by gaining strength and persuing values through productive work, or 2) that living a rationally-self-interested life by gaining strength and persuing values through productive work is not a woman's primary goal. But my point isn't to argue for or against either of these implications. My point is that the statement assumes what it is trying to prove without giving any rational basis for it. The statement essentially says that 'primping' is in the essential nature of women, ie synonymous with 'femininity.' I'm asking why you and CF believe this to be true.

How will it happen if it's not initiated?
I'm not saying that a sexual relationship can spontaneously generate out of inaction. I'm saying that either or both parties involved may initiate it.

(You demand evidence for quite a lot of things, apparently).

Of course. :) You say that like it's a bad thing.

...but who should ACT first?
Either. Both. Make me a compelling argument that there is something inherently different in the mind of a woman that makes her morally forbidden to initiate a sexual relationship and I'll agree with you. But lacking such compelling argument, I'm sticking whrere I am.

You have told us in very unequivocal terms that Ayn Rand's thinking on the issue of homosexuality was wrong. This comes from her thinking on sexuality in general (obviously). it's now baffling that you keep referring to fictional passages in her other writings that would surely be biased by her thinking on this subject - which you have judged as wrong.

I said that Rand's '1971 quote' was wrong because it contradicted well-established parts of the corpus, including Atlas Shrugged. Wrong may have been the wrong word, so to speak; 'contradictory' may have been clearer. Once you can see that it was contradictory, it's little effort to see that either the entire corpus is wrong and the 1971 quote right, or (more intelligently) the corpus is right and the 1971 quote is wrong.

This argument would be valid if my (or CF's) reasoning for heterosexuality being 'best' was simply "since Ayn Rand held [it]as ideal". Is that what you have gathered from this whole thread?

No. This was made in reference to your (outwardly) unsubstantiated agreement with Rand's unsubstantiated 1971 quote. If you have reasons other than simply taking Rand on faith for agreeing with her assesment of the morality of homosexuality, you haven't yet produced them. Saying 'it's a self-evident and essential part of women's natures to be passive and flirtatious' is not an argument.

You and CF appear to be suggesting that there is an incontrovertable link between being female and being what you call 'feminine,' (that specific set of actions which you ascribe exclusively to women) and that for a female to act differently is immoral, so you need to show that there is a substantial, essential and inherent difference between the male mind and the female minds in an objective sense (ie not related to the way boys and girls are traditionally brought up or social norms).

If part of being feminine is to not be the active initiator of a sexual relationship, but rather the passive encourager of that initiation, and if male homosexuals are immoral for not adhering to their proper masculine roles, then it follows that it is immoral for a woman to initiate a sexual relationship, because she would also not be adhering to her proper feminine roles. It's a logical conclusion from the premises. If your premises as I have interpreted them are wrong, please do correct me.

-Q

PS: Note that this is semantically difficult: I accept that femininity is part of being female, and masculinity part of being male, but I disagree with your definitions of masculinity and femininity. Specifically, I think masculinity simply refers to having the physical characteristics of men, and has nothing whatsoever to do with behavior. This distinction may have caused some confusing and verbose language above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me provide a quick summary in my own words:
    1.
  • It's up to you whom you fall in love with.
    2.
  • A rational person will seek to find the best possible romance.
    3.
  • The bodies and personalities of men and women complement each other, therefore the best match for a man will always be a woman and vice versa.

4. There is no way two men can complement each other to the extent that the ideal man and the ideal woman do.
5. The standard of morality is one's life. A person who acts rationally to further his life acts morally; a person whose actions are destructive of his life acts immorally.

After taking BlackDiamond's advice, and rereading some early parts of the thread (particularly those relating to CF's position), I still remain unconvinced that homosexuality is intrinsically immoral. I would however qualify this by saying that even if we disagree, I acknowledge that it appears to me he is using a reasoned approach to come to a conclusion, and that it is not some prejudice on his part against homosexuality as others suggested early on in the thread.

In the three quotes above, I'm using CF's own words to summarize his position. I added numbers next to them for easy reference.

1. I'm basically in agreement with number 1. However, I'm not sure there is enough evidence in yet with respect to how much biology influences affect one's propensity towards homosexuality. If one considers that there is some biological influence, and that biological influences are naturally occurring, it's not a stretch to say that in some people, their nature may be to be homosexual, or at least they have a stronger natural tendency towards homosexuality. And no, I do not accept that this is morally comparable to any "natural tendency" for someone to be a rapist or child molester, because that involves the violation of another person's rights, which is immoral.

2. From my position, I would qualify this sentence further than CF; A rational person will seek to find the best possible romance for that person. For a homosexual, that best possible romance could reasonably be with another homosexual that shares the same values.

3. I don't agree that the conclusion necessarily follows the premise, most notably respect to the term "always". I can see how this could be a fair generalization. There are far too many individuals in the world for me to agree (at least at this point) that X sexual behavior will always be best for all men, and Y sexual behavior will always be best for all women.

4. I do not see how this necessarily has any bearing on judging the morality of homosexuality. Even if a person falls short of being "ideal", if they have done the best they could have done, I would have difficulty judging their behavior as immoral, obviously short of anything that involves violating the rights of others. There are some times in life where influences beyond choice affect a person's opportunity to achieve the ideal. If the best possible relationship a man can achieve is a homosexual relationship with another man, it would therefore be moral. I would agree that it would be best if people strived for the ideal, but striving for it and attaining it are two different beasts.

By this ideal standard, one could presume that if the only way to be moral is to achieve the ideal or do without. Any relationship with a person (regardless of homo/hetero) short of ideal is therefore immoral, at least to some degree. If a man was unable, by whatever means or circumstance, to achieve the ideal relationship with the ideal woman, he would be acting immorally to "settle" for less when he found someone who represented the best possible candidate, but wasn't perhaps "ideal".

That aside, "ideal" represents a value judgment, which then implies - to whom, and for what purpose.

5. Here's the biggie. I do not see any evidence of an intrinsic destructiveness in homosexuality. I will continue to evaluate the morality of homosexual relationships on a case by case basis just as I would heterosexual relationships.

Now, lastly I'd like to make an observation. This is not to be taken as a form of argumentation with respect to the morality of homosexuality per se, but rather a note on the topic as it relates to any "official" relationship with the philosophy of Objectivism, or at least with folks who identify themselves as Objectivists. (I recognize that to represent this as an argument would be to argue from "consensus" which I know is fallacious) It seems clear based on the quote provided that based on her application of her philosophy; Ayn Rand thought homosexuality is immoral. Clearly there may be disagreement as to whether this means her conclusion is thus a part of Objectivism. However, in reviewing posts from this forum and another forum, this is a widely divided issue amongst Objectivists. In many cases, not all, both sides have presented reasonable arguments and lay claim to their position being right. I have read posts from people ranging from "wanna-be" Objectivists to Dyed-in-the-wool long time Objectivists, and have seen positions arguing both sides throughout that range. I hold credible the judgment and opinions of many of the folks involved on each side of the issue. As I said above about CF, even though I may disagree with some of these folks, I respect their search for the truth by use of the tool of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. This was made in reference to your (outwardly) unsubstantiated agreement with Rand's unsubstantiated 1971 quote. If you have reasons other than simply taking Rand on faith for agreeing with her assesment of the morality of homosexuality, you haven't yet produced them. Saying 'it's a self-evident and essential part of women's natures to be passive and flirtatious' is not an argument.
I don't think this is the right direction to take the discussion. They have produced reasons for their conclusions. You and I may not be satisfied by them, but if we are not, we need to demonstrate why they are insufficient, as I will attempt to do once I'm done reading the entire thread. That is, of course, unless I find something new and compelling to change my mind on the way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong FeatherFall. I'm not saying CF and blackdiamond are being irrational - the arguments work from the premises - I'm trying to get an explanation of the premises, which haven't been defended, and I'm trying to uncover the enthymemes being taken for granted. I'm working back through the argument, all the way to first principles if need be, in order to determine where the actual point of disagreement is. I'm not trying to say they're not being rational, I'm pointing out that this specific premise ('femininity' involves a morally significant behavioral aspect) hasn't been established yet.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong FeatherFall. I'm not saying CF and blackdiamond are being irrational...

I can't quite remember if the forum rules allow us to accuse someone of being intellectually dishonest, so i will not take the risk of doing that here.

All i will say to Qwertz is: take Featherfall's advice.

I do not know why you seem to have this habit of getting something other than just what a person is saying. Featherfall has not said here that you are accusing me and CF of being irrational - so why waste time defending yourself of not doing that? you need to develop the habit of just getting *exactly* what someone is saying.

Both Featherfall and Rational Cop have recognised something that you have failed to recognise - and yet it is so blatantly conspicuous. I will only respond to you when you do understand what Featherfall is saying to you, because we will both only be wasting our time if we continue the discussion from an apparently dishonest premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I'm basically in agreement with number 1. However, I'm not sure there is enough evidence in yet with respect to how much biology influences affect one's propensity towards homosexuality. If one considers that there is some biological influence, and that biological influences are naturally occurring, it's not a stretch to say that in some people, their nature may be to be homosexual, or at least they have a stronger natural tendency towards homosexuality. And no, I do not accept that this is morally comparable to any "natural tendency" for someone to be a rapist or child molester, because that involves the violation of another person's rights, which is immoral.

RationalCop, why not? why isn't it morally comparable to any "natural tendency" for someone to be a rapist or child molester (or a paedophile - i started this line of argument earlier but could not get past some 'hurdles')? From your arguments it is actually comparable. Why? Because morality is about choice, isn't it? So, if the child molester or rapist is born that way - then why isn't his situation essentially comparable to that of a gay person born that way? you will attempt to escape your problem here by re-emphasising that the actions of the child molester and rapist involves 'violation' of rights, but that is definitely a red herring because if the person has no choice even in the matter of this violation - you can not judge him as immoral, can you? I am confident you can not answer this question if you do not accept some of my (and CF's) premises (in this discussion) that you are rejecting (you will need to engage in some form of 'concept stealing', in short) - but let's see if you can answer it your way.

Thank you.

(i wish to settle this point before addressing your other valid arguments because it is fundamental to my argument).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop, why not? why isn't it morally comparable to any "natural tendency"

I see your "red herring" and I raise you a strawman.

"Natural tendency" != no choice. Influences != no choice.

If biological influences affected a person's attraction to a particular gender, that does not negate that the person had a choice. Flaming gay men still have a choice to have sex with women. However, since it does not involve the violation of rights to have sex with gay adult men, I see no reason why they should choose to go against whatever natural tendency they have. However, if someone had a natural tendency to desire to force themselves upon another person, or to have sex with a child, they would still have a choice not to do so, and they SHOULD NOT do so because it would be a violation of the other person's rights.

When you start talking "no choice", I believe you enter the realm of mental illness.

However, I'm going to assume that even if a person had some biological inclination to be attracted to a particular gender, you would think that they should fight that inclination if it is not a member of the opposite sex because that would not represent what you believe to be "ideal". Please correct me if I have assumed in error.

I am confident you can not answer this question if you do not accept some of my (and CF's) premises
Yes, that would be the part where I said;

I'm basically in agreement with number 1.

That was a rather relevant section for you to have overlooked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your "red herring" and I raise you a strawman...
LOL. i hope my straw man keeps your red herring away!

"Natural tendency" != no choice.

Yes. that 'natural tendency' is not chosen, is it? no straw man there.

If biological influences affected a person's attraction to a particular gender, that does not negate that the person had a choice. Flaming gay men still have a choice to have sex with women.

We are talking about the choice to be gay men, not the choice to have sex (with other gay men or with women). are they born with that 'choice' in their genes? i believe this is what you expect biologists to ascertain and not the choice to engage in sex with males (or females), no? therefore, i believe it is the relevant 'choice' under discussion.

However, since it does not involve the violation of rights to have sex with gay adult men, I see no reason why they should choose to go against whatever natural tendency they have.

It is this preoccupation with one aspect of morality - rights of the other individual - in an argument in which it is your side that is bringing up the same issue of "lack of choice" as a possible justification for homosexuality's non-immorality - that led me previously to discuss 'desires' themselves as either moral or immoral, but this did not go on very well, so i tried another argument, which still involves action: having sex with cows. (forgive that very long sentence). So here goes:

What if a person is instead born with this 'tendency' to want sex with cows. This will not involve violation of rights, so this example omits that aspect completely so that we can stick with the essentials of my argument. But the question remains: can we judge this action of having sex with cows as immoral? what if the person was born with that 'natural tendency'? [warning: do not steal ANY of our premises in your answer - except the ones you have not rejected!!!]

Yes, that would be the part where I said ...

That was a rather relevant section for you to have overlooked.

No. i did not overlook that part, and it was not that premise i was referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. that 'natural tendency' is not chosen, is it? no straw man there.

Yes, there is a strawman there. You appear to be taking the word "tendency" to mean absolute. I did not say that, nor did I imply that. While the biological tendency itself (if such a thing exists) may occur without choice, how one acts on it still resides in the realm of choice. I didn't have a choice to have two arms when I was born, but I can still decide how to use them. A person may be born with a body extremely efficient for running long distances, but that person can choose not to.

We are talking about the choice to be gay men,
Actually, I'm talking about the choice to be gay, men or women. But otherwise, I haven't been confused about what we are discussing. IF a person is attracted to members of the same sex, whether biological or by other factors, acting to form an intimate relationship on that would pretty much be indicative of choosing to be gay. That I use sex as an example does not mean you can imply that sex is all I'm talking about. For the record, I do understand that a homosexual relationship involves more activities than just sex.

It is this preoccupation with one aspect of morality - rights of the other individual - in an argument in which it is your side that is bringing up the same issue of "lack of choice" as a possible justification for homosexuality's non-immorality -

Actually, in the exchanges between you and I, YOU are the one that keeps bring up "no choice". I have already told you that is not what I'm talking about. If you insist on asserting that that is my position, we can end the conversation here. I have a attempted to differentiate between tendency and "no choice", and explained what I think "no choice" would indicate - mental illness.

So, do you intend to keep falsely asserting that as my position or can we move on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop, let me first quote you:

1. I'm basically in agreement with number 1. However, I'm not sure there is enough evidence in yet with respect to how much biology influences affect one's propensity towards homosexuality. If one considers that there is some biological influence, and that biological influences are naturally occurring, it's not a stretch to say that in some people, their nature may be to be homosexual...
I might be missing your point, but what would be the relevance of stating that in some people "their nature may be to be homosexual" in an argument that is trying to establish whether homosexuality is moral or immoral?

Would you blame me for thinking that the relevance of your point here is to show that they have no choice in this orientation - that it is their nature - and that therefore we should not morally blame them for acting "according to their nature"?

if it is not what you are saying, you must forgive me for thinking this is why you brought it up. And this is because this is why this point has been brought up by others here (and elsewhere) before, as far as i am aware. If you bring up the same point, i would naturally think you have the same reason - at least in the same forum.

Look, for example, how on the first page of this same thread, the term 'choice' was used with respect to the evidence that you also say is not currently available.

Yes RadCap, I agree with your conclusion that the level of understanding necessary to make such a judgment [evidence] does not exist yet today. However, I was merely wondering, IF homosexuality was based on choice, would it be immoral? I suppose however, that such speculation is not a good thing to do because any conclusion drawn would have to be based on the context of reality, context which we do not yet know at present.

To help me, please say what the relevance of the point as you used it is. it was not clear to me from the context, except as the interpretation i wrongly got for it.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is this preoccupation with one aspect of morality - rights of the other individual - in an argument in which it is your side that is bringing up the same issue of "lack of choice" as a possible justification for homosexuality's non-immorality - that led me previously to discuss 'desires' themselves as either moral or immoral, but this did not go on very well, so i tried another argument, which still involves action: having sex with cows. (forgive that very long sentence). So here goes:

What if a person is instead born with this 'tendency' to want sex with cows. This will not involve violation of rights, so this example omits that aspect completely so that we can stick with the essentials of my argument. But the question remains: can we judge this action of having sex with cows as immoral? what if the person was born with that 'natural tendency'? [warning: do not steal ANY of our premises in your answer - except the ones you have not rejected!!!]

I'd like to take a quick stab at this, and see if my thoughts are on the right track.

When dealing with the ideas of Heterosexuality and Homosexuality, as RationalCop said, we're dealing with the aspect of MORE than just sexual intercourse. I suppose, if I were to define Romantic Relationship, I would say it's a MUTUAL attraction based on values held. MUTUAL meaning that BOTH parties agree/hold the same feelings/attraction. As already argued, any child molester or rapist, at least ACTING on said desires, is immoral because of a violation of rights. Your thoughts with "cow-loving" is also based on the same idea. FORCE is required to have sex with a cow. A cow, generally (since I don't have full knowledge of this area...for good reason), will not give you PERMISSION to have sex with it. As stated by Inspector and several others in the animal rights threads, FORCE is the only way we have to deal with animals, therefore NO MUTUAL relationship can occur between a cow and human. However, between two rights holding humans, a MUTUAL relationship CAN occur. So, if there is no FORCE initiated, and consent is given (i.e. no violation of rights)...how can it be immoral? Because it's not ideal? (to whom? and for what purpose?)

This is the first time I've argued any of this, and like many of my other posts/thoughts, I'm sure it holds some flaws. Thanks for reading and any response given. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but sex with a cow would also involve force!

Which was my point! Also, notice I didn't say anything about the morality of sex with a cow....

My best guess is that there IS no immorality associated with the ACT of sex with a cow (it would merely be a disgusting act), by force anyways, but that the immorality would be substituting a MUTUAL romantic relationship with a Forced sexual relationship. (Granted I'm sure there's an immorality of the sex act, but I don't think it's based on the idea of force...but I'm not too sure on those thoughts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say that I do not see any reason why any specific behavior should be exclusively ascribed to the man or the woman.

Suppose you are casting a movie in the 1950s. You need to find an actor for a character who gets noticed by the opposite sex thanks to attributes like loveliness, playfulness, pretty clothes and sparkling jewelery, a bold lipstick and a subtle eye paint, a silky hair and an iridescent headband--and an enticingly swinging hip. You have to make an objective decision about whether the role would be best played by Marilyn Monroe or by John Wayne.

If you think the choice is obvious, then there is hope for you. ;) Now consider which attributes of Marilyn Monroe's body make her a good candidate for the role, and which attributes of John Wayne's body make him better suited to play a tough cowboy.

The implication, whether CF meant it or not, is either 1) women must 'primp,' above and beyond their primary goals of living a rationally-self-interested life by gaining strength and persuing values through productive work, or 2) that living a rationally-self-interested life by gaining strength and persuing values through productive work is not a woman's primary goal.

Isn't a woman pursuing a value when she seeks to get noticed by masculine gentlemen? Doesn't the creation of beauty qualify as productive work? Your premise seems to be that there is a conflict or dichotomy between prettiness and self-interest. Like fun there is!

The statement essentially says that 'primping' is in the essential nature of women, ie synonymous with 'femininity.'

Perhaps if you'd think less about what my statements "essentially" say and pay more attention to what they literally say, you would be less prone to misunderstand me so badly. :P

I think masculinity simply refers to having the physical characteristics of men, and has nothing whatsoever to do with behavior.

See what the mind-body dichotomy can do to your posting? ;) The physical characteristics of men and women have EVERYTHING to do with their behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose you are casting a movie in the 1950s. You need to find an actor for a character who gets noticed by the opposite sex thanks to attributes like loveliness, playfulness, pretty clothes and sparkling jewelery, a bold lipstick and a subtle eye paint, a silky hair and an iridescent headband--and an enticingly swinging hip. You have to make an objective decision about whether the role would be best played by Marilyn Monroe or by John Wayne.

What about in today's world? Is it immoral for women to like (be attracted to) Johny Depp or Orlando Bloom because their features are more Feminine (i.e. smoother face lines, skinnier bodies)? Or does it simply not matter because of what's between their legs? Or a man that likes, say Hilary Swank (who I think has more "masculine" facial features)?

The physical characteristics of men and women have EVERYTHING to do with their behavior.

So is a woman only effeminate if she has feminine features? Does that grant morality for her to be a lesbian, since her features (physical characteristics) are masculine in nature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johny Depp

Here's a deal: Why don't you keep Johnny Depp and his fellow eurodhimmi pansies, and we'll stick with John Wayne and Marilyn Monroe.

Be careful though: Ideas have consequences. If you dig the likes of Depp today, you may easily find yourself worshipping Allah tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a deal: Why don't you keep Johnny Depp and his fellow eurodhimmi pansies, and we'll stick with John Wayne and Marilyn Monroe.

Be careful though: Ideas have consequences. If you dig the likes of Depp today, you may easily find yourself worshipping Allah tomorrow.

;) Very Funny, but you didn't answer my question. The question is, if a woman likes an effiminate man, or a man likes a masculine woman, is that immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

if it is not what you are saying, you must forgive me for thinking this is why you brought it up.

(snip)

Look, for example, how on the first page of this same thread,

First, I don't have to forgive you for thinking anything if I have already told you what you are thinking is wrong and you insist on thinking it anyway.

Second, you keep referring to "my side" in a collective sense. Whatever coincidences my position has with someone else's argument are just that, coincidences. I'm not part of a pack that all thinks the same way, or shares the exact same position. My "side" does not come as a package deal with which you can use RationalEgoistSG or anyoen else's posts to make a point. If you want to argue against him, fine, but don't bring me into. I have no responsibility for his words or his position. If you want to argue against me, stick to my words.

By contrast, you are the one who is defending someone else's argument. Despite that, up until this point I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt for having your own argument, a courtesy you appear to be unwilling to extend to me.

There are some folks in this thread who have suggested that because a man is born a man (or born male), that being male is in his nature, that he should behave in a certain manner (not that he doesn't have a choice in that behavior). Being born male by nature apparently does not stop some men from choosing to be homosexual; or in essence, being male by nature does not stop men from having a choice to against their male "nature". So this is indicative of the idea that even if a man is born male, he can make a choice about his relationships, regardless of his "nature". With that in mind, it is the position of some that because he is acting against his nature as a male, that his actions are immoral.

Now when I present the idea that perhaps there may be unknown biological influences that impact his "nature" with respect to the inclination of an attraction to the same sex, suddenly I'm accused of implying that "he has no choice". This is a "you can't have your cake and eat it too" situation. One cannot honestly argue that on one hand, the one "natural" (the one without inclinations) man has a choice, but the other "natural" man (the one with inclinations) does not have a choice. This can be evidenced by considering that there have been examples of homosexual men who had heterosexual relationships for a variety of reasons. IF they had a biological inclination to be attracted to men, apparently they still had the choice to overcome it. I have in no way presented an argument that these inclinations circumvent a man's cognitive function or capacity for free will, except to say that if they did, I think it would be indicative of mental illness.

Now, rather than trying to attribute to me some position I have repeatedly denied and refuted, I would much rather you would have just discarded any notion that there may be biological influences since as you noted I have not evidenced such possibility. Your position would be far more sound, and frankly far less offensive to me, if you had just noted that my assertion was arbitrary until I demonstrated proof of such inclination. Instead, you entertained the possibility, but then tried to attribute a false position to me. I think the possibility of biological influences are entirely reasonable, but if you wish to discount them pending evidence, that would certainly be an understandable position.

I think at this point I'll respectfully remove myself from our particular line of discussion until I see a reason that returning to it represents some value to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;) Very Funny, but you didn't answer my question. The question is, if a woman likes an effiminate man, or a man likes a masculine woman, is that immoral?

Did you understand my point about ideas having consequences? Do you grasp how the ideas represented by John Wayne can defend America, while those represented by Johnny Depp enable America's enemies? Are you aware that Islam can kill you?

The moral is that which is good for your life. I did answer your question.

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...