Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[Nim]

So you are saying that my desire for chocolate milk is a subconscious decision that I make? While taking a drink of it is a conscious decision? Are you saying that all desires are subconscious decisions that we make, such as eating fruit and meat instead of grass like a cow?

You say that being attracted to the opposite sex is more rational? Well, what about being attracted to the opposite gender? And not everyone is one or the other sex, or one or the other gender. Sometimes they are mixed, so what is rational for them?

And how is a heterosexual lifestyle a more rational, reality-oriented, and rewarding lifestyle? People are hetersexual because males are designed to like females and vise verse because that is how we spread and mix our genes, not because it's rational or reality-oriented. Being rational is a way of thinking, not a way of feeling. It's not as if I don't like to eat grass because I feel that it's not rational or reality-oriented. And I don't think other animals such as dogs are attracted to the scent of a female instead of a male because it's more rational either, they just are. Desires are present in rather stupid lifeforms that don't know what it is to be rational, but their desires still make sense as far as their survival is concerned. You won't see a squirrel happily chewing on a rock or anything. Well probably not anyways, heh.

[Guest Grantsinmypants]

Ok, what don't you understand?

People have certain desires, some of them were conciously accepted, some of them subconciously (as the result of previously accepted ideas).

Most important and personal things, like sexual desires, were accepted at an early age. That's why they're subconciously held. They were accepted at a time when the person was less critical and much more impressionable. They guide a person's actions even if he doesn't realize that they're there; much less understand them.

This does not mean that once someone realizes that these desires are there, he is stuck with them. He can study them, talk with others about them, read about them, and come to understand them. Then he can evaluate them. He decides whether or not they are good for him and help him become the type of person he wants to become. Then he can either try to adjust, replace them with something different, or get rid of them completely.

As for all of your ballyhoo about how just because someone accepts the reality that a meeting of the male and female genetalias results in a "spread(ing) and mix(ing) of our genes" isn't reality-oriented and about the parallels between dog psychology and human psychology. I don't know what to tell ya other than Humans have a specific type of brain, and dogs have another. And if pointing out and being concerned for what actually happens isn't reality-oriented, I don't know what is.

[Nim]

There's nothing that I don't understand. You just haven't shown any reason to believe what you are saying other than you said so. For example, you say we don't have a choice to have sexual desires or not, but that we have a choice what we sexually desire. You just draw up conclusions such as this with no premises.

You also say that what I am saying is wrong, but don't say why it is wrong. You call it "ballyhoo" but don't give any reasons why it is. You also ignore certain points that are made. You still haven't addressed what people who have mixed masculine and feminine attributes should do. You seem too intent on believing in what you want to believe to even consider thinking about it in another way.

I think you're missing the point that desires aren't what we choose, but what causes us to choose. I choose to eat breakfeast, because I have hunger, the desire to eat. I don't choose to have the desire to eat, I don't choose to have hunger. Hunger is what makes me choose to get up and go get something out of the fridge. Male heterosexuals choose to be with females because they have a desire for them. It's no secret that male homosexuals have feminine attributes. It seems like a coincidence that all the males with larger corpus callosums for instance, decided to be attracted to males and also decided to not be attracted to females when they were young.

[Guest Grantsinmypants]

You choose to eat because you desire to live. You can desire to die.

Hunger does not compel you to choose to eat. To be compeled to make a choice makes absolutely no sense.

You choose to make love because you desire to enjoy living. You can choose to not enjoy life.

Sexual desire does not compel you to choose to have sex. And it certainly doesn't compel you to choose what type of person to have sex with.

Yes, in order to live, a person must have a goal, a desire, a value to pursue. It can either be actually good for them or actually bad for them, but they cannot expect to live by stagnating. "X can be any number, but it has to be some number".

I already told you why I don't want to get dragged into an extensive, off topic, discussion about human/rational (not dog/irrational) psychology that deserves a whole other thread.

I gave you references to understand where I'm coming from.

The hermaphordite quagmire? I really don't care. All I can say is that anyone who has both a penis and a vagina which gender would be the most expeditious, based upon their past experiences, to completely identify with and look into surgery. That's such a marginal, distracting question.

[Nim]

I eat because I desire to live? Ok nevermind.

[AshRyan]

Being rational is a way of thinking, not a way of feeling.

...the implication being that thought and emotion are totally unrelated, and the cause of emotions is...blank-out. You can call them instincts, the result of hormonal activities in the brain, or primaries of consciousness--but that just evades the actual question. And it is completely wrong anyway, as a bit of introspection on your part will reveal that your emotions do in fact have causes rooted in your premises. Chemical activities in the brain may be a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

I think you're missing the point that desires aren't what we choose, but what causes us to choose.

You got that from Hume. Which is not the best philosophical influence to have. Try reading some Ayn Rand on emotion and free will, or check out Harry Binswanger's lectures on emotion and free will. (Choice is an irreducible primary, and if you claim that our choices are caused by our feelings, and our feelings are caused by ?, then we are deterministic puppets of random whims--so what are you doing on an Objectivist discussion board?)

[Guest Grantsinmypants]

so what are you doing on an Objectivist discussion board?)

He's learning about Objectivism of course.

[AshRyan]

He's learning about Objectivism of course.

Presumably. And if that's the case, fine. I'm just trying to ascertain whether our new friend is committed to her Humean premises.

[Nim]

I got that from Hume? Lol, I don't even know who that is. And my statement was rather simplistic, a lot of people have probably said that before.

[AshRyan]

I got that from Hume? Lol, I don't even know who that is. And my statement was rather simplistic, a lot of people have probably said that before.

I didn't mean that you got it directly from Hume (although that was a definite possibility), but probably from Humean influences in our culture. Or it is possible that you simply made a mistake in your own thinking, since upon superficial introspection it may seem as though one's desire "cause" one's choices.

But that leads you down the road of saying that desires are primaries of consciousness, that they have nothing to do with reason, and that "it is not against reason to prefer the destruction of the world to the scratching of my finger." (Or in this case, that it is not against reason to prefer having forcible sex with small children to a loving relationship with a consenting adult. In fact, it is against reason.) And I don't think you really want to go down that road. What awaits one who does (such as Hume) at the end is not pretty.

I would suggest that you study more on the Objectivist views of emotion and its relation to reason and volition.

Edited September 20, 2003 by AshRyan

[Nim]

Hmm... Hume kinda sounds interesting. Especially that whole finger scratching thing.

[AshRyan]

Hmm... Hume kinda sounds interesting. Especially that whole finger scratching thing.

If, by "interesting", you mean "demented", then sure. But I always thought he was kind of a bore, and always get pissed off when philosophy professors waste my time and insult my intelligence by requiring that crap. (Hume also denied causality, the self, and a number of other self-evident phenomena. He claimed that you can't know that a billiard ball struck by another ball will roll in a certain direction or at all, that eating bread will provide you with nourishment and keep you alive, or that the sun will rise tomorrow. He ended up as a paralyzed skeptic. If that's what you think is interesting, maybe as a case-study of the psychological effects of accepting bad premises, but I don't know.)

On the other hand, this thread points to the reason why people should study other philosophies besides Objectivism. It helps them understand Objectivism better, to be able to differentiate it from nonsense like Hume's, and to see how Objectivism corrected the errors of those other philosophies to help prevent one from making those mistakes themselves and thinking that they are compatible with Objectivism.

As a side note, I'm not even getting into the whole "is homosexuality immoral?" discussion, because at this point, I don't really know.

[Guest Grantsinmypants]

I agree, people should study other philosophies aside from Objectivism. I tried in my philosophyclass but my professor kept wasting my time with a bunch of non-Objectivist crap that was absolutely worthless. Professors tend to be too objective when the present a colloquium on the major ideas that have shaped western thought. I HATE NON-OBJECTIVIST OBJECTIVISTS!

Grant Williams

[AshRyan]

I agree, people should study other philosophies aside from Objectivism.  I tried in my philosophyclass but my professor kept wasting my time with a bunch of non-Objectivist crap that was absolutely worthless.  Professors tend to be too objective when the present a colloquium on the major ideas that have shaped western thought. I HATE NON-OBJECTIVIST OBJECTIVISTS!

Grant Williams

Huh? I don't think I quite followed all that. Anyway, if we want to have a discussion about the benefits of studying other philosophies, it should probably be continued in a separate thread.

[Guest Grantsinmypants]

I was being sarcastic in order to make fun of you by insinuating that you were a hypocrite.

Grant Williams

[AshRyan]

Oh, because I said I hated studying Hume (even though I am now extolling the benefits of such study to others)? Okay, I follow you now.

The reason Hume irritated me so much is because his reasoning is so obviously fallacious to me that I really don't learn anything from such study, and I don't think that his ideas would have much impact on Western thought if we just stopped taking him so damn seriously, because we really shouldn't (and I don't think that he has had as much of an impact as some "intellectuals" would have us believe). I already understand his errors and how they differ from the Objectivist position, so I did not derive that benefit.

On the other hand, I did get some value from studying Kant, even though his philosophy also makes me angry.

So I don't think I'm being a hypocrite, but rather was pointing out that the value I mentioned did not apply to myself in the one case.

Anyway, I apologize for getting this thread so off topic. If you wish to continue this discussion, seriously, start a new thread.

Edited September 20, 2003 by AshRyan

[Godless Capitalist]

So anyway back to the original question ...

Did Rand ever give an explanation about why she thought homosexuality was immoral?

I asked John Ridpath (Objectivist prof. at York U. in Canada) about this issue once and his answer was basically that it was wrong because it was against man's nature eg our biologically normal reproductive behavior. As an argument that homosexuality (if caused by genetic or hormonal factor, as I suspect it probably is) is a biologic error, that makes sense. Why though, wuld that make it immoral? Is choosing not to have kids also immoral? I don't think so.

[Tom Rexton]

Well, I think she said something about homosexuality in the lines of "mistaken (psycho-epistemological) premises". But I don't think she ever explicitly stated what those premises are.

[Guest Grantsinmypants]

So anyway back to the original question ...

Did Rand ever give an explanation about why she thought homosexuality was immoral?

That's interesting. I thought the question was: Is homosexuality immoral?

Grant Williams

[Godless Capitalist]

picky, picky ... I didn't mean that that was the original question, just getting back to the topic ...

I suspect that Rand believed that anything as complex as sexual orientation could not be determined by genetics or hormones. I used to think so too, but now I don't.

[MinorityOfOne]

The whole issue of whether or not homosexuality is genetically-determined seems irrelevant to me. The question ought to be: is it detrimental to a person's life? (Or, perhaps, is it necessarily the result of something which is?)

I can think of examples of people who become homosexual for totally neurotic reasons, using it as a means to evade the sort of psychological work they would need to do in order to achieve happiness. In such cases, yeah, there's a problem. (Of course, the same could be said for more than a few heterosexual relationships.) On the other hand, I've known people who were homosexual and didn't have any such problems, to the best of my knowledge. So -- until or unless somebody gives me some damned convincing reasons to the contrary, I regard homosexuality as not only a moral option but a moral *imperative* for some: just as it would be psychologically self-destructive and immoral for a heterosexual to pursue sexual relations with a member of their own gender, so would it be immoral for a homosexual to suppress their orientation and pursue passionless facades of romance.

[glenniebun]

My thinking on homosexuality/bisexuality is simple: if I choose with whom I fall in love, and if I do it rationally, by objective means, then it is right, true, etc. (Love is an emotion, and emotions arise from one's subconscious--but love is a subconscious evaluation and the criteria of evaluation are chosen, whether consciusly or not, just as basic philosophical premises are chosen consciously or not.) The gender of the person could be one criterion in my choice, if I want to keep open the option of having children for example, but there are more important things.

So if I evaluate another man objectively and the circumstances are such that I fall in love with him, that is what happens--and it would be horrible to deny it.

[Capitalism Forever]

I am surprised by the lack of moral clarity on this thread. "Heterosexuality might be a bit better because you can have children" is about the farthest anyone dared to go in making a rational value-judgment with regard to heterosexuality versus homosexuality. (Do I sense an influence of the "non-judgmentalist" rhetoric here?)

Compare this with the following unequivocal statement from Ayn Rand during a Q&A in 1971:

Q: This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?

A: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.

(from http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.5)

It is perhaps because the homosexual lobby was not yet so aggressive in her time that Miss Rand never took the time to elaborate on those "psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises." But now that it is (the lobby, aggressive), the matter deserves some thought.

The following is what I posted on another forum:

"Human sexual behavior is influenced by a number of needs: the need for love and friendship, the need for tenderness, the need for the excitement of discovery, the need for self-respect--and, of course, the need for sexual satisfaction. (Is there anything I left out?) The more of these needs a relationship can satisfy, the more complete the experience is. And a rational person will not settle for anything but the best possible choice.

You could satisfy one or two of the needs to some extent by buying Playboy magazine or visiting a whorehouse--but you agree, don't you, that it's a rather poor substitute for the real thing.

A homosexual relationship might also satisfy one or two of the needs to some extent--but can it ever be the real thing? Let's see:

• Love & friendship: No problem with that, it is perfectly possible for people of the same sex to be best friends.
  
• Sexual satisfaction: Don't ask me, I never tried it. :-) But I suppose it must be possible, otherwise people wouldn't do it.
  
• Tenderness: This is where the problems start. There is a difference between petting and being petted. When somebody pets his child or his dog, or when a husband pets his wife, it means: "I love you and I appreciate you for being the way you are. I care for your well-being." When the child or wife pets back, it essentially means: "Thank you."
  
  In a homosexual relationship, one of the partners inevitably has to play the role of a man and the other has to play the role of a woman, even though both are men or both are women. This is an implicit admission that the relationship is just a cheap substitute for something more real.
  
• Excitement of discovery: In a heterosexual relationship, you discover what the mind and body of a person of the other sex is like. As a homosexual, you will only encounter a mind and body similar to yours. You completely forgo the experience of learning to know the secrets of the other sex.
  
• Self-respect: A self-respecting person will strive to earn the love of another by being as attractive as possible, spiritually as well as physically. If you happen to be a woman, this means being beautiful, charming, lovely, cute, and attractive in a feminine way. If you are a man, it means being strong, brave, resolute, and handsome in a manly way. Trying to defy the reality of your sex and attempting to put a man into a woman's body, or a woman into a man's body, is bound to turn you into a pitiable creature that is neither attractive as a man nor as a woman.
  
• Is there anything I left out? Yes, there is. A heterosexual relationship has to offer something tremendously exciting and satisfying that I still haven't covered. There is a barrier you have to break through when building a relationship with a person of the other sex.
  
  It is easy for a man to become friends with a man; it is easy, if both are so inclined, for them to become intimate. They know each other; they're buddies; they have similar interests, similar ways of thinking, similar bodies; it is easy for one to predict whether the other will accept or reject an offer--once they see that both are interested in a relationship and don't mind if it's homosexual, they can simply just go ahead. No barrier there. But if a man wants to have a relationship with a woman, he has to face the challenge of dealing with someone different from himself; he has to overcome her resistance; he has to brave the possibility of being rejected; he has to have the self-confidence to try again despite having been rejected before. This is a formidable challenge, a tough barrier--and it requires courage to break it through.
  
  Homosexuality is a coward's way out."
  

[MinorityOfOne]

CF, there's a lot I disagree with in your post. Some of it I believe to be wrong based on homosexuals I've known, other parts I find dubious but, since I'm straight, don't have the first-hand knowledge a response would require. So I can't respond to the whole thing adequately, but I'll do what I can.

1. Tenderness. Your comparison of "owner-child/dog" and "man-woman" is simply offensive and sexist. What makes you think that when men and women "pet" each other, the woman means something less than "I love you and I appreciate you for being the way you are. I care for your well-being."? If you're basing that on personal experience, I'd suggest finding better girlfriends.

2. Role of man and woman. Now, I can see why you'd think this. There's a popular image of homosexuals that they're either "butch" or "flaming", and there are a lot of homosexuals who mold themselves into this stereotype. While I can't say for sure that it doesn't show up somewhere in the relationship, since I've never been present for a moment of deep homosexual intimacy, I've seen gay couples for whom this stereotype did not appear to work.

3. Excitement of discovery. So what? I mean, you could argue on similar lines that women ought to be bisexual lest they lose out on the opportunity to know what a clitoris feels like on their tongue. I don't see how this implies any moral problem in homosexuality.

4. Self-respect? I knew a lesbian couple when I lived back in New Hampshire who were both the epitomy of femininity. Both were "beautiful, charming, lovely, cute, and attractive in a feminine way." And they looked for the same things in a lover, so they ended up together. Self-esteem comes primarily from being moral, not from happening to have attractive traits. And moral principles are not different because of one's gender.

5. As for the last, you seem to be just assuming that the jump to intimacy for a homosexual would always be a trivial matter. Again, having known gays for whom it was definitely NOT -- who agonized over matters of relationship just as a heterosexual would -- the only conclusion I can reach is, again. that you've uncritically accepted the stereotypical image of the homosexual.

I don't expect the above to convince you, because I can't provide much hard evidence; like I said, only a homosexual could tell you what such a relationship is like from the inside. I can tell you that I've seen counterexamples to your points, but you'll probably find a way to explain it away. One last point, though: given what you write above, how the hell do you account for bisexuality? If homosexuality is caused by a fear of heterosexual relationships, which are supposed to be inherently better in every possible way, why would somebody be bisexual?

By the way, I'm not arguing that homosexuality is always innate or anything like that. I have doubts about that (though I can't rule it out), and I would agree that the majority of homosexuals I've met have been deeply neurotic. But that's not enough to convince me that ALL of them are, particularly when I've met some who were, to the best of my knowledge, in fine psychological health. If you can come up with anything stronger, go for it -- but what you wrote above isn't nearly enough.

[Capitalism Forever]

Matt, I believe the fundamental error you are making is that you don't account for the different natures of men and women. The two sexes have different bodies (to a certain extent) and also different minds (to a certain extent). An ideal man lives qua man; an ideal woman lives qua woman.

If I were to sum up the difference in a nutshell, I would say that the primary difference is that masculinity means strength, while femininity means beauty. You will note that this is very much in direct correspondence with the physical differences between the sexes. (Not that a woman ought to have a very weak body, of course--and she very certainly needs moral strength--nor should a man be ugly.)

If you think I am sexist, consider some of Ayn Rand's ideas regarding this matter. In her "infamous" essay "About a Woman President," she wrote: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship--the desire to look up to man." (Come to think of it, Ayn Rand's entire philosophy grew out of hero worship, didn't it?)

Also consider the character of The Golden One in Anthem. It is something even I considered a bit over the line--me, your resident sexist on the Objectivism Online Forum! If it had been up to me, I would have made her at least read some of the books together with her man in that house from the Unmentionable Times!

One interesting way of approaching the matter is to consider the various Bond girls and pick the one you like best. Is it Miss Goodnight from The Man With the Golden Gun, the dumb blonde who adores Bond but just gets into the way when they're chasing the bad guys? Or is it one of those modern Bond "girls" who seek to prove with their every action that they're at least as man as Bond is?

My favorite is definitely Agent Triple X, from The Spy Who Loved Me: she is immaculately beautiful and at the same time an excellent agent; she knows how to tease a man--she's a woman who deserves the admiration of a man in every possible way, and knows what kind of a man to admire. "Nobody does it better ... baby, you're the best!"