Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

I'll grant that reproduction is what caused sex to exist in all animals along with its secondary characteristics like size, strength etc. I'm not sure how that helps the argument that homosexuality is contrary to man's nature inasmuch as man chooses his values including sexual values. To say male and female are complimentary either means "fit well together" and/or "fit better together than same sex". If this is some sort of appeal to natural/evident functions of various body parts then the argument fails, because homosexual sex is a natural/evident function of the parts used in that case. In other words, it is natural that man can use his body for sex in whatever way enhances his happiness -- there are entire books on the subject -- and just because heterosexual sex is rooted in reproduction does not mean that it is the only rational choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But, as has been pointed out, since man does possess volition he does not necessarily have to only have sex to reproduce, nor is this usually even the reason why he does. But, because the mind is the most important part of a man's sexual being choice must have been involved at some level of consciousness, otherwise choice doesn't exist. Since choice must have been involved at some point, and all human choice is open to moral evaluation, and it is perceptually self-evident that man and woman are beings of a complementary nature, then it follows that it is in man's nature for men and women to have sexual relations for any reason, either for purely reproductive reasons, for pleasure, or for bonding on the highest of intimacy levels. This is man's nature and it must be adhered to by choice. When one makes the choice to live as one's nature prescribes, one is making a moral decision and it is good, because it enhances his life and happiness in a positive way that conforms with his nature as a man. When one chooses homosexuality, he is choosing to live in contradiction with his self-evident nature, even if this choice was formed implicitly during childhood. Maintaining a contradiction is always immoral, albeit it is an extremely minor one immorality in this case since the incorrect sexual orientation was established and automatized implicitly during childhood.

I think your the one who is attempting to have your cake and eat it too. You say "man has no nature but choice." We all agree there. You saying removing homosexuality from volition is contradictory from man's nature, that it is genetic determinism. Correct? I think that the point is debatable, but as of now I do think that homosexuality is a still rooted in choice. So we agree sexuality is a matter of choice then. Now, here's where you slip up;

...and it is perceptually self-evident that man and woman are beings of a complementary nature, then it follows that it is in man's nature for men and women to have sexual relations for any reason, either for purely reproductive reasons, for pleasure, or for bonding on the highest of intimacy levels. This is man's nature...

So then, based on the structure of single organ (which in turn will dictate several other things at puberty), man has an irrevocable nature outside of both choice and reason. Because he has a penis, he must always be attracted to people with a vagina, otherwise he is acting in contradiction to his nature. This sounds like intrinsicism. You deny that genes or hormones are above man's choice, yet you claim he has some higher nature that makes it a contradiction to be attracted to the same sex? A nature which he violates by the choice of homosexuality? I am sorry sir, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, either man, through induction, reason, and choice, formulates his own values and as long as he remains reasoning and moral within what he values he is moral, or he has certain predilections that could as easily turn him to homosexuality as make it a violate of heterosexuality. You cannot have it both ways. Either men have natures beyond choice and thus out of the realm of morality, or men make choices and it is up to you to demonstrate why they are immoral. If the latter is the case, as far as I can tell there is no reason for homosexuals to be condemmed as they have (Not by you EC, but as I have seen by others), especially if the logically own up to their tastes and act within the realm of reason.

Edited by Nyronus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that women and men are complementary in many significant ways. In fact, I have argued extensively that it is these differences which give rise to sexuality. However, I am convinced beyond doubt that homosexuality is non-volitional, and therefore not immoral.

I have become acquainted with many homosexual individuals over the years, some less rational than others. Because of my interest in the psychology of sexuality, I have often asked them how and when they knew they were gay. Without exception, all of them answer that they have been gay for as long as they can remember. Some remember being attracted to the same sex in early childhood. Others experimented with opposite-sex relationships in their youth, but were never fulfilled by them. Many struggled with "coming out." They did not want to be gay, but they could only experience full-blown romantic love with members of the same sex.

It is probable that homosexuality develops in early childhood, a result of some as yet unknown psychological cause. If this is the case, then homosexuality is not volitional. A young child does not choose his psychological make-up. One does not learn to fully control his metal apparatus until young adulthood. So, at the very worst, one could argue that homosexuality is a suboptimal psychological abnormality (though this has not yet been demonstrated). But it is clearly non-volitional.

The question then becomes: what should one do if he discovers he is gay? Should he try to reorient his sexuality, and pursue only members of the opposite sex? This may work for some very few (bisexuals, likely), but as I said earlier, many gays have tried and failed at reorienting their own sexuality. The field of psychology may at some point discover a method of "converting" gays, but no such method exists today. So the choice becomes: should one pursue only opposite-sex relationships, knowing he will never achieve sexual fulfillment, or should he seek romance with members of the same sex? The latter choice, in my view, is the only moral one.

A romantic love relationship without sexual fulfillment is not a romance. Having sex with someone you are not attracted to is not a celebration of life. And to tell a man that he must live his life without romance -- that would be a moral crime.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and please don't bring up things like adoption and artificial insemination, because that's just a homosexual couple's way of piggy backing off of heterosexuality.

Grant Williams

It isn't piggybacking at all. There is a traditional way of invisioning familial structure, and there is a progressive way. Just because you assume that in order to achieve the perfect family, one man must marry one woman and have conventional sex, therby producing a child, follwed by both of these people raising said child, the process does not neccesarily NEED to be this way in order to satisfy the goal of creating a happy family.

Furthermore, I've heard it said by other objectivists that because gay couples cannot reproduce TOGETHER (emphasis mine), that homosexuality is a value antithetical to life, therby making it immoral. This is wrong. It is a means of expressing value which is antithetical to the common conception of procreation. Firstly, Not wanting to propegate the human race is a perfectly acceptable desire as far as I can see. Some people just don't want children, whether they be straight or gay. The morality of a relationship does not depend on its participants' willingness, desire, or even ability to reproduce. It is not a criterion. It is a completely amoral decision. And secondly, as I mentioned before, homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing anyway, just not within the conventional constraints of what we view as typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, I doubt I really will be replying directly to anymore posts on this subject because I don't have the time or the energy to play an endless game of whack-a-mole here. However, I will makes another post or two in general on this subject, but probably at least not for a few more days. I may even simply write an essay on the subject, I need time to think about it and right now I've been working a lot in addition to staying up late at night on these posts and other things. So, it is what it is, and I'll post more on the subject when I've thought how I am going to further present my views.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am one of those 'rare beasts' you are talking so much about: A gay objectivist.

I'm a professional opera singer, and I have lived my life fully and morally, to the greater enhancement of my quality of life pursuing rational goals whilst shirking purposeless pursuits such as hedonism.

Regardless of genes or volition, it seems to me that the thing worth considering here is if, regardless of sexuality, the individual leads a rational and moral life with his own happiness as his goal, with a respect to the right to property of others, never asking for the unearned and treasuring his independence.

Is it irrational to love a person of your same sex? Let us see.

"Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire."

If each individual recognizes his or her own highest values in the other, and they both desire to enter into romantic intimacy, what is it here that is immoral or irrational, exactly? Some look for those values in the opposite sex, others in the same sex, regardless of the actual origin of the inclination. We cannot argue that it goes against biological nature, else we might as well join the mystics of the body and argue that woman's only reason for existence is to bear children and man's duty is to inseminate her, since both possess penii and vaginae- we are more than the sum of our gonads, with our minds taking primacy. Do we deny a marriage of true minds? Are same sex couples that are together only out of sexual desire or promiscuity immoral? Yes, as would be the case with a heterosexual couple, for the same reason that hedonism is immoral. If a love triangle can exist by consent and in respect of Romantic Love, then so can a same-sex relationship based on Romantic Love, without any of them being immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If each individual recognizes his or her own highest values in the other, and they both desire to enter into romantic intimacy, what is it here that is immoral or irrational, exactly?

(emphasis added)

Merely stating that you have a certain desire is not enough. All depends on what is the source of the desire: whether it is a random whim based on emotions arising from some unidentified premises, or an objective recognition of the values your life qua man--or woman--requires.

Anyone can claim a desire. Bill Clinton felt a desire for Monica (he obviously "recognized his values" in her, whatever those values were), so he went for her. Does that make him the paragon of ethics and reason? It makes him an exemplar of the ethics of "If it feels good, do it"--but not of any of the Objectivist virtues.

When we judge people, we do not just look at whether they act based on their value system. Most people do that--even the worst environmentalists. We judge people by what their value hierarchy is, how they arrived at it, and how much it is based on reality or in contradiction of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

homosexual sex is a natural/evident function of the parts used in that case. In other words, it is natural that man can use his body for sex in whatever way enhances his happiness -- there are entire books on the subject

Say you are offered two devices that look like cell phones, for the same price. Both of them can be used to take pictures, play music and games, send messages, and wake you up in the morning; in addition, one of the devices can also be used to place and receive calls, while the other does not have this functionality. Supposing that they are equivalent in all other respects, doesn't this fact alone make the one with the extra mode of operation superior to the one missing it?

It is of no relevance on this thread whether the device without the call capability can properly be called a cell phone--that would be a topic for a "Gay Marriage" thread. Nor does it matter whether you ever want to use the device to call kids. I am simply saying that you can do n things with one of them, and n + 1 things with the other--and the one additional function supported by the latter device happens to be, perhaps you'll agree, often the most efficient way of staying in touch with your partners. Why, in reason, would anyone want to miss out on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merely stating that you have a certain desire is not enough. All depends on what is the source of the desire: whether it is a random whim based on emotions arising from some unidentified premises, or an objective recognition of the values your life qua man--or woman--requires.

The wording may have been improperly used, but you chose to focus on an improperly-applied term rather than on the fact that I spoke of Romantic Love, which already implies a recognition of values stemming from the mind and not from whim. Since I was speaking of sexual intimacy, I used the word 'desire' since I considered it appropriate at the time (however poorly chosen it may have been), as Rand herself uses it to speak about sexual attraction when related to Romantic Love ("an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire"). English is not my first language, so from time to time I tend to be less accurate than my original intent is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supposing that they are equivalent in all other respects, doesn't this fact alone make the one with the extra mode of operation superior to the one missing it?

Not necessarily. An extra mode has to be selected to be used. In order to be selected, it has to be on a list of choices. That means that, in order to get to the choice you actually want, you have an extra item over which you must pass. If you had a cell phone with 200 extra options at the same price, but you have no need or want for, or interest in using those functions, then they just get in the way and reduce your productivity. Not to mention the increased possibility of bugs that come with increased complexity.

What we come back to, of course, is your personal need or desire for those functions, which varies from person to person.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a related note. In Atlas Shrugged, if sex is the culmination of Dagny's and X's (or Y's, or Z's) love for eachother's achievements and values, why isn't sex the culmination of X's and Y's (or X's and Z's, or Y's and Z's) love for eachother's achievements and values? While reading the book, I half-expected Francisco and Rearden, or Francisco and Galt, etc, to perform together as Dagny did with each of them, not because of some homophobic repulsion at the idea of men loving eachother, but because it seemed like a rational conclusion based on the rest of what Rand wrote in the book.

I am only getting to The Concerto of Deliverance, so there is still time for Rand to follow through with her argument, but from what I've read here, I don't think that's happening. (Side note: Anti-Greed, Anti-Life, and Their Brothers' Keepers were excellent!)

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right, I doubt I really will be replying directly to anymore posts on this subject because I don't have the time or the energy to play an endless game of whack-a-mole here. However, I will makes another post or two in general on this subject, but probably at least not for a few more days. I may even simply write an essay on the subject, I need time to think about it and right now I've been working a lot in addition to staying up late at night on these posts and other things. So, it is what it is, and I'll post more on the subject when I've thought how I am going to further present my views.

EC,

Before you write an essay on the subject, I recommend talking (or corresponding) with at least a few gays and lesbians to get their perspective. It may not change your mind, but it would certainly give you a more informed view. Any convincing argument against homosexuality must take into account the nearly universal consensus among gays that their sexual orientation is non-volitional. The arguments you've made in previous posts do not mesh with the facts as I have observed them.

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any convincing argument against homosexuality must take into account the nearly universal consensus among gays that their sexual orientation is non-volitional.

Even if it is non-volitional, it can still be immoral to act on it. Every action, after all, is a matter of will. Arguments about choice / no choice just sidestep the issue.

(Note: I remain unconvinced by the arguments that homosexuality is immoral)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EC,

Before you write an essay on the subject, I recommend talking (or corresponding) with at least a few gays and lesbians to get their perspective. It may not change your mind, but it would certainly give you a more informed view. Any convincing argument against homosexuality must take into account the nearly universal consensus among gays that their sexual orientation is non-volitional. The arguments you've made in previous posts do not mesh with the facts as I have observed them.

--Dan Edge

I have, and I mentioned it earlier in this thread that I had watched one of my good female friends slowly "evolve" from normal to supposedly becoming a lesbian.

I do request some links to some of these supposedly abundant scientific studies indicating sexual preference is non-volitional, i.e., "biological", so that I can find the flaws in the interpretation of the data. So, if somebody could provide the links to the most popular of these theories, especially one's that include *all* of the data they used to come to their respective conclusions, so that I can find their flaws objectively without having to pick through their politically-correct "interpretations" of the data. Also, Sofia, if you could provide links to some of studies that you were alluding to with regard to very young children earlier I would also appreciate that very much. It will be much easier to review the data myself, and describe the correct hypothesis that they supposed scientists have used to come up with their quack theories, then trying to debunk the nonsense theories without the support of being able to review their data. Note, I will do this just to quell the objections of the people here who claim, well the science says this and the science says that. It must be noted that I still know without doubt that this is fundamentally a pre-scientific, philosophical matter, but when the scientific data is interpreted correctly it can of course only confirm that fact. So, that is what I'll do. I'll do it for the simple fact that I am right, and I will prove it--from philosophical first principles all the way to the correct scientific interpretations. If no one provides me any links that I think are of high enough quality within the next few days--but, I will assume that some here can because they keep referring to them constantly without citation. In other words, show me your data and I will show you where you are wrong. It's a challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never tolerate the insinuation that the expression of my romantic love, which I know to be moral and right, with another consenting adult that is my equal in intellect and skill , regardless of gender , is immoral. Peikoff himself has gotten so tired of repeating his answer over this point that he answered it with finality on his most recent podcast. Why you would attach such importance to an off-hand comment by Rand which was never followed by any written analysis, but you would discard a more thought-out answer from the man she recognized as his intellectual heir baffles me. Perhaps you're just not culturally comfortable with the idea of sexuality other than your own, and you are trying use Objectivism to excuse what may be an ingrained discomfort from a culture that is sexually repressive.

-----------------------------------------------

Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen

Tot und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and please don't bring up things like adoption and artificial insemination, because that's just a homosexual couple's way of piggy backing off of heterosexuality.

Grant Williams

Just like adoption is the heterosexual's way of piggybacking off heterosexuality?

Sometimes you people amaze me. Where were you when logic was being handed out- under the table?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kainscalia,

I understand if this is a very personal and emotive issue for you, but you've got the check your tone if you expect to get anywhere with this discussion. I happen to disagree with EC on this particular issue, but he's an intelligent man who deserves to be treated with respect -- as are most who participate in this forum. You do nothing to advance your perspective by sniping.

Please note I am not a moderator, so I speak only for myself, not the forum.

[Gets off soap box.]

--Dan Edge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never tolerate the insinuation that the expression of my romantic love, which I know to be moral and right, with another consenting adult that is my equal in intellect and skill , regardless of gender , is immoral. Peikoff himself has gotten so tired of repeating his answer over this point that he answered it with finality on his most recent podcast. Why you would attach such importance to an off-hand comment by Rand which was never followed by any written analysis, but you would discard a more thought-out answer from the man she recognized as his intellectual heir baffles me. Perhaps you're just not culturally comfortable with the idea of sexuality other than your own, and you are trying use Objectivism to excuse what may be an ingrained discomfort from a culture that is sexually repressive.

What?! And that brings me to my next points kids--don't smoke crack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have, and I mentioned it earlier in this thread that I had watched one of my good female friends slowly "evolve" from normal to supposedly becoming a lesbian.

"Evolve?" Oh, please. It's called staying in the closet until you're ready to be honest with both yourself and others.

Yes, let's argue that individuals should be dishonest to their own minds in order to please others. How very "Objectivist." :)

Edited by Tabitha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Evolve?" Oh, please. It's called staying in the closet until you're ready to be honest with both yourself and others.

No, it's not. It's slowly and implicitly choosing as a function of time ones basic sexual premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never tolerate the insinuation that the expression of my romantic love, which I know to be moral and right, with another consenting adult that is my equal in intellect and skill , regardless of gender , is immoral. Peikoff himself has gotten so tired of repeating his answer over this point that he answered it with finality on his most recent podcast.

What! How can you favor Piekoff over an online poster who uses such lofty, intelligent language as "you're on crack."? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What! How can you favor Piekoff over an online poster who uses such lofty, intelligent language as "you're on crack."? :)

What! How can you favor Piekoff to the creator of Objectivism when it comes to her opinion on this subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What! How can you favor Piekoff to the creator of Objectivism when it comes to her opinion on this subject?

Rand also thought there was nothing wrong (ie: hazerdous to the self) with smoking, either; as did most people living in the 60s and 70s. It's called gaining new knowledge about the world as it arises and adjusting your thinking accordingly. Scary thought for some, I know.

Are you implying that were Rand alive today she would be in disagreement with her own intellectual heir? That's a pretty bold assertion.

Edited by Tabitha
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...