Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

So there's the strength/beauty essentialization, and the strength/worship essentialization, noting that the two aren't necessarily dissimilar in the end.

Right.

Is it possible for these essentializations to make statements along the lines of:

For a person whose essential characteristic is _____, that person ought to romantically prefer a person whose essential characteristic is _____, because _____.

For a person whose essential characteristic is _____, that person ought not to romantically prefer a person of the same essential characteristic, because _____.

Those are not the kind of statements I would make. I would say: "A man ought to romantically prefer a woman, because a woman is what complements him best." When I say "a man" or "a woman," I mean all the charactersitics of a man or a woman, not just the ones I've picked as essential.

I actually like parts of these essentializations, but I don't see how the 'because' clause can be filled in.

I'm glad you like the essentializations, but you shouldn't try to substitute them for the actual concepts. ;) When you hear the word "feminine," think of all the times you saw a woman do something you thought went well with her nature as a woman--when you thought, "this is indeed the best use she can put her body to." That is what I mean by "feminine." An essentialiation is just trying to summarize those charactersitics in one word.

Okay, I can understand that a beautiful person will want to be glammed up. But if person A whose essence is beauty is able/strong enough to provide her own protection and apparel, is another beautiful-essence person B unable to appreciate A's beauty - or is there some other reason why B is inappropriate for A?

LOL, "beautiful-essence person" ! :lol: See what convoluted language you'll get if you try to use essentializations in place of concepts? ;)

Let me try to rephrase your question in plain English: "But if a woman can look out for herself, would it still be wrong for her to be a Lesbian?" Is that what you're asking? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would say: "A man ought to romantically prefer a woman, because a woman is what complements him best." When I say "a man" or "a woman," I mean all the charactersitics of a man or a woman, not just the ones I've picked as essential.
A lesbian says a woman-woman relationship is most complimentary for her in ways A, B, C.

Forgive my audacity, but this merely says that there are characteristics possessed by all women that make it irrational for them to be attracted to women - without stating what those characteristics are.

If women should be attracted to men because of X, and X didn't apply to all women, then there'd be no reason why non-X women shouldn't be homosexual. If anti-homosexuality argument were "all women are Y," but Y is irrelevant to whether a woman should be attracted to men, then there's no reason why any woman shouldn't be homosexual if she so desires.

You've gotta have things that apply to all women, and are objectively verifiable reasons why a woman should be attracted to a man - and be able to state it openly so that it can be proven (instead of asserted) true.

In the end, you have to either put those characteristics out so that their universality and ethical conclusions can be verified, or present unknown, undefined characteristics as proof.

LOL, "beautiful-essence person" ! :lol: See what convoluted language you'll get if you try to use essentializations in place of concepts? ;)

Let me try to rephrase your question in plain English: "But if a woman can look out for herself, would it still be wrong for her to be a Lesbian?" Is that what you're asking? :)

It could be asked that way, but the answers to such questions IMO so far have begged other questions - e.g. "yes, because women are worshippers/beautiful/not strong/don't complement each other." Bypassing whether women are worshippers or beautiful, why would being a worshipper or beautiful matter in terms of a relationship? How are women not strong, and to the extent that it's true, why ought a woman marry for strength, instead of simply hiring bodyguards? What is the standard of complementarity that two women cannot complement each other? To my recollection, not one of these has been answered ('could be wrong :worry: ) and none of them can thus satisfy anyone who refused to accept arbitrary assertions at face value.

This is where the discussion keeps breaking down. The homosexuality-is-wrong answers have been left nebulous, where it can't be determined whether the claims apply to all women or whether the claim, to whomever they do apply, is an objective reason to shun homosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If women should be attracted to men because of X, and X didn't apply to all women, then there'd be no reason why non-X women shouldn't be homosexual. If anti-homosexuality argument were "all women are Y," but Y is irrelevant to whether a woman should be attracted to men, then there's no reason why any woman shouldn't be homosexual if she so desires.

You've gotta have things that apply to all women, and are objectively verifiable reasons why a woman should be attracted to a man - and be able to state it openly so that it can be proven (instead of asserted) true.

I don't think this is true. Not every human being is rational either, but that doesn't make the definition of man being a rational animal any less valid. If it is possible to show that women have a certain nature, and part of that nature is to be feminine and be attracted to masculinity, then you have found a principle that's true regardless of whether or not every single woman actually accepts this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a principle is valid, it doesn't matter (in terms of validity) whether a given person accepts it or not, agreed. But whether an argument is accepted by a person is not the same as whether an argument applies to a person.

The problem I see with what you said is that "natural" doesn't automatically create an ethical principle. The fact that people naturally die doesn't say that one shouldn't do anything in her power to prevent the "natural" result. There still needs to be a universal commonality that would make it rational/irrational for anyone possessing the natural commonality to act in specific ways on the natural fact.

Going out on a limb, compare Rand's use of "natural": Rand didn't say that men should use their rationality simply because they possessed the capacity, but because an individual's life is the supreme value of every individual, and using rationality is the only means (for a human) of keeping one's life - she gave both a universal quality and a logical reason to act on that quality.

And I might be wrong on this, but I think Rand, by "natural," moreso meant characteristics possessed by all members of a group instead of characteristics possessed by all members of a group that aren't abnormal. For example, I don't think that Rand would have said it were immoral for a human without the rational capacity (e.g. brain-dead) to not use a nonexistent rationality. Or that Rand otherwise said that persons not possessing a natural quality should act as if they had the natural quality. But since I can't think of many instances she referred to natural qualities, I could quite likely be wrong on that part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive my audacity, but this merely says that there are characteristics possessed by all women that make it irrational for them to be attracted to women - without stating what those characteristics are.

I didn't state them in my last post, but I had given many examples in prior posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I am kind of new here. And I was wondering, is it not possible for a woman to look up to a man in some contexts, and for a man to look up to a woman in others? Are men naturally better able to support their own flourishing better than women, or do women possess some unique traits that men do not in the same way that men possess some unique traits that women do not?

Two things have been pointed out here. First, a man is physically stronger than a woman. Second, a woman's hemispheres are more connected than a man's. I could go on about physical characteristics a woman has that a man does not, and about mental characteristics a man has that a woman does not, both of which aid not only in the survival but the flourishing of people, but these examples should suffice. Should not a woman look up to a man for his strength in contexts where his strength is more virtuous and a man look up to a woman for her connectedness in contexts where her connectedness is more virtuous? This would not imply a contradiction because of the separation via context. Likewise, when neither strength nor connectedness is more virtuous than one another, a man and a woman can look to each other with a feeling of mutual respect.

Also, as for the biological argument for homosexuality, how do we know that homosexuality and these biological factors don't share a common cause? It seems to me that there is a relation between reversed role heterosexuality and homosexuality in general. So I will ask this question. Is it possible for a woman's femininity to be so potent that a male loved her to the point of worship, in the same way that it's possible for a man's masculinity to be so potent that a female loved him to the point of worship?

I believe that ultimately this is all psychological, and since psychology involves integration between philosophy and science, we cannot answer this question on philosophical premises alone, nor on scientific premises alone for that matter. I for one have a theory on how sexuality develops. Once one has the ability to develop emotional affection for an ideal interaction between two beings capable of action, one has the framework for developing some form of sexuality. I discovered what I was most interested in when I was around four years old, though I wouldn't say at that time it was sexual. It merely established what it was for which I had affection. Once puberty hit, I became sexually aroused. For fear of being thought suicidal/homicidal, or downright nutty, I won't mention what, specifically, it is. It could be anything. Just imagine it being that as what you wish to imagine it.

I also mention that about now I realize an argument for heterosexuality over homosexuality is that to obtain intimate knowledge through direct experience the opposite sex through another in the same way that one does with the same sex through oneself is clearly a value, if one is to appreciate the facts of male and female nature in the most effective way. By engaging in sex, one is sharing both body AND mind, and a male-female relationship in this regard is superior because of complementation. What this complementation is specifically relates to masculinity and femininity. Now the issue I have with polarism is that masculinity is a positive and femininity is a negative. Why should one not choose bipolarism, in which both masculinity and femininity are positives or negatives in their own proper context?

Back to homosexuality... maybe we should look to it as an adaptation of person to them self. When the overall total effect of adaptation of the world to self is exceeded by the overall total effect of adaptation of the self to world, isn't it justified? Likewise, when a person is faced with an immutable fact of oneself and a mutable fact of oneself, isn't it more natural to accept the immutable fact and adjust the mutable fact than to attempt to do the opposite? It is like someone who is physically of mentally impaired, and must choose to live ones lifestyle differently from the norm. That is to say, heterosexuality is the rule, but homosexuality is an exception to the rule. Then there's asexuality and bisexuality.

Maybe we need a more general rule for romantic interpersonal relationships that apply regardless of specific details, IE a concept of romantic interpersonal relationship that omits the specific measurements. It's a bad word, I know, Rand should've just chosen to say details, but measurement omission is that with which we are all familiar. From that we can infer what is implied about romantic interpersonal relationships, and give a process which allows us to put the 'measurements' back in. IE the details about ones own sexuality. That will give a general theory for an individualist approach. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is why does anyone here feel the need to defend homosexuality and exempt it from moral evaluation? I have to guesses, one they are gay themselves and don't want to accept the fact that they are immoral, two they have gay tendencies that they try to hide from everyone including themselves which is triply-immoral because it involves evasion, lies, and immorality. The only "defense" for the "morality" of homosexuality is various studies done by scientists who start there research for the whole purpose of "proving" the conclusion that they have already decided on that homosexuality is somehow outside the bounds of morality. This whole thing is one long rediculous argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is why does anyone here feel the need to defend homosexuality and exempt it from moral evaluation? I have to guesses, one they are gay themselves and don't want to accept the fact that they are immoral, two they have gay tendencies that they try to hide from everyone including themselves which is triply-immoral because it involves evasion, lies, and immorality. The only "defense" for the "morality" of homosexuality is various studies done by scientists who start there research for the whole purpose of "proving" the conclusion that they have already decided on that homosexuality is somehow outside the bounds of morality. This whole thing is one long rediculous argument.

The whole point of allowing moral existants of homosexuality isn't to exempt it from moral evaluation. It's to make it moral in certain contexts. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. It all depends upon what the fundamentals of sex are, and that's more hotly contested than the fundamentals of art. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means, expect to get a LOT of different answers from different people, even ones who think very much alike, and even agree to the same basic premises of metaphysics.

If sex is "an activity whereupon all the participating animals are either stimulating the sexual organs of others of having their sexual organs stimulated by others" in its BROADEST sense, then where must we start to show which kinds of sex is moral? Obviously it's not in the nature of any animal to engage in sex with those outside their species, and less obviously it does not naturally occur with more than two animals. Meaning for humans, it is naturally between two individual people. It also stands to reason that it's a celebration of values for those who are capable of doing so. I won't go into the details here. Anything else is controversial, though I'd expect that not to get in the way of the actual truth of the matter, and it hardly affects our ability to reason the truth out, it does change how able we are to argue the case with others.

Anyway, just one other thing. You can't read into the details of the motives of other people without some kind of thorough knowledge. All you can do is determine whether or not those motives are rational.

One more thing: Post 1000. Woohoo!

Edited by Starblade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So people who have oral and anal sex only are still virgins?
My guess is that most people would consider anal sex as sex. Oral sex is probably more hotly disputed. EC is approaching the subject as someone who thinks homosexuality is immoral, which I would guess is why he thinks only vaginal sex is sex. So EC, what about heterosexual anal sex?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is why does anyone here feel the need to defend homosexuality and exempt it from moral evaluation? I have to guesses, one they are gay themselves and don't want to accept the fact that they are immoral, two they have gay tendencies that they try to hide from everyone including themselves which is triply-immoral because it involves evasion, lies, and immorality.

That's an impressive feat of psychologizing. I don't consider homosexuality immoral--so now we know that's because I'm secretly homosexual (and never even knew it!) and refuse to admit that I'm immoral! The very fact of disagreeing with you is evidence of immorality and dishonesty! How Freudian of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sex is a penis penetrating a vagina, anything else along those lines are just sexual activities.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Sexual

So, Homosexuals aren't really gay then, because they're not ACTUALLY having sex. It's just "sexual" activities :huh:

I do like your argument from intimidation though. It's pretty funny. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is why does anyone here feel the need to defend homosexuality and exempt it from moral evaluation?

Because I'm gay and I think I should stand up for my morality. Others of us on this thread defending homosexuality might have gay friends or relatives they think deserve to be defended from accusations like yours.

I have to guesses, one they are gay themselves and don't want to accept the fact that they are immoral, two they have gay tendencies that they try to hide from everyone including themselves which is triply-immoral because it involves evasion, lies, and immorality.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I haven't read all 1,000 posts on this thread, but I don't think you have yet given any solid explanation for why homosexuality is immoral. You should show that it is before you go about attacking the people who defend it. That's also pretty blatant argument from intimidation--"hmmm... the way you're arguing, you sound pretty gay." Fortunately, you can't intimidate *me* because I know I'm gay.

What if I were to turn that argument around and use it on you? For all I know, the reason you lash out at us homosexuals is because you are one secretly and act homophobic as a defense. Now, how is that any less ridiculous than *your* accusation?

The only "defense" for the "morality" of homosexuality is various studies done by scientists who start there research for the whole purpose of "proving" the conclusion that they have already decided on that homosexuality is somehow outside the bounds of morality.

Not *everything* is susceptible to moral judgment. What is not a choice is not a question of morality... and whatever motives the scientists who do the studies have, there is a lot of scientific support for genetic/learned homosexuality. If it turns out it isn't a choice, then it *isn't* a question of morality.

This whole thing is one long rediculous argument.

Yes, if by "this" you mean "this thread." At 41 pages, it's really beginning to disintegrate. I think it should be locked, no one is getting anywhere.

And your later post about anything other than male-female union not being sex... how on *earth* do you support that claim? :confused: Even if it were true, "homosexuality" is not the same as "male-to-male sex."

Would that make all virgins asexual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I'm gay and I think I should stand up for my morality. Others of us on this thread defending homosexuality might have gay friends or relatives they think deserve to be defended from accusations like yours.
I think you should think carefully about whether moral evaluation of homosexuality is a bad thing. I have a happy heterosexual relationship with my wife, and I see nothing at all wrong with morally evaluating that relationship and seeing that it is good. It would be immoral of me to pursue a homosexual relation with Fred, and I see no reason to exempt my heterosexuality from moral evaluation. Condemnation is not the same as evaluation -- that mistake is the core of the moral nihilists' credo. Judge, and prepare to be judged. It's true that some people are ignorant of man's volitional nature and that they think that somehow man is "by nature" designed to procreate -- that's the standard Catholic church position, for instance. But there is not a single fact that supports the idea that every man is by nature heterosexual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you should think carefully about whether moral evaluation of homosexuality is a bad thing. I have a happy heterosexual relationship with my wife, and I see nothing at all wrong with morally evaluating that relationship and seeing that it is good. It would be immoral of me to pursue a homosexual relation with Fred, and I see no reason to exempt my heterosexuality from moral evaluation. Condemnation is not the same as evaluation -- that mistake is the core of the moral nihilists' credo. Judge, and prepare to be judged.

Right. Sorry if I wasn't clear: I don't blame EC for judging homosexuality; I blame him for condemning it the way he is, that is, without justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not *everything* is susceptible to moral judgment. What is not a choice is not a question of morality... and whatever motives the scientists who do the studies have, there is a lot of scientific support for genetic/learned homosexuality. If it turns out it isn't a choice, then it *isn't* a question of morality.

It seems to me that if homosexuality is learned, then it IS open to morality. Learning is not some passive process that takes places where your brains somehow absorb information, it requires the volitional acceptance of the person involved, and therefore they accept things by choice.

It may not have been your intention, but this is very similar to the standard argument used by apologists of criminals: "they couldn't help it!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm writing from a non-western, non-heterosexual country, and I have worked with men on the issues of gender and sexuality for the past 11 years. Here are some of the things I have to say:

1 Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both artificial/ unnatural western concepts, found only in a society which is artificially heterosexualised.

2. There is no heterosexuality in nature amongst mammals and most other species. Heterosexuality is defined as a sexual desire encompassing all of the following:

- Sex for reproduction.

- Sex for pleasure and for bonding.

- A desire and capability (of male) to form intimate and long term bond with the female.

- A repulsion of the male towards male eroticism.

- An inability of the male to form intimate and long term bond with another male.

apart from the above the following are also important attributes associated with heterosexuality:

- It is a masculine trait

- It is the normal and majority male trait

As per the above definition (which is how heterosexuality is practised in the west), amongst mammals only the 1st, i.e. sex for reproduction takes place.

The first important thing to know is that females and especially males in mammals live separate lives from each other, in separate groups.

Only about 5% of males in mammalian species display a sexual intimacy with the female which is long lasting. Most male-female sexual encounters in the wild are limited to quickies once in a year or so, soon after which the partners disperse never to meet again.

There is a small percentage of males (in species like the wolves) which shows partial long term bonding, in the sense that they spend a couple of months or years in a female group as their leaders. Although it would be wrong to call it bonding since the males (in a group of two or three) control the whole pack of females rather than bond with them. These are the males who show a behaviour closest to heterosexuality.

The above class of 'heterosexual' males in other mammalian species --- like the elephants --- however spend their time living in isolation since the female groups will not accept them.

Most males however live together with other males, often forming pairs which are often long lasting, often lasting a life-time. These bonds have a strong sexual element in them as has been proved by several leading scientists lately (Bruce Bagemihl, Johann Roughgarden, Simone, etc.)

But the above cannot be categorised as 'homosexuality'.

Because homosexuality is another western concept which encompasses all of the following (as is practised in the west):

- the sexual desire of a feminine gendered male for another male.

- A trait which is a 'deviation', and is found only in a minority.

- A trait which is caused when something goes wrong with the male's biology.

The sexual behaviour of male-male bonds exhibited in the wild is mainstream and masculine gendered, and thus cannot be classified as 'homosexuality'.

Also, the only heterosexual behaviour exhibited in the wild involves feminine gendered males, as seen amongst sheep, sea lions and red foxes.

And there is no proof of a male sexual repulsion of other males, which is the main pillar stone of the western heterosexual identity.

Edited by truth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both artificial/ unnatural western concepts, found only in a society which is artificially heterosexualised.
Poo. There is nothing at all artificial about heterosexuality, and there are no artificially heterosexualised societies. Most people are naturally heterosexual, though some are not. This is a global fact, so to the extent that you can say anything about the sexual orientation of a society, all societies are naturally heterosexual (by the usually majority rules view).
2. There is no heterosexuality in nature amongst mammals and most other species.
That's virtually entirely false (though bonobos seem to be fairly resolutely bi).
Heterosexuality is defined as a sexual desire encompassing all of the following:
Uh, no, heterosexuality is defined as having sex (or desiring sex) with a mamer of the opposite sex. Your purpose in having sex is not part of the definition. In addition, a heterosexual male does not have to be repulsed by male eroticism. Simple indifference is sufficient. In addition, incompetence in managing a relationship with a female does not make a guy gay (I can't even begin to imagine where you got that idea).
apart from the above the following are also important attributes associated with heterosexuality:

- It is a masculine trait

- It is the normal and majority male trait

This suggests that all women are lesbians or at least butch. I think you need to think that through more carefully.
Only about 5% of males in mammalian species display a sexual intimacy with the female which is long lasting.
In addition, zebras live in milling heards numbering in the thousands. But I don't see how that has any bearing on human sexuality. Zebras are not volitional beings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give up. I can't think of any countries, Western or otherwise, that could be described as "non-heterosexual."

Ancient Greece would be an example, although I doubt he's from there.

I'm also curious where he's talking about though.

Edited by Hal
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...