Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

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.

It has been pointed out that this is Ayn Rand's view. I don't see that any objective evidence has been presented to support it, though. Yes, men on average are physically stronger than women but this has little or no relevance in modern life or romantic relationships. There are probably some couples where the woman is stronger than the man; so what? Hero-worship is even more problematic. I admire my wife's good qualities, and she admires mine. Neither of us hero-worships the other, and if we did it would be reciprocal. I don't see any justification for hero-worship being solely the province of women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Isn't saying that women should ask like this and men should ask like that creating a double standard in morality? I thought that the purpose of morality was to determine how man should live, and as far as I know none of it applies solely to men or to women, nor should it in my opinion.

How is saying that a certain type of behaviour is not moral for a man different from saying that Rationality is a virtue only practiced by men? I don't see any good evidence in regard to the other parts of the Objectivist ethics that create an artificial split, and I don't think there should be one here.

Sure, men and women aren't exactly the same, but both are man. It's not like we have two completely different species here that deserve a different way of treating them. Gender is not an essential to the definition of what man is, just like someone with less than ten fingers doesn't require a different subset of morality to deal solely with what he should and shouldn't do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me add, must a woman work. Years ago, when women were demeaned as "homemakers", it was necessary to state that there is no double standard in morality - that a human being's need of work does not mean merely a male's need.
(bold mine)

I see no reason why this merely applies to productivity. If you extend this principle to other parts then I don't think you have any basis to claim that some behaviour is only appropriate if a man (or a woman) does it. I think most of the things mentioned that either should do to initiate a relationship (for example) are not specific to either gender.

I think most of that is simply due to what our society sees as the proper roles that men and women should take. I would argue that everything that is admirable in a man is admirable in a woman as well. Every major virtue (and all major values they hold) applies equally to both, and it is on the basis of that that you choose someone to pursue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol I prefer somewhat muscular women (eg Jessica Biel http://www.fresh99.com/images/jessicabiel/...-picture-21.jpg ) to the more typical preference for softer women (eg Jessica Alba). I don't find extreme muscles esthetically pleasing on either women or men. But that's all my personal preference, and not some sort of universal standard that should apply to everyone. In some cultures thinness is considered ugly and only fat women are considered beautiful.

In any case, men are generally more muscular than women for genetic reasons. Its a physiological difference that has no relevance to concepts like "hero worship."

Edited by Godless Capitalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find extreme muscles esthetically pleasing on either women or men. But that's all my personal preference, and not some sort of universal standard that should apply to everyone.

Clearly there is something unfeminine about that woman. I don't think you're right when you say that feminine and masculine are not valid concepts.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, I should have been more clear. I was talking about the admiration one has for someone's character. And like Eternal said, it would be absurd to argue that being attracted to blondes is immoral; same goes for being attracted to more muscular women or any other physical trait you might wish to name. This is because they don't make anyone any less human, or do anything to destroy someone's life (which is their standard for judging good or evil) qua man.

Men, for example, are attracted to a vast array of differently looking women. You have to remember that attraction is both physical and spiritual, the physical aspect mostly being that they embody the values you seek in your ideal partner. I do not see the connection between these things and demanding that people should be heterosexual.

We have to apply reduction to the concepts to see if they can be traced back to something that is grounded in reality.

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maarten, like Eternal (whom you rightly quote), you are relying heavily on faulty analogies [common fallacy in logic] to make your arguments. Try to see if what you are saying is truly connected to the arguments given against homosexuality by Mr. Capitalism Forever or myself in the last few pages.

And no. no one is demanding anything! :pirate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If two people can't cook, but the they both like to eat, they spend alot of time going out to restaurants

In which case the partnership is between them on the one side and the restaurant on the other.

or learning how to cook together. :pirate:

Which is again stepping outside the bounds of the analogy, because your sex is a metaphysically given fact.

The challenge still stands. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which case the partnership is between them on the one side and the restaurant on the other.

No, not really. They still have their relationship with each other. That they have to address some needs outside of their relationship does not negate the morality of their relationship.

If I were to extrapolate your "challenge" here, if either one of them is not capable of addressing any potential need or desire of the other (despite whether that person represents the best possible partner for them), then there is no way they can have a moral relationship. For instance, if one of them isn't a mechanic to help fix their car when it breaks down, then their relationship is between them and a mechanic and thus it's immoral. If one of them doesn't grow their own flowers and they have to go to a florist to get flowers for the other, then their relationship is between them and the florist and their relationship is immoral. I can go on ad nauseum to demonstrate that the only way to have a moral relatioship by your standard is that at between the two of them, they have to be a self-sufficient unit with every possible skill or ability known to man.

Which is again stepping outside the bounds of the analogy, because your sex is a metaphysically given fact.
And the capacity for volition and the use of your mind to determine your purpose and the way to best achieve your own rational happiness is also a metaphysically given fact. I think that is the better organ for accomplishing that task than one's genitalia. Having a penis may limit the manner in which I urinate, but it does not morally limit with whom I have share the "best possible" relationship.

If you were to tell me right now that you could not have a moral homosexual relationship, I would accept that. But I do not accept that acontextually all homosexual relationships are immoral. I do not accept your argument that a person's "proper" behavior has to be determined by their genitalia.

The challenge still stands.

On one leg falling, maybe.... :pirate:

Your argument rests on genitalia, mine rests on the mind.

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought of another thing. Based on your argument (CF), it would appear that one would have to accept the following;

Any possible relationship with a member of the opposite sex, no matter how horrid it might be, would be better (or more moral) than even the most ideal relationship a person could have with a member of the same sex.

"Ve haf vays to make you like vimmin!"

If I had to guess, the quote to which you responded was a cheap shot at me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read a bunch of the earlier pages and I understand the various positions more clearly now, I think. This may have been thoroughly refuted, but I wanted to add that the claim that homosexuality is not open to choice is a form of determinism. If we don't accept that environmental influences make someone poor without any element of choice on his part, then I find it equally unlikely that environmental (or genetic) factors make some gay, thereby placing it outside the realm of morality.

I think CF has made a very convincing case so far. I have to consider this some more before I make up my mind. I do know that my earlier opinion about this was actually not rationally derived, as I have not really considered it at length before.

RC, I think that was indirectly a reply to my statement, as I was talking about 'demanding'.

*If men and women differ in their nature, then it would follow that they should act in accordance with it. If I understand it correctly this difference is the difference between masculinity and femininity. Basically, it comes down to showing what does and what does not fall under the concept of these two concepts. Do we have an agreement at this moment about feminity being hero-worship in essence, and masculinity being heroic in essence, or is that still being contested?

I think Ayn Rand portrays this quite clearly in Atlas Shrugged, for example. If you look at the way she writes about sex in that book, then I think the way CF is defining both concepts is consistent with that. For me that was a totally different way of looking at the whole phenomena of relationships, and my hesitation on this subject to fully accept that might very well be the result of holding earlier (irrational) ideas about it, derived from different sources.*

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly there is something unfeminine about that woman. I don't think you're right when you say that feminine and masculine are not valid concepts.

If you want to define "feminine" and "masculine" purely in terms of physical characteristics, I can go along with that. I can also agree that "strength" is an important aspect of masculinity. But I don't see any way to get from there to the idea that "hero worship" is an important aspect of femininity or that heterosexuality is more "normal" or rational than heterosexuality. (On "hero worship," which is more heroic, building a successful business or being able to bench-press 400 lbs?)

On the determinism aspect, there is considerable scientific evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by exposure to hormones in the uterus. If true, that would be a scientific fact about the nature of man and trump any philosophical position. There are many aspects of personality that are known to be affected by levels of various chemicals in the brain; the mind is not something completely independent from and unaffected by the body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which case the partnership is between them on the one side and the restaurant on the other.

No, not really. They still have their relationship with each other.

But the partnership that satisfies their hunger is between them and the restaurant.

Perhaps some clarification of the point of my analogy is in order. We are talking about a hypothetical situation in which

  • Bruno cannot cook and does not intend to learn to cook
  • Jose cannot cook and does not intend to learn to cook
  • Alex can cook
  • Bruno is hungry
  • Bruno intends to satisfy his hunger by means of trading with someone else
  • Alex is willing to cook for Bruno
  • The only difference between Jose and Alex relevant to the case is that Jose cannot cook and Alex can

My point is that Bruno should obtain his food from Alex; that it would be foolish for him to try to obtain his food from Jose. I am making this point in order to demonstrate that the best candidate for a parnter is the kind of person who's got what you haven't got; in other words, the kind of person whose attributes complement yours.

If you were to tell me right now that you could not have a moral homosexual relationship, I would accept that.

But you would want to know my reasons for it and to see whether I have reached the conclusion objectively, wouldn't you? You would want to know whether it is based on my whim or on the requirements of a man's life qua man--and a woman's life qua woman.

It doesn't matter whether I am saying that I ought to be heterosexual, or whether my neighbor is saying it, or whether Ayn Rand is saying it. What matters is whether or not it is based on the objective requirements of my life. If you are prepared to accept my objective argument for my heterosexuality, you should also be prepared to accept Ayn Rand's objective argument for my heterosexuality.

But I do not accept that acontextually all homosexual relationships are immoral.

Good! I don't accept that either. :pirate:

I do not accept your argument that a person's "proper" behavior has to be determined by their genitalia. [...] Your argument rests on genitalia, mine rests on the mind.

Actually, when speaking of a man's or a woman's body, I do not only mean the genitalia; nearly every major outer part of the body has more or less subtle differences between men and women, e.g. as far as the proportions, the amount of hair, and the feel of the skin are concerned. So you might rather say: "Your argument rests on the body, mine rests on the mind" ... but I trust you'll recognize the false dichotomy involved now that it's more obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to define "feminine" and "masculine" purely in terms of physical characteristics, I can go along with that.

I don't, but masculinity/femininity are based on the differences in physical characteristics. Although I have heard there are some differences between male and female brains, I don't know what those are, or even why those are.

Heterosexual relationships and heterosexual romance are based on the interaction between masculine and feminine, and vice versa. I think that masculinity and femininity are heterosexual in nature. I think that this is also Ayn Rand's position; her essay about the woman president is a good confirmation of this. Her point, as I understand it, is that a certain type of authority (and therefore behavior) is simply unfeminine. (Janet Reno is at least incidental evidence in support of it)

Are masculinity and femininity based on accepting the nature of man and woman? Yes.

Does this mean that as homosexuality is incompatible with them, that it must be rejecting the nature of man or woman? Not necessarily. Personally, I suspect so. But I suppose that there might exist a "queerinity" that represents an embrace of the nature of the homosexual, which has yet to be discovered. If the "flaming queens" (for the men) and "raging bulls" (for the women) represent the true embrace of homosexual nature, then I'll have to raise an eyebrow to claims that the whole thing isn't one big error or defect.

But even though it is either an error or a defect, that doesn't mean that it is necessarily immoral. If it isn't possible to fix, then you can't blame people for doing what they can with what they have.

But I don't see any way to get from [masculine strength]to the idea that "hero worship" is an important aspect of femininity or that heterosexuality is more "normal" or rational than [homosexuality].

I don't know how much I can help you with that. Masculinity and Femininity are fairly obvious to me. I hope you can at least acknowledge that they do, in fact, exist.

On the determinism aspect, there is considerable scientific evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by exposure to hormones in the uterus. If true, that would be a scientific fact about the nature of man and trump any philosophical position.

Agreed, although philosophy would show us the proper course of action given that fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good! I don't accept that either. B)

Okay, then perhaps we have some common ground. Do you agree with the following statement?

A person should seek the best possible intimate relationship, regardless of whether it's a homosexual or heterosexual relationship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can demonstrate that there are more advantages, as it were, to a heterosexual relationship then wouldn't that mean that it is the only option if you want the best? I think this is part of what CF is talking about in one of his earlier posts (If he said that, I'm starting to lose track of who said what, it's too big!)

Then you could say that in general, if you want the best possible relationship, it is the heterosexual one you should pursue. Given the premise, is the rest of my reasoning sound here? If it is, then you pretty much just need to answer whether or not it is objectively demonstrable that either of the types of relationships is better, or more completely fulfilling, than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree with the following statement?

A person should seek the best possible intimate relationship, regardless of whether it's a homosexual or heterosexual relationship?

I agree with it, in the way I would agree with "An ambitions mountaineer is one who wants to climb the tallest mountain in the world, regardless of whether it's in Kansas or in the Himalayas." :o

Although one could come up with some far-fetched tectonical or geopolitical scenario that puts the world's tallest mountain into Kansas, it's safe to ignore that possibility as irrelevant in the context of our lives--and IMO the possibility of homosexuality being superior to heterosexuality is just as far-fetched as far as present-day American life is concerned. But if you can come up with a counter-example, I'd be glad to hear it! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with it, in the way I would agree with "An ambitions mountaineer is one who wants to climb the tallest mountain in the world, regardless of whether it's in Kansas or in the Himalayas." :)

I was hoping for a more direct answer. Oh well. I thought we had actually gotten somewhere when there was apparent agreement with this quote;

But I do not accept that acontextually all homosexual relationships are immoral.

But apparently I misunderstood you, or I was mistaken. No worry.

Since we don't seem to agree on the same criteria for a moral relationship, I'll forego any attempt at a counter-example.

I'm not enjoying this thread anymore, nor do I feel like I'm gaining anything from it so I think I'll take my leave from it altogether for a while.

Enjoy!

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...