Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[EC]

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. Scarey thought for some, I know.

Smoking is something that is primarily a personal value judgment that is open to evaluation via new knowledge.

Sexual identity (or morality in general) is a philosophical principle based on man's nature and the choices he makes with regard to it, and therefore is NOT open to "adjustment" when dealing with principle instead of one's attempts at applying those principles.

[Jake]

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

Because Objectivism requires rational thinkers, not disciples. It's not a favoring of one person over the other, Dr. Peikoff has actually presented a case for homosexuality being outside of morality. Which is much more than one quick comment in an interview, which BTW, is contradicted by a later quote of Harry Binswanger.

How can you favor an earlier quote of Ayn Rand over a description of her position later in life?

[Tabitha]

Because Objectivism requires rational thinkers, not disciples. It's not a favoring of one person over the other, Dr. Peikoff has actually presented a case for homosexuality being outside of morality.

THANK YOU!

[EC]

Because Objectivism requires rational thinkers, not disciples. It's not a favoring of one person over the other, Dr. Peikoff has actually presented a case for homosexuality being outside of morality. Which is much more than one quick comment in an interview, which BTW, is contradicted by a later quote of Harry Binswanger.

How can you favor an earlier quote of Ayn Rand over a description of her position later in life?

First, I know of no Objectivist "disciples". Such a thing would be a contradiction in terms. Second, I think Peikoff has actually presented no such thing, although it is correct to say that he made an attempt. He also "presented a case" why one should have voted for John Kerry in '04-- a Kerry presidentcy would have been a disaster.

BTW, the "quote" by Binswanger is hearsay, while Miss Rand presented her views on the subject first hand. Which of these should a rational person put more stock in? Besides that, it doesn't really matter anyway what Piekoff, Binswanger, or even Miss Rand herself think and/or thought on this subject (or any other for that matter. All that really matters is what is true in reality.

[Nyronus]

First, I know of no Objectivist "disciples". Such a thing would be a contradiction in terms. Second, I think Peikoff has actually presented no such thing, although it is correct to say that he made an attempt. He also "presented a case" why one should have voted for John Kerry in '04-- a Kerry presidentcy would have been a disaster.

BTW, the "quote" by Binswanger is hearsay, while Miss Rand presented her views on the subject first hand. Which of these should a rational person put more stock in? Besides that, it doesn't really matter anyway what Piekoff, Binswanger, or even Miss Rand herself think and/or thought on this subject (or any other for that matter. All that really matters is what is true in reality.

And you know that a Kerry presidency would be a disaster how? Certainly could only be about as bad as Bush... oh, wait.

I could care less what you say this person says or what that person didn't say or how you, EC, throw in red herrings to avoid defending your position. I am still patiently waiting for that essay. I am eager to see how you reconcile your view that sexuality is within the realm of choice, and how, at the same time, homosexuality violates some sort of intrinsic higher nature of man, as is implied by your previous arguments.

[kainscalia]

Besides that, it doesn't really matter anyway what Piekoff, Binswanger, or even Miss Rand herself think and/or thought on this subject (or any other for that matter. All that really matters is what is true in reality.

Would you even be discussing this subject had not Rand made the aforementioned comment?

[EC]

And you know that a Kerry presidency would be a disaster how? Certainly could only be about as bad as Bush... oh, wait.

Oh yeah, lower taxes and a war on terror--horrible policies versus essentially all socialist positions. Do the math.

I could care less what you say this person says or what that person didn't say or how you, EC, throw in red herrings to avoid defending your position.

Name these "red herrings".

I am still patiently waiting for that essay.

Um... good for you? Don't worry if I say that I am going to do something-- I do it.

I am eager to see how you reconcile your view that sexuality is within the realm of choice, and how, at the same time, homosexuality violates some sort of intrinsic higher nature of man, as is implied by your previous arguments.

This is a straw man of my position. I've never claimed man had any "intrinsic" nature, but he most certainly has a nature and via implication of his volition the need to know how he ought to live derived from what he objectively is.

I still haven't seen anybody rational defend that homosexuality is amoral or even offer an argument except "Peikoff says so".

[RationalBiker]

All that really matters is what is true in reality.

On this we agree. Where we differ is that I think in reality man's mind is more important in the process of choosing his values than his penis.

[Nyronus]

Oh yeah, lower taxes and a war on terror--horrible policies versus essentially all socialist positions. Do the math.

Oh yeah, a poorly handled and needless war, that we were only losing until very recently, getting Americans killed without any benefit to anyone coupled with the expansion of theocratic policies and an expansion of government in direct violation of individual rights. Definitely worth lower taxes.

Name these "red herrings".

He also "presented a case" why one should have voted for John Kerry in '04-- a Kerry presidentcy would have been a disaster.

This is a straw man of my position. I've never claimed man had any "intrinsic" nature, but he most certainly has a nature and via implication of his volition the need to know how he ought to live derived from what he objectively is.

I still haven't seen anybody rational defend that homosexuality is amoral or even offer an argument except "Peikoff says so".

You either have not been reading this thread right or your plain lying. Many people have offered different arguments for the amoral nature of sexuality, and I know one who offered moral reasons for being a homosexual.

As far as I can tell, your argument for the immorality of homosexuality is that, essentially, tab A should always go into slot B. The basic is claim that homosexuality is unnatural, which implies that man has a nature beyond choice, by the very fact that he can violate it by choice. I hold a challenge to you EC, to demonstrate, without refrencing terms such as "natural," why homosexuals should take up a path that leads them to misery and discomfort and still call themselves Objectivists. You rail against the lack of evidence for the opposing position, yet you present, as of yet, no evidence that homosexuality is based off of evasion except appeals to man's "nature." I understand though that I lack evidence as to the particulars of your position, hence why I am waiting for that essay. If I am making straw-men it is because you've yet to clarify your real position and have instead spent time being snarky and tossing up red herrings.

[JASKN]

EC, I also think you are somehow be avoiding the arguments made for homosexuality and against your position. Several people have done it, myself included, over several threads. I'm perplexed at how you could have missed all of them.

Here is some evidence of you in a contradiction, or maybe you are just not paying attention to what you have written:

Of course, Peikoff didn't create Objectivism either, but it's creator did condemn homosexuality as immoral and disgusting.

And today you wrote:

Besides that, it doesn't really matter anyway what Piekoff, Binswanger, or even Miss Rand herself think and/or thought on this subject (or any other for that matter. All that really matters is what is true in reality.

That first quote was your reply to a post I made linking to Peikoff's podcast, where he explained why he thought that homosexuality was irrelevant to Objectivism or philosophy as such. Your counter argument to his argument was essentially "Rand said so." So, if you are now saying that what Rand said about it doesn't matter, you still haven't provided an argument against Peikoff's... or, we're going to need to read your other posts to understand your argument.

And your other posts all appeal to "man's nature." Yet you have not described what man's nature means, or how one violates it by being homosexual (or continually choosing to be homosexual?). So in essence, from my perspective, you are kind of running around in circles.

[JMartins]

A very openly homosexual friend of mine completed the five year long undergraduate program at the Objectivist Academic Center as #1 in the class this summer. He's been accepted into the graduate program. Clearly the staff at ARI -- at least those lecturing at OAC -- are not adverse to openly homosexual Objectivists.

Edited July 27, 2008 by JMartins

[fletch]

Besides that, it doesn't really matter anyway what Piekoff, Binswanger, or even Miss Rand herself think and/or thought on this subject (or any other for that matter. All that really matters is what is true in reality.

That s a good way to look at this issue. So, "what is true in reality" for you? Do you believe that you could voluntarily choose to alter your sexual orientation? Can you make the conscious choice to suddenly find men sexually attractive and not women?

[Alfa]

But what if the imorality lies in the man not fully recognizing that he has a penis(i.e. evasion) and that it's important in determining his values.

The development of sexuality is a gradual process that "just happens" as we grow up. That's why a lot of gay people will tell you that they have sort of always known, just as heterosexuals have always known. It's a series of judgements we make of reality. A young boy migh for example start to notice that girls are different and intriguing, and as he discovers further he sees that they are nice and cute in a way that boys are not. So, from there it then leads to the boy wanting to be with girls. Or, he could choose not to see or integrate some of the facts, like for instance that gilrs are nice and cute and a much better complement to his own nature than another boy could ever be.

If you instrospect deeply and honestly I bet you can see some key moments where you noticed things that lead to your sexual preferences. I know I can.

The fact that men have penises and women vaginas is by no means uninportant. It sets up two different psychologies - different polarities. It's only in contrast to a woman that a man can fully appreciate his masculinity, and it's only by looking up to a man that a woman can fully appreciate her femininity. Homosexuals cannot have that in the same way. They either don't have the polarity at all or they try to fake it. Either way, they are evading their nature as men being men and women being women.

[JASKN]

They either don't have the polarity at all or they try to fake it. Either way, they are evading their nature as men being men and women being women.

Regular homosexuals (ie. those sans social issues) have no problem with this "polarity." In fact, if you were to meet these homosexuals in person, you would be hard-pressed to pull out any irregularities at all. You would probably just think that they looked and interacted like any other regular romantic couple.

Or perhaps you mean that their physical sexual parts are not compatible, but that argument has already been hashed out and refuted. The "fit" of male and female genitalia is irrelevant to the vast majority of romantic relationships. Different things work for different people sexually, and the "fit" is one of many factors that all couples work with.

So, those two things are not relevant to the "nature" of men concerning romantic relationships. That is, they don't matter concerning one's sexuality. Do you mean something else by the term "nature"?

[Jake]

The development of sexuality is a gradual process that "just happens" as we grow up. That's why a lot of gay people will tell you that they have sort of always known, just as heterosexuals have always known.

Maybe, people have always known their sexuality because it always was, or was biologically determined to be. I think having always known lends credence to the "it's not a choice" argument.

If you instrospect deeply and honestly I bet you can see some key moments where you noticed things that lead to your sexual preferences. I know I can.

I remember being attracted to girls since kindergarten - I specifically remember orchestrating a means by which I could sit next to a specific girl in class without the teacher knowing. However, this attraction certainly was not consciously sexual, it was however completely different than my interest in befriending other males. I had no knowledge of sex, and I was unfamiliar with female genitalia, so there is no way any such details lead to my attraction, and it certainly was not a choice.

The fact that men have penises and women vaginas is by no means uninportant. It sets up two different psychologies - different polarities.

You can't just state this as fact. You must prove that having a penis determines one's psychology, and I think you will have a hard time doing so.

[kainscalia]

It seems JASKN has caught you in a rather egregious contradiction here, EC. Are you picking up the gauntlet?

[RationalBiker]

The fact that men have penises and women vaginas is by no means uninportant.

Nor is it by any means the determining factor in which sex one should choose as a partner.

A young boy migh for example start to notice that girls are different and intriguing, and as he discovers further he sees that they are nice and cute in a way that boys are not.

That might be great if he values "cute". I have seen boys who are nice though, and I'm not homosexual. He might also notice that individuals are different and intriguing in a variety of wholly individual ways in which their sex plays a less important role than who they are as a person, not that there is any intrinsic value to "difference".

It's only in contrast to a woman that a man can fully appreciate his masculinity, and it's only by looking up to a man that a woman can fully appreciate her femininity.

That makes for a nice statement, but statements do not make for proof.

I think my issue with the whole "homosexuality is immoral" argument is that it undercuts the nature of people as INDIVIDUALS and attempts to ascribe a false "proper" role or value system based on their sex. I'm also not convinced that there is any evasion going on just because a boy ends up liking another boy, etc. What I see appears to me to be people attempting to apply intrinsic value to their personal conception of "difference" and "complimentary" to the equation and then saying everyone should be like that. I've known enough homosexuals to see that this simply is not true. From my perspective, the philosophical argument fails when it does not stand up to my own observations of reality and people.

[Alfa]

Regular homosexuals (ie. those sans social issues) have no problem with this "polarity." In fact, if you were to meet these homosexuals in person, you would be hard-pressed to pull out any irregularities at all. You would probably just think that they looked and interacted like any other regular romantic couple.

Or perhaps you mean that their physical sexual parts are not compatible, but that argument has already been hashed out and refuted. The "fit" of male and female genitalia is irrelevant to the vast majority of romantic relationships. Different things work for different people sexually, and the "fit" is one of many factors that all couples work with.

So, those two things are not relevant to the "nature" of men concerning romantic relationships. That is, they don't matter concerning one's sexuality. Do you mean something else by the term "nature"?

There's one big difference in gay relationsships - you have two people of the same sex. This means that they either act like they are the same sex(which I believe is the most common) or they act like opposite sexes. Neither way is complimentary of the nature of their sexes.

It is for example not very... shall we say manly, for a man to act like a woman. I would say that this is strictly against his nature as a man. Still, that's what some men do in gay relationships, and I think that is evasion on both parts(and none of them can have a very high self-esteem when it comes to their own sexuality).

In the case with two of the same sort, be they masculine or feminine, we must recognize that masculinity and femininity exists as contrasts in a relationship. Without that contrast you cannot fully appreciate yourself as a man or a woman.

Part of that contrast, btw, is physical. Men are bigger, stronger more dominating etc. Sexually there's a difference in men trying to "take" a woman, while women act more passively by letting them. So it's not only that the same genitalia doesent fit, having the same psychology also creates problems.

Maybe, people have always known their sexuality because it always was, or was biologically determined to be. I think having always known lends credence to the "it's not a choice" argument.

What would you then say to people who claim they have "cured" their homosexuality?

remember being attracted to girls since kindergarten - I specifically remember orchestrating a means by which I could sit next to a specific girl in class without the teacher knowing. However, this attraction certainly was not consciously sexual, it was however completely different than my interest in befriending other males. I had no knowledge of sex, and I was unfamiliar with female genitalia, so there is no way any such details lead to my attraction, and it certainly was not a choice.

My earliest memories are also from kindergarten. That's where I think I started developing a sexuality. I also had a very similar experience with a girl.

Me and this girl were left rather late one evening and since both were kind of bored we decided to try and have some fun(in a completely innocent way). So we played there and I tried to understand how this girl worked. I mean, how come girls always play with dolls and that kind of boring stuff? Boys do much cooler things. Anyway, as we struggled to get along I started to become more and more fascinated at our differences, and still having lots of fun. I remember this clearly because it was like discovering a new world and beginning to see girls in a different way.

So this is where I discovered that girls are great. I think however that I could have made completely different judgements that later on would have led to different preferences.

You can't just state this as fact. You must prove that having a penis determines one's psychology, and I think you will have a hard time doing so.

I think it's a well established fact that different hormones play a big role in our development. Although I don't have any scientific references I think any biology book will agree with me here. Male and female brains are also different, possibly due to the effect of hormones from birth til after puberty.

We also cannot separate mind from body. It does make a difference that males are bigger and stronger than females. Because we are built differently we also must act diferently to have sex, it's like operating under different rules. Because we are different we must also think differently.

[RationalBiker]

You must prove that having a penis determines one's psychology, and I think you will have a hard time doing so.

Yea, I think I'll call it he "penis determinism" argument. Haha!!

[Alfa]

Nor is it by any means the determining factor in which sex one should choose as a partner.

What is the determining factor for that?

That might be great if he values "cute". I have seen boys who are nice though, and I'm not homosexual. He might also notice that individuals are different and intriguing in a variety of wholly individual ways in which their sex plays a less important role than who they are as a person, not that there is any intrinsic value to "difference".

You can change cute to any description of femininity you like. So yes, it's great if he values femininity, and he should do that if he values himself as a man.

Of course individuals can be different and intruiging in a variety of ways. After all, people are individuals, however... they are individuals of a certain gender.

That makes for a nice statement, but statements do not make for proof.

I must admit that i'm not too good with Objectivist epistemology, but... do you think we can know light without knowing dark?

I think my issue with the whole "homosexuality is immoral" argument is that it undercuts the nature of people as INDIVIDUALS and attempts to ascribe a false "proper" role or value system based on their sex. I'm also not convinced that there is any evasion going on just because a boy ends up liking another boy, etc. What I see appears to me to be people attempting to apply intrinsic value to their personal conception of "difference" and "complimentary" to the equation and then saying everyone should be like that. I've known enough homosexuals to see that this simply is not true. From my perspective, the philosophical argument fails when it does not stand up to my own observations of reality and people.

It does not undercut the nature of people as individuals. The argument merely states that people are individuals of a certain gender, or nature if you like. It's part of our indentity as individuals. And the value system comes from setting yourself as the most fundamental of all values. It's merely saying that; "i'm a man of certain identity and that identity determines how I should live life and what my values are". The complimentary differences are therefore not intrinsic values but instead necessary to fully appreciate ones self.

Can you clarify a little bit on your observations on homosexuals and how this negates what I have written?

[EC]

EC, I also think you are somehow be avoiding the arguments made for homosexuality and against your position. Several people have done it, myself included, over several threads. I'm perplexed at how you could have missed all of them.

Here is some evidence of you in a contradiction, or maybe you are just not paying attention to what you have written:

And today you wrote:

That first quote was your reply to a post I made linking to Peikoff's podcast, where he explained why he thought that homosexuality was irrelevant to Objectivism or philosophy as such. Your counter argument to his argument was essentially "Rand said so." So, if you are now saying that what Rand said about it doesn't matter, you still haven't provided an argument against Peikoff's... or, we're going to need to read your other posts to understand your argument.

And your other posts all appeal to "man's nature." Yet you have not described what man's nature means, or how one violates it by being homosexual (or continually choosing to be homosexual?). So in essence, from my perspective, you are kind of running around in circles.

There's no contradiction there. I said I would trust Rand's statements over Peikoffs when it comes to Objectivism because she's it creator, but in the end it doesn't matter who said what, because it is reality that decides what is right not any particular person. My position is Peikoff is wrong. I don't have to pick through his writing to explain to you why just like I don't have to renounce a report on global warming piece by piece. All you have to say is when viewed from the proper philosophical framework it must be wrong.

I have repeatedly described what man's nature is and it has very little to do with body part A and sticking tabs in different slots. And your wrong NOBODY here has offered ANY rational argument defending homosexuality because there is none. I do see a lot of homosexual defending their hedonistic choice to be gay and then claiming that they were "biologically determined" to be gay. That ISN'T an argument there is NO SUCH THING as "biological determinism". That is NOT and can NOT be a "defense". Is it right for man to use his mind? Yes. Is it for him to choose a compatible mate of the opposite sex? Yes.

That s a good way to look at this issue. So, "what is true in reality" for you? Do you believe that you could voluntarily choose to alter your sexual orientation? Can you make the conscious choice to suddenly find men sexually attractive and not women?

I could, but I wouldn't because I choose to be a moral man.

[JASKN]

I have repeatedly described what man's nature is and it has very little to do with body part A and sticking tabs in different slots. And your wrong NOBODY here has offered ANY rational argument defending homosexuality because there is none. I do see a lot of homosexual defending their hedonistic choice to be gay and then claiming that they were "biologically determined" to be gay. That ISN'T an argument there is NO SUCH THING as "biological determinism". That is NOT and can NOT be a "defense". Is it right for man to use his mind? Yes. Is it for him to choose a compatible mate of the opposite sex? Yes.

Well, we are just going to disagree. I will note, however, that I am at least open to an argument that I might have chosen my sexuality, or whatever else, if there is ever evidence that it was so. You, however, have already decided that there is no argument except yours.

A few things:

Hedonism is choosing something pleasurable in life without regard to context, that is without regard to its effect on the rest of one's life. "Hedonism" with the appropriate context is simply doing something fun because it is fun. Homosexuals that are in moral romantic relationships cannot be described as hedonistic. Homosexuals that never chose their sexuality (and "implicitly choosing" is the same thing here, since even with that premise one's sexuality cannot be implicitly chosen back) cannot be considered hedonistic, since hedonism actually involves immediate choices.

Also, "biological determinism" happens all the time. When I'm tired, I'm grumpy. When I'm down about something, I'm lazy. When I've ran five miles, I'm more ambitious. Physiology influences my brain. It is not a stretch to guess that physiology influences sexuality, especially since we have an actual sexual maturity! People go from no sexual impulses to huge sexual impulses.

Lastly, since it is obvious to virtually every person (certainly everyone I have ever met) that sexuality cannot be changed back as an adult or teenager, there is no moral evaluation to be made concerning sexuality as such, that is concerning which sex one is attracted to. The moral evaluations are made about the kind of person one wants within that sex. Since nothing can be changed (that is, decided upon), regardless of whatever the cause, morally it makes no difference which sex a person wants to get romantic with.

[JASKN]

There's one big difference in gay relationsships - you have two people of the same sex. This means that they either act like they are the same sex(which I believe is the most common) or they act like opposite sexes. Neither way is complimentary of the nature of their sexes.

I will just say that it doesn't work like this. There is no psychological (or sexual) conflict in a homosexual romantic relationship. As I've said, it is almost identical to a heterosexual romantic relationship. For a little context, imagine a few gay people you've known. As a person, in net, were they much different than other people you know? If you think of any differences, try to put them in the scope of the whole person and decide how important (essential) they were, when considering everything.

[KevinDW78]

What would you then say to people who claim they have "cured" their homosexuality?

They don't exist. Only in church propoganda.

[Nyronus]

I have repeatedly described what man's nature is and it has very little to do with body part A and sticking tabs in different slots. And your wrong NOBODY here has offered ANY rational argument defending homosexuality because there is none. I do see a lot of homosexual defending their hedonistic choice to be gay and then claiming that they were "biologically determined" to be gay. That ISN'T an argument there is NO SUCH THING as "biological determinism". That is NOT and can NOT be a "defense". Is it right for man to use his mind? Yes. Is it for him to choose a compatible mate of the opposite sex? Yes.

And therein lies the contradiction of your stance. You claim that there is no such thing as biological determinism, i.e., man has no higher nature than reason and volition. Yet, in your condemnation of homosexuality you claim a violation to a nature that, implicitly, must be higher than that of choice or reason for choice to violate it so. If there is such a higher nature, then what stops it from swinging one way in the other, I ask you? You are in contradiction. Another poster cites hormones as an influence upon sexuality, yet seems to scoff that genes, which control such hormone production could have any, any, influence at all.

And what is wrong with Hedonism, I ask you? Being happy is what living is about. Even in production we should be happy. Are you so driven to condemn men because they do what gives them joy in life? I hold that this appeal to nature is in fact a bare assertion. So far all you have said, ad infinium, is that homosexuality is in violation of "nature" (while brow-beating and condemning those that say that the nature could be homosexual as well). You have not, before me, defined this nature. Others seem to think so as well. We're the ignorant ones here. You have something to prove, and, until you give us proof, we can only sit here and scratch our heads in confusion.

That is why I want to see that essay. So I can see, as you claim, what you really mean, but, be warned. You say you refuse to go through scientific evidence because it is contradiction with your philosophical presuppositions. I have no such qualm. I will come at your paper with a scalpel. If your paper is concurrent with the facts of reality, I should not be able to touch it. Oh, but heaven help you if you're wrong in the slightest.