Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Before you go, you must know that your 'guess' was wrong when you said...

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

This is because when i said ...

And no. no one is demanding anything!

it was in response to...

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.

It was not "a cheap shot" at you.

It had nothing to do with you!

Good luck,

Black

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This piece from 60 Minutes might be of interest to people following this thread. It was interesting to me, at any rate.

What makes a person gay or straight? Lesley Stahl talks to researchers trying to answer that question. One clue may be found in twins.

http://audio.cbsnews.com/2006/03/12/audio1391769.mp3

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.
"Complements" refers to what make something complete or (more) perfect... and is not limited to things that are different. If a man feels another man complements him more than a woman, what is the objective argument that he is wrong - or is this whole "heterosexuality is better" argument based on personal feelings? Edited by hunterrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Complements" refers to what make something complete or (more) perfect... and is not limited to things that are different. If a man feels another man complements him more than a woman, what is the objective argument that he is wrong - or is this whole "heterosexuality is better" argument based on personal feelings?
(emphasis mine)

I don't mean to answer for CF, but I think their point is that it's a derivative from the nature of men/women. That's where their conclusions come from. I am not sure if after thirty pages there has been an agreement on what constitutes femininity and masculinity, though. I get the impression that there isn't one at this point.

I think someone very different is more complementary, especially because they possess attributes that you (as a man, or woman) don't possess, and which another man or woman can't possess either.

I find it strange that you ask someone to show that his argument is objective, when you talk about people's feelings. Last time I checked, someone feeling something very strongly doesn't mean anything, and it is irrelevant to this whole discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a man feels another man complements him more than a woman, what is the objective argument that he is wrong - or is this whole "heterosexuality is better" argument based on personal feelings?

Hunterose, i find your statement above truly amusing.

You say "if a man feels..."

and then you ask us if our argument is based on personal feelings!

Apparently it is your argument that is based on personal feelings ("if a man feels ...").

"Complements" is not just about what a man feels, Hunterose. It is what it is, no matter what you feel. If a thing does not complement another thing, it just does not - no matter what the feelings are in either or both parties. And if you avoid the mind-body split, it is extremely easy to see what compliments man, romantically - [take a moment] - yes indeed: WOman!!!

[Edit - Removed one word at request of BD - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you avoid the mind-body split...
Oh come on.

Irony aside, you can look at this as the homosexual's feelings vs. your feelings. Or, I could create a hypothetical argument for a person preferring people of the same sex and pit them against your "extremely easy to see" but apparently hard to objectify position. In either case, whether or not a person's homosexuality was objectively based, it wouldn't change the fact that your argument is not objectively based.

My "argument" is that "heterosexuality is better" is almost as stupid, and more importantly, just as unsubstantiated as saying "boys should like blue, and girls pink." With the exception of CF's argument for the necessity/preference of a dominant/subordinate grouping in relationship (though itself inconclusive IMO) the pro-hetero arguments all seem to be based on either obviousness ("if you think about it, it doesn't need to be explained to rational people...") or individual preferences ("would you, as a man, prefer to kiss a man or a woman? Giving the rational answer indicates the rational preference...")

Unfortunately (for you,) neither what you consider obvious nor what other people (sans objective reasons) prefer can demonstrate heterosexuality's superiority.

Edited by hunterrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to answer for CF, but I think their point is that it's a derivative from the nature of men/women. That's where their conclusions come from. I am not sure if after thirty pages there has been an agreement on what constitutes femininity and masculinity, though. I get the impression that there isn't one at this point.
Indeed, agreed. The starting point (physical differences) is IMO quite good - I just have a problem with the (lack of?) arguments leading from physical differences to stated proper values for the separate sexes and how ideal masculinity is best for ideal femininity (and vice versa.)

I think someone very different is more complementary, especially because they possess attributes that you (as a man, or woman) don't possess, and which another man or woman can't possess either.
Perhaps, but I think it'd depend on a person's purpose and abilities. To use equally odd examples, if I was a pro-wrestler, a grandmaster is quite different, but useless for my tag-team champ goals. If I'm big and slow, an agile partner might be beneficial... assuming that big and agile is not possible. A difference can thus be complimentary, or detrimental, depending on the desired situation. Similarly, it's questionable that a person has to lack desired qualities to such an extent that he chooses a partner based on his unimprovable deficiencies.

I find it strange that you ask someone to show that his argument is objective, when you talk about people's feelings. Last time I checked, someone feeling something very strongly doesn't mean anything, and it is irrelevant to this whole discussion.
Sure, but my point wasn't that homosexuality is validated by feelings. I have little insight into the mind of any given homosexual, and know little of their reasonings. I could create hypothetical arguments why one would choose to be homosexual, but I'm not the one saying homo/heterosexuality is better than its alternative. If one wishes to argue that heterosexuality is better, feelings, as you say, aren't substantial. But I think choice of sexuality in terms of this topic is as much a matter of personal choice as is choosing a career. There'd be no objective argument that a rational man should prefer being an architect to a novelist, only one's feelings would determine what is proper in such a case. Plus, whether it is (incorrectly) believed that my stance is based on feeling, it doesn't change the strength of the pro-hetero argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the various differences between men and women are much more pronounced than those between two men or two women. While you may not be able to conclude that in EVERY case it's better to have a heterosexual relationship, I do think it would be possible to say that generally it is superior.

(Given that we agree that it's mainly those things that are different in someone that truly make relationships interesting. Otherwise you could just talk to yourself if you wanted someone who was the same. If we don't agree that it's true that differences add value to a relationship then that should be addressed first)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There'd be no objective argument that a rational man should prefer being an architect to a novelist, only one's feelings would determine what is proper in such a case.

This is the premise you ought to check.

Let's say, Little Johnny is five feet tall, even though he is already 20 years of age. He is considering a career in basketball on the one hand, or journalism on the other.

Or say, Hiroshi weighs 450 pounds. He is trying to choose between becoming a sumo wrestler and becoming a James Bond actor.

Or: little Wolfgang Amadeus can improvise on the piano better than all the grown-ups in town put together. Should he aspire to be a composer, or work in a coal mine?

Is there really no objective argument to be made for either alternative in these cases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irony aside, you can look at this as the homosexual's feelings vs. your feelings. Or, I could create a hypothetical argument for a person preferring people of the same sex and pit them against your "extremely easy to see" but apparently hard to objectify position.

Even if your aim is to mock someone, try to keep what he said in its context (that's just honesty): what is "extremely easy to see" (from my last post) is not my whole argument or position on this question - just the complementarity bit (read again).

My "argument" is that "heterosexuality is better" is almost as stupid, and more importantly, just as unsubstantiated as saying "boys should like blue, and girls pink."

It is statements like these that make me question someone's intellectual honesty. These 30-something pages have established for you that the "heterosexuality is better" argument presented here is almost just as stupid as "boys should like blue, and girls pink." [Your other colleague, whom i also accused of intellectual dishonesty, said something like what you are saying. He essentially said "Ayn Rand's answer to the homosexuality question was just as 'stupid' as answering the question "why does water freeze?" with "because of physics". You sure you two don't know each other (at least)?]

With the exception of CF's argument for the necessity/preference of a dominant/subordinate grouping in relationship (though itself inconclusive IMO) the pro-hetero arguments all seem to be based on either obviousness ("if you think about it, it doesn't need to be explained to rational people...") or individual preferences ("would you, as a man, prefer to kiss a man or a woman? Giving the rational answer indicates the rational preference...")

And what exactly are your arguments against the things you articulate above? is "though itself inconclusive IMO" your argument against that first point? also: is it impossible for something to be obvious? Why don't you tell us why this is wrong form of argumentation (or is it just obvious that it's wrong!?)

There is nothing wrong with breaking down parts of an argument only to a point where the conclusion (or observation) becomes "obvious". For example, when i say it is obvious that the body of a woman best complements the body of a woman - what more should i do to convince an honest, rational person that this is true? Should i attach diagrams of naked bodies to demonstrate what i mean, or can i at that stage simply say "this is obvious" or "extremely easy to see" so that we can move on to the next questions: (eg how does this physical complimentarity relate to the rest of the argument?).

[it is also obvious to me, for example, that there is such a thing as properly 'masculine' behaviour and properly 'feminine' behaviour or even such (gender-specific) values; their bodies have some fundamental differences and certain aspects of their behaviour / values can not rationally be disconnected from their bodies, so why should this fact be surprising or require any more 'scientific' evidence (or diagrams)? :lol: ]

But what is most dishonest about your statement is the claim that this is all we have done for the whole argument itself - that in these 30 pages all we have been saying is "hey, it is obvious that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality; it is extremely easy to see, John. You don't see it?"

What you are doing, therefore, is creating a straw man: you are simplifying the arguments of your opponents so that you can show how ridiculous they are and thus make your task of defeating them easy: by just pointing out their shallowness (and equating this with "boys should like blue" etc analogies). This is intellectual dishonesty, especially if you are doing this deliberately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when i say it is obvious that the body of a woman best complements the body of a woman

I don't mean to nitpick here, but for the sake of clarity I wanted to ask this. Was this intentional, or did you mean that the body of a man best complements the body of a woman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Given that we agree that it's mainly those things that are different in someone that truly make relationships interesting. Otherwise you could just talk to yourself if you wanted someone who was the same. If we don't agree that it's true that differences add value to a relationship then that should be addressed first)
Ideally, a person wants a mate who is similar in some ways and has differences in others. I'd agree to that extent.

This is the premise you ought to check.

Is there really no objective argument to be made for either alternative in these cases?

I'd agree that the exampled persons have an objective proficiency toward one career over the other, but I'm not sure that it can be argued that people are better at being heterosexuals than homosexuals. And even if such were true, I suppose it might mean that a homosexual might have a harder time finding a mate, but wouldn't address why a homosexual should do something he hates because of a softer challenge.

And what exactly are your arguments against the things you articulate above? is "though itself inconclusive IMO" your argument against that first point? also: is it impossible for something to be obvious? Why don't you tell us why this is wrong form of argumentation (or is it just obvious that it's wrong!?)
It's obvious that men are physically different from women, and that a male fits in a female, sure. But much less is obvious at the complementarity parts. If both giving and receiving anal sex were more pleasurable to man A than vaginal sex, then another man's body complements A more than a woman's does.

As for the first point, whether it is requisite/better that one person do all the initiating and the other always be initiated against is questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of this discussion it's not very relevant if someone would hate to be a heterosexual. If I hate to work, does that mean I can sit around all day and do nothing and be just as moral as a very productive person?

Of course, the situation is fully different, but it's not about the personal feelings here. If you were to show that it is objectively better to be a heterosexual then the fact that someone feels differently about it doesn't change anything. I think it is better to focus on the other aspect rather than this one.

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to nitpick here, but for the sake of clarity I wanted to ask this. Was this intentional, or did you mean that the body of a man best complements the body of a woman?

See, the complementarity is so obvious that even a typo could be easily picked! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious that men are physically different from women, and that a male fits in a female, sure. But much less is obvious at the complementarity parts. If both giving and receiving anal sex were more pleasurable to man A than vaginal sex, then another man's body complements A more than a woman's does.

Circular argument. We are trying to establish whether this same 'pleasure,' in other words, is normal (for a man qua man) or a result of psychological problems. (Is it normal, for example, for a man to feel pleasure from the feeling of being 'overpowered' by another man?). But you are using it in your argument as if it's obviously normal. If pleasure was the standard of value (hedonism), your argument would probably be valid.

As for the first point, whether it is requisite/better that one person do all the initiating and the other always be initiated against is questionable.

Okay, so you have graduated from "though inconclusive IMO" to "is questionable" as your great counter-argument?

Look, hunterrose, if it's "questionable", ask the question! B)

(Later, you will come and say, "your assertions are as unsubstantiated as 'boys should like blue, and girls pink'," when you are the one who thinks saying 'is questionable' amounts to a substantive counter-argument!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the first point, whether it is requisite/better that one person do all the initiating and the other always be initiated against is questionable.

If you want to say that it's possible for a homosexual couple to have a relationship where they alternate between the roles, my answer is that in such a relationship they will both be acting against their sexual nature half the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of this discussion it's not very relevant if someone would hate to be a heterosexual. If I hate to work, does that mean I can sit around all day and do nothing and be just as moral as a very productive person?
It would have been more accurate if you'd said "if I hate the idea of being an superlative sumo wrestling, does that mean I can become a good actor and be just as moral as a very productive person?" The focus was that a person is objectively better off doing what he's most proficient at, instead of merely good at. If money is the standard of objective value here, then CF is probably correct. If something else is the standard, then he might not be.

I didn't ask the question; this was not my focus.

But you are using [pleasure] in your argument as if it's obviously normal. If pleasure was the standard of value (hedonism), your argument would probably be valid.
If pleasure can't be used as the standard of complementarity, then what established standard are you using for complementarity?

If you want to say that it's possible for a homosexual couple to have a relationship where they alternate between the roles, my answer is that in such a relationship they will both be acting against their sexual nature half the time.
Among other things, I believe you said something along the lines of "a man should initiate sexual actions." The questionable part is that you haven't established a man's/woman's sexual nature to be able to say whether this, or anything other given thing, is a part of it. If I missed the explanation, show me where.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Among other things, I believe you said something along the lines of "a man should initiate sexual actions." The questionable part is that you haven't established a man's/woman's sexual nature to be able to say whether this, or anything other given thing, is a part of it. If I missed the explanation, show me where.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the premise you ought to check.

Let's say, Little Johnny is five feet tall, even though he is already 20 years of age. He is considering a career in basketball on the one hand, or journalism on the other.

Or say, Hiroshi weighs 450 pounds. He is trying to choose between becoming a sumo wrestler and becoming a James Bond actor.

Or: little Wolfgang Amadeus can improvise on the piano better than all the grown-ups in town put together. Should he aspire to be a composer, or work in a coal mine?

Is there really no objective argument to be made for either alternative in these cases?

If little Wolfgang Amadeus hated composing music, but enjoyed the life of a coal miner then he should absolutely be a coal miner.

Your other two examples are very poorly expressed. You set up false dichotomies between a person wanting to have an occupation despite not being qualified (I would also like to point out the "James Bond actor" is not even an occupation as such, but is a VERY small subset of the occupation actor. Hiroshi may in fact be a talented an competent actor), and another occupation that they are qualified for.

You seem to be completely ignoring enjoyment and fulfillment when it comes to the choice of occupation, which is an integral part in the objective argument for or against any one person's choice of occupation. I assume you are ignoring the enjoyment/fulfillment side of the equation to make your examples back up a sort of homosexuality is wrong because a man is meant for a woman and any sort of personal preference does not apply.

Let me now create a hypothetical.

Jim Bob is amazingly talented vocaly, and could be a wildly sucessful Country Music Superstar if he so desired, but he hates singing. However, he is an average computer programmer, but he absolutely loves to program, and is good enough at it to hold down a job.

Capitalism Forever, which career, according to objective argument, should Jim Bob choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Bob is amazingly talented vocaly, and could be a wildly sucessful Country Music Superstar if he so desired, but he hates singing. However, he is an average computer programmer, but he absolutely loves to program, and is good enough at it to hold down a job.

Capitalism Forever, which career, according to objective argument, should Jim Bob choose?

If you wouldn't mind my take on this, i'd say Jim Bob should do country music! If he hates singing, he should find out why: it could be because his father, who was a country singer, run away from his family and married Dolly Patton's cousin. After he analyses the root of his hatred for singing, he will discover it is basically irrational, especially when he realises that he is not his father and he is not predetermined to do what he did!

You seem to be completely ignoring enjoyment and fulfillment when it comes to the choice of occupation, which is an integral part in the objective argument for or against any one person's choice of occupation.

When you do the thing that you are "amazingly talented at", you WILL enjoy it, unless you have not dealt with those unconsciously held premises that are making you not enjoy it. Enjoyment is not supposed to be a random, floating feeling that is not connected to facts of reality. As a rational man, your choice of career is not to be guided by emotions - including 'enjoyment' - even though it is your aim to enjoy your life through productive work.

Same for your sex life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Capitalism Forever @ Mar 9 2006, 03:38 PM)

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.

Um, what? You are claiming that sex must properly involve the man physically overpowering the woman? :) I certainly have no need for rape fantasies, in fact I think they are sick. I don't see anything wrong with the woman taking the initiative sexually. I don't see any connection between men being generally physically stronger than women (a physiological fact) to men having to be always the initiators and/or in control in bed (a psychological issue, assuming the sex is consensual.) You also threw in "undauntedness" as if it were a logical corollary of physical strength, whereas in fact it is a character trait that can also be possessed by women.

I was thinking "the 50 are over" would be an appropriate comment here, but it's really more like "the Pleistocene is over"

2387.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godless,

It does become a little frustrating when the same points that have already been answered keep coming back in an unaltered state.

Did you see the earlier discussion on what you are calling "rape fantasies, in fact i think they are sick"? [To sum, it's not rape, but 'rape'. It's not sick.]

If not, go back and read. The rest of your misunderstandings have also been addressed in this latter part of the forum.

I was thinking "the 50 are over" would be an appropriate comment here, but it's really more like "the Pleistocene is over"

It is? :pimp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Pleistocene ended about 12,000 years ago. Perhaps you are thinking of the Quaternary, which is ongoing.

The same points keep going back and forth but they have not been satisfactorily resolved. If you look back, you will see posts from me near the beginning of this thread several years ago. Since then the thread has just been going in circles.

What exactly is 'rape'? I know its not literal rape, but people who enjoy physically overpowering women (even with their consent) have some issues ...

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...