Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

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.

The choice is obvious. John Wayne doesn't have silky hair. <grin> Though I suppose we could fit him with a wig... Naah, it'd look too weird. The confines of the 1950s motion picture industry notwithstanding, though, what stands in the way of a Marilyn Monroe type getting noticed by the same sex?

I agree with RC in that the discussion is making little progress, and I'm willing to accept my share of the blame for that (blackdiamond, I'm working on understanding your last post to me and my error in understanding your (and CF's) arguments). Part of the problem as I see it is the obscene length of the thread. Also, reading the last few posts, I get confused as to what we're arguing about: the morality of homosexuality or the argument itself. Further, I'm seeing some confusion between homosexual behavior (sex) and gay behavior (gay men acting swishy, or lesbians acting butch). I don't think the latter is really what we should be arguing about: a strong case can be made that it is collectivism (I remeber making it at some point in the past history of the thread).

I think we should start over, and from a different tack: Can a romantic relationship between two people of the same sex ever be moral? What conditions would it have to meet? Are there special conditions beyond those which heterosexual romances must meet to be moral? I think this approach is less frought with peril than the present one.

-Q

PS:

Johnny Depp

I agree. Ew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

what stands in the way of a Marilyn Monroe type getting noticed by the same sex?

Oh, nothing does, nor does anything stand in the way of a John Wayne type being noticed by the same sex. But a rational man will notice John Wayne as a hero to admire--as an ideal to aspire to--as a role model for himself--as a man possessing the same qualities he himself ought to possess, not as an ideal partner to complement his life with qualities he doesn't, and can't really, and ought not to try to, possess.

If you've made a nice bow, you can admire the guy who's made the greatest bow in the forest, but if you want to shoot any game, you'd better find someone who's made a good arrow, lest you find yourself in want of food.

I think we should start over, and from a different tack: Can a romantic relationship between two people of the same sex ever be moral?

"Ever" is a big place, and it's easy to get lost in it without a context.. ;) In Anthem, Equality 7-2521 held many ideas that were perfectly irrational, but we do not fault him for it because there was simply no way for him to know better in the cultural context in which he grew up--and because he slowly but surely discarded the irrational ideas when he eventually learned better.

Given the context that I grew up in, with my education in a culture only moderately influenced by feminism, it would definitely have been immoral for me to choose (actively or passively) to be a homosexual. I don't know what exactly they teach the kids in American schools today--I realize it must be much more difficult for them to see these things clearly--but Hollywood is still far from having removed all traces of masculinity from their heroes and femininity from their heroines, and as long as they are able to see what's possible, they ought to know it's possible, and they ought to realize that what they are taught in school does not quite mesh with reality. So, while the acceptance of the premises that lead to homosexuality may not be a sin of commission any more, I do believe it is still a sin of omission--not a sin of coming up with an evasion all your own, but one of going along with the evasion of the herd that surrounds you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's go through the steps leading to the consummation of a heterosexual romantic relationship:

Each of the ... steps is necessary for a romantic relationship to take place. Every single one of them has different roles for the man and the woman.

This illustrated what males/females (supposedly?) do. Can we observe what (most) females do and thus define that as what they should do? And are "statistical facts" the basis for these roles, or do one of the aforemention biological differences lead to the ideas that a woman should primp and be playful, while the male should initiate sex and be the first to express interest?

It's not necessary to explain everything down to first principles if we can agree at that level that an observation is basically true.
"Basically" is a long way from "objectively."
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.

There is no question that women (on average) are more equipped for some tasks, and males for others. But how can an argument be made that Monroe would (objectively) be best off being playful and bewitching instead of a tough cowgirl or whatever else she might choose to do that didn't emphasize her biological advantages??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop, i have now seen where your misunderstanding is coming from and i will summarise it here. It starts from the premises:

You are saying that a person becomes gay when he ACTS on his 'tendency' or 'inclination'.

I am saying a person is gay because he has this tendency or inclination.

OR, to put it in other words:

you are saying when a man ACTS on his attraction to fellow men, he becomes gay.

I am saying when a man has an attraction to other men, he is gay - even before he ever acts on it.

It is my understanding that this is how GAY-ness is understood generally and in this thread (this is one reason i quoted rationalegoist, and NOT to show that you are regurgitating other people's arguments).

So, if you understand that, then the confusion of 'choice' becomes clear as well.

You are saying that if it was true that if a person had NO CHOICE in becoming gay, then that person is insane.

That's because of how you are defining becoming gay - the choice to act on the inclination, whether sexually or just in a relationship.

I am saying that since 'becoming' gay is just acquiring that tendency, it is possible to argue that the tendency came through biology. If this tendency came through biology, then one can develop a case for why it would not be immoral for one to ACT (choice) on that natural tendency since one has NO CHOICE on his biological makeup. So, where there is a possibility of no choice is on gaining that same tendency, not on the acting.

Therefore, I am NOT accusing you (or keep accusing you) of suggesting or saying that a gay person who is born with this tendency has no choice whether or not he acts on it or not. I have not said or suggested that anywhere. It is YOU who keeps saying that i keep saying this. All i am saying is that anyone (including you) who brings up the issue of biology, is introducing the proposition that there is no choice (consciously or unconsciously) involved in this inclination itself. And this does not mean that this inclination is therefore "absolute" (as you said i am saying). Absolute or not, it is just what defines gay-ness.

2. There is nothing wrong with referring to "your side" (although it's not true that i KEEP referring to "your side"). If there's another term i could use to say "the opponents of the proposition that homosexuality is immoral", i could gladly adopt that term - but it will be cumbersome for me to keep using that longer sentence. A term like "your side" is just for easier identity, just as someone who calls you "Objectivist" is not saying you are part of an unthinking pack.

When i quoted rationalegoist, was that "your side"? He didn't express an opinion either way in that post, so he was not on any side as such. I was here showing that this is how the issue of "choice" (with respect to homosexuality) has been used throughout the thread (and even beyond).

I have no problems admitting that i am actually defending CF's argument and not my own argument per se (i think i said this at the begining and i even said my own argument will come later). His is only MY argument in as far as i accept it to be true or logical. I can defend it with no shame just as i can defend Ayn Rand's arguments with no shame. The important thing is that i am thinking for myself even in my very attempt to make this defence, as i know you are also doing in your attack of it.

REFERENCES

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...

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.

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".

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.

Is homosexuality immoral, moral, or not open to the realm of choice? I think the critical question is whether or not one's sexual orientation is chosen by the individual or it is something biological which the individual can not control.

What do you think?

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.

Me too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

No Styles, when i said "ah, but there is force!", i was not making the point that this makes it immoral. i was just quoting you. And my next (rhetorical) question "is milking a cow immoral?" was to show you that you can apply force on your cow without it being immoral.

it is not what you are doing to the cow that makes it immoral, but what you are doing to yourself.

You have rightly admitted that this act is immoral, and you have honestly admitted that you do not know why, since 'force' is not the issue here. You would not be confused about the issue if you accepted the reasoning for why homosexuality is also immoral. You understand what i'm saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

REFERENCES

Again, BlackDiamond has inserted RationalEgoistSG's words (in the middle of my quotes) as though they are in some way related to my position. I ask that other forum members disregard this quote as it is not representative of my position. I thought about editing it out, but I'd rather let everyone see the false dichotomy it presents and how I have said nothing of the sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This illustrated what males/females (supposedly?) do. Can we observe what (most) females do and thus define that as what they should do?
  • Women should make themselves beautiful in order to be attractive to men. (Sheesh! Sometimes I feel like the subtitle of this thread should be "Explaining the obvious"...)
  • A woman should emphasize her feminine features if she wants to get noticed by a rational man, because femininity is what a rational man looks for in women. A man should act masculine if he wants to be noticed by a rational woman, because masculinity is what a rational woman looks for in men. (If you were assigned to write an advertisement for a toothpaste, would you really ask your boss to explain why it should include white teeth rather than, say, clean clothes?)
  • A man should win a woman's heart if he wants to become romantically involved with her. He should take charge because if he doesn't, nothing will happen. The woman simply can't take charge; she can't win the man's heart by buying him gifts (be they flowers, dinners, or a sports car) because he will see them as unearned and the woman will continue to leave him cold.
  • In the initiation of intimacy, a man should express physical strength and undauntedness because that is expressive of his nature as a man; it would be shame enough for him to be overpowered by another man in fight--let alone by a girl in bed; shame enough to need to be fed by a nanny state, let alone to need to be taken in hand by a date.

how can an argument be made that Monroe would (objectively) be best off being playful and bewitching instead of [...] or whatever else she might choose to do that didn't emphasize her biological advantages??

You'll find the answer in any decent economics textbook.

instead of a tough cowgirl or whatever else she might choose to do that didn't emphasize her biological advantages??

A tough cowgirl will fall in love too, especially if she is the heroine of a movie. And when she does, her "biological advantages" will come in handy.

...Besides, it's usually helpful if the viewers are able to distinguish the cowgirl from the cowboys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, BlackDiamond has inserted RationalEgoistSG's words (in the middle of my quotes) as though they are in some way related to my position. I ask that other forum members disregard this quote as it is not representative of my position.

But it is representative of the subject matter of this thread (by virtue of being the first post). blackdiamond's intention was not to misrepresent your position, but to remind us of what is being discussed--namely, the applicability of moral evaluation to sexual orientation itself, rather than acting on the inclinations etc. that make up one's sexual orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RationalCop, it also looks like he did not purposefully put rationalegoist's quote in the middle of yours, but rather at the end. The next quote by you is part of a different subsection (no longer in "references") so it looks like it was meant to be set apart at the end. This was done a little bit clumsily, but I don't think with malice.

[Edit - Removed duplicate message at request of user - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Women should make themselves beautiful in order to be attractive to men.
  • A woman should emphasize her feminine features if she wants to get noticed by a rational man, because femininity is what a rational man looks for in women. A man should act masculine if he wants to be noticed by a rational woman, because masculinity is what a rational woman looks for in men.
  • A man should win a woman's heart if he wants to become romantically involved with her. He should take charge because if he doesn't, nothing will happen. The woman simply can't take charge; she can't win the man's heart by buying him gifts (be they flowers, dinners, or a sports car) because he will see them as unearned and the woman will continue to leave him cold.
  • In the initiation of intimacy, a man should express physical strength and undauntedness because that is expressive of his nature as a man; it would be shame enough for him to be overpowered by another man in fight--let alone by a girl in bed; shame enough to need to be fed by a nanny state, let alone to need to be taken in hand by a date.

Emphasis mine.

Even if I concede that this is the way all (rational) heterosexual relationships work, which for the moment I shall, I still don't think it necessarily applies to homosexual relationships. They all assume a heterosexual interest. Homosexual relationships have no such heterosexual interest, so the above categories don't apply in homosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships can operate by different mechanisms. (Those homosexual relationships which do operate by your mechanisms may indeed be immoral - I'll agree that nelly swishy gay men are not terribly moral because they aren't behaving in a masculine way. I just don't agree that masculinity and femininity are to be defined by one another, ie, masculinity essentially encompassing an attraction to femininity and vice versa.) Are the mechanisms you described above essential to romanticism? What is the essence of romanticism?

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, for the sake giving him the benefit of the doubt, I'll withdraw any implication that his quoting was malicious in nature.

But to that I would add, I have not been "confused" despite his stating so. I made comments in reference to my position, as well as statements to attempt to clarify my position when asked or challenged. If there was any confusion, it would be on his part in thinking that I was arguing against his or anybody else's opinions or statements or in confusing his definition of being gay with my comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homosexual relationships can operate by different mechanisms.

Could you provide some examples, at a level of detail similar to mine?

I just don't agree that masculinity and femininity are to be defined by one another, ie, masculinity essentially encompassing an attraction to femininity and vice versa.)

As it has been pointed out in the single-digit pages of this thread (by me or some other posters ... don't remember exactly): The essence of masculinity is strength. The essence of femininity is hero-worship.

Are the mechanisms you described above essential to romanticism?

They aren't essential to it, but they are what I believe is the bare minimum of what is necessary for a romantic relationship to come to fruition between two individuals with a decent level of rationality.

What is the essence of romanticism?

Partnership in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those homosexual relationships which do operate by your mechanisms may indeed be immoral - I'll agree that nelly swishy gay men are not terribly moral because they aren't behaving in a masculine way.

-Q

What is "a masculine way" to behave? (Define it to first principles, please!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women should make themselves beautiful, should emphasize her feminine features ... to get noticed by a rational man

A man should win a woman's heart, should express physical strength and undauntedness

Both women and men make themselves attractive in order to attract interest, so that point's moot. It still hasn't been said why a "rational" man looks for femininity. Is it "rational" to win a woman's heart by bribing her with gifts? I don't find that a particulary masculine or feminine quality. And is the corollory of the physical strength statement that women shouldn't express physical strength in similar situations? If it is not, I don't see any difference here either. If it is, why??

But how can an argument be made that [a woman] would (objectively) be best off being playful and bewitching instead of ... whatever else she might choose to do that didn't emphasize her biological advantages??
You'll find the answer in any decent economics textbook.
I don't think so. Economics might say that more "utility" is gained by everyone doing what they do best, but can mean anything if everyone has (or should have) similar values. Besides the fact that individuals of a sex might have a greater capacity than the norm for things regarded as qualities of the opposite sex (e.g. a woman who is naturally strong,) such an "economic" argument would either require a "common good" defense (e.g. "femininity is maximized by women acting feminine, and masculinity by males acting masculine) or an objectively-better stance ( "just as respecting others' rights is always better than initiating force, being heterosexual is always better than homosexuality.) And you haven't shown why heterosexuality is objectively better...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It still hasn't been said why a "rational" man looks for femininity.

1. Why quote rational?

2. What are you still missing? You understand how femininity is a value to a man, don't you? You understand how he ought not to, and cannot really, be feminine himself, don't you? So if he can't find this value in himself, he'll look for it in his partner.

Is it "rational" to win a woman's heart by bribing her with gifts?

When did I say anything about bribing? A bribe is a way to obtain the unearned, while courtship is all about earning the woman's trust and love.

And is the corollory of the physical strength statement that women shouldn't express physical strength in similar situations?

There are two roles, one of which involves expressing physical strength. If the man does play that role, the woman can only play the other role.

Economics might say that more "utility" is gained by everyone doing what they do best

Utility is a rather nebulous idea. I prefer to measure her benefit in a unit with a much clearer meaning: $. "Marilyn, here's a five-hundred-dollar role where you have to wear a spacesuit, and a two-million-dollar role involving a miniskirt. Which do you prefer?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you still missing? You understand how femininity is a value to a man, don't you?
What I'm missing is an objective rationale for the statement that femininity (as opposed to homosexuality) is of value to a rational man.

If that rationale is supposed to be that a proper relationship requires one of its members to be the dominant one and the other member to be the subordinate one (as opposed to dynamic ones,) then there is still need for an objective basis as to why proper relationships require set roles.

I prefer to measure her benefit in a unit with a much clearer meaning: $. "Marilyn, here's a five-hundred-dollar role where you have to wear a spacesuit, and a two-million-dollar role involving a miniskirt. Which do you prefer?"
Okay, but that would be a cultural (i.e. subjective) standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm missing is an objective rationale for the statement that femininity (as opposed to homosexuality) is of value to a rational man.

It is of value to him because he is looking for a partner in life, and the partner you can gain the most from is the one whose characterstics best complement yours. As I wrote in the example with the men in the forest, if you've got a bow, you ought to partner with a guy who's got an arrow.

Okay, but that would be a cultural (i.e. subjective) standard.

B)

$2,000,000 > $500 -- how much more objective can you get than that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is of value to him because he is looking for a partner in life, and the partner you can gain the most from is the one whose characterstics best complement yours. As I wrote in the example with the men in the forest, if you've got a bow, you ought to partner with a guy who's got an arrow.

Does this mean that, for instance, if I'm of a scientific inclination then I should primarilly be looking for a partner who is an artist?

Why shouldnt a person look for someone who is roughly the same as them, rather than going for complementary features? For example, most people choose ther best friends on a basis of similarity rather than complementary. Whats wrong with using the same standard to choose a partner? Suppose a person practiced the (idealised Greek) lifestyle of having sexual intercourse with his close friends of the same sex. Whats the problem here?

Theres also the question of whether we are giving practical dating tips for a person living in the modern age, or discussing philosophical principles. Theres no doubt that modern society has certain notions of masculinity and feminity, and as such, a lot of women will go for masculine males whereas males will go for feminine females. But the onus is on you to show that this represents some universal facts about human nature, rather than just being a historically contingent part of modern culture. What we call 'masculine' behavior is probably not universal. The Greeks of Homer would probably consider the average modern man very effemenite, since he shies away from cruelty and doesnt derive pleasure from killing his enemies in glorious battle.

You cant focus on one culture and generalise to make descriptive statements about the 'nature' of males and females; an N=1 statistical sample isnt very informative.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean that, for instance, if I'm of a scientific inclination then I should primarilly be looking for a partner who is an artist?

It means that if you cook well then you should be looking for a partner with a big appetite. :)

"Different" does not equal "complementary." The emphasis is not on having other characteristics than your partner; it is on having ones that mesh well with those of your partner.

Why shouldnt a person look for someone who is roughly the same as them, rather than going for complementary features?

Because two people with big appetites who cannot cook will end up hungry.

Theres also the question of whether we are giving practical dating tips for a person living in the modern age, or discussing philosophical principles.

What should practical dating tips for a person living in the modern age be based on, if not philosophical principles? B)

What we call 'masculine' behavior is probably not universal. The Greeks of Homer would probably consider the average modern man very effemenite, since he shies away from cruelty and doesnt derive pleasure from killing his enemies in glorious battle.

I do myself consider the average modern man to be very effeminate, for rather similar reasons. See, some things are "universal" !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because two people with big appetites who cannot cook will end up hungry.

So two guys who can both cook and have big appetites will be just fine. I think the whole issued is solved based on this example. As long as both guys can cook, and they both have big appetites, things should be just peachy! Bruno cooks the Italian food that Jose likes, and Jose cooks the Mexican food that Bruno likes and wallah, we have a complimentary couple! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So two guys who can both cook and have big appetites will be just fine. I think the whole issued is solved based on this example. As long as both guys can cook, and they both have big appetites, things should be just peachy! Bruno cooks the Italian food that Jose likes, and Jose cooks the Mexican food that Bruno likes and wallah, we have a complimentary couple! B)

Indeed we do; they'll make good partners as far as the dining room is concerned. Now all you need to do is apply the same principle to partnership in the bedroom--and its twin sister, partnership in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed we do; they'll make good partners as far as the dining room is concerned. Now all you need to do is apply the same principle to partnership in the bedroom--and its twin sister, partnership in life.

Honestly, as if I haven't considered that. B)

I have, it works, but I won't be explicit on here.

I'm still following the thread, but I'm still not seeing an argument that convinces me otherwise.

I suspect our main disagreement is that I don't think that a person's anatomy necessarily has to determine who they should have to like in order to have a moral partnership for life.

However, mostly my comment above to meant to inject a little levity into the thread. The cooking example was so easily work around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, mostly my comment above to meant to inject a little levity into the thread.

Actually, reading the thread from my perspective, there have been many rather hilarious moments in it already. Some may say it's unfair, but we "sexists" are always having more fun! ;)

The cooking example was so easily work around.

Here's a challenge: Can you work around it without changing the premise that makes the analogy correct, i.e. the premise that the guys both have big appetites and cannot cook?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a challenge: Can you work around it without changing the premise that makes the analogy correct, i.e. the premise that the guys both have big appetites and cannot cook?

Yes, actually I can. What makes life interesting sometimes is that not everybody can do everything, even complimentary spouses. This is what makes trade possible. If two people can't cook, but the they both like to eat, they spend alot of time going out to restaurants or learning how to cook together. ;)

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...