Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[KendallJ]

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

Dude, a failed war on terror. A montary policy that has done more harm than the lowered taxes and the largest increase in socialized medicine in history, and pandering to the religious right.

The view of republicans as an impossible attempt to defend capitalism has gained significant momentum withing objectivist circles while you've been in your cave. Presenting this and other such matters as decided and closed to discussion or debate is disingenusous.

It is striking that you pull out quotes when you need them, and dispense with all the ones you don't to make it appear that the issues are resolved, even per Rand.

[RationalBiker]

What is the determining factor for that?

Taken as a whole, that person with whom is one shares similar values and a similar sense of life as well as whom they find sexually attractive. If it is a person of the same sex, that is the person they SHOULD pursue. Or, depending on the individual, that person who offers a similar sense of life, but perhaps differing values and interests. The determining factor or factors can vary with the individual.

So yes, it's great if he values femininity, and he should do that if he values himself as a man.

Valuing feminity is not a requirement for valuing oneself as a man, nor is this complimentary difference necessary to 'fully appreciate' one's own life or qualities as a man.

After all, people are individuals, however... they are individuals of a certain gender.

Yes, of a certain gender and whom may in concert with reality prefer a certain gender sexually, even the same gender.

It does not undercut the nature of people as individuals.

As presented in the argument that I have seen so far, yes, it does. The argument says "you have a penis so therefore you must like a person with a vagina or else you are immoral." Rather, my argument says, you are an individual and as such can rationally choose to use your penis with a person who also has a penis if you value the qualities and sense of life of that person; if they help to fulfill your life. On the other hand, even people with different sexual organs can lead totally unfulfilled lives if they don't rationally seek mates that are right for them.

The complimentary differences are therefore not intrinsic values but instead necessary to fully appreciate ones self.

You say necessary, I say intrinsic, but they mean the same thing to a person who "chooses life". Food is a necessary value to a person who chooses life; it has intrinsic value in that context.

Nevertheless, complimentary differences are not necessary to fully appreciate oneself. I do accept that perhaps for some individuals, complimentary differences may be necessary to fully appreciate oneself.

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

I know two homosexuals at work that have been together happily for several years now. Both lead happy, productive lives, have a wonderful sense of life and appear confident in themselves and competent at what they do. The pride that they demonstrate, both personally and professionally, is notable. They seem as good a couple, if not better, than many heterosexual couples I know. I see no evidence that they are evading anything, or that their lives would be the least bit improved or any happier than if they tried to go straight and get chicks. I see no evidence that they are causing any disvalue (or being immoral) to their lives.

Now, I suspect that you might say, they aren't "really happy", or that they cannot "truly know and appreciate themselves", but until you show me evidence of that, I'm going with my own observations. Also, I suspect you might say (or ask) "how can I really know what their lives are like or whether or not they could be better?" A fair question, and one which would apply in reverse should you say any of the above. I can only 'know' as much as appears to me and I can only take them at their word for as credible as they have established themselves over the last several years that I have known them.

I really have no expectation for you to just accept my observations. That's understandable. Likewise, as I've said, I will not necessarily abandon my observations for someone else's opinion or theory, particularly when they are not in concert.

(Edit: separated replies to different posters made too close in time together)

Edited July 28, 2008 by RationalBiker

[RationalBiker]

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.

Wrong on all counts.

1) I've offered a rational argument.

2) I'm not homosexual.

3) I'm not a hedonist.

4) My argument doesn't rest on anything being biologically determined. Quite to the contrary, I'm the one here arguing that sexuality is not biologically determined.

Edited July 28, 2008 by RationalBiker
Added last sentence

[kainscalia]

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.

Here I thought it was all about acting like individuals, now it turns out that it's all about Gonad Determinism. Silly Dagny, off running railroads instead of staying home and birthing children.

[kainscalia]

Is it right for man to use his mind? Yes. Is it for him to choose a compatible mate of the opposite sex? Yes.

Then you must prove why is it wrong to choose a compatible mate of the same sex if sexual determinism is not a factor and therefore procreation is not the primary object of sexual intercourse when in the scope of Romantic Love. Face it, the only argument you can use that puts a same-sex couple in an immoral light is if you use sexual determinism as the base of your argument, you cannot do it on philosophical grounds, nor even psychological grounds.

Femininity and Masculinity are two concepts that evolved from socially ascribed roles based on physical determinism- roles that have been slowly eroding the more people have come to realize that neither a penis nor a vagina should dictate how they behave over their own minds. Instead of being caught up in such third world notions as Masculinity and Femininity, as an Objectivist and a logical man you should solely be preoccupied with individuality. To create social taboos based on whether your body parts dangle or not is to regress upon a state of primitiveness surrounding the concept of sexuality and identity and, quite frankly, it is thoroughly ridiculous. You don't strike me as very objective. You are trying to create two sexes of the same species into two different species-- and what's worse, you are trying to do so with the only creature on creation (as far as we know) who has gone beyond the rudimentary nature of the animalistic state and whose primary existence is mentally, socially an individual, regardless of gender. Gender and sexuality do not matter except in the fields of medicine and biology where they apply (childbirth, hygiene, etc)-- if you want to equate man's "Nature" at the genital level, why stop there? Let's say it would be immoral for sighted people to marry the blind. We can even start building a case for race--- I know Rand wrote a very lengthy essay about race, but hey---- Nature is nature: just as you have individuals of different genders, you have individuals of different races. Just as you can only have men coupling with women being moral, so something along similar lines must stand for the different races, regardless of what Rand said--- after all, if you can conveniently disagree with Peikoff without "having to say" why precisely, I can conveniently disagree with Rand's essay in order to craft this little pseudo-argument in the spirit of your previous posts.

What's up, Doc?

Edited July 28, 2008 by kainscalia

[EC]

Dude, a failed war on terror. A montary policy that has done more harm than the lowered taxes and the largest increase in socialized medicine in history, and pandering to the religious right.

The view of republicans as an impossible attempt to defend capitalism has gained significant momentum withing objectivist circles while you've been in your cave. Presenting this and other such matters as decided and closed to discussion or debate is disingenusous.

Oh, I was not implicitly defending Bush or the Republican agenda, I'm just saying that Kerry would have been much worse. You think we have a failed war on terror now, if that man had been in office he probably would have tried to appease the islamo-fascists which would have lead to a another ticking time bomb for an attack, (not that we don't have one now) but it could have been MUCH worse.

It is striking that you pull out quotes when you need them, and dispense with all the ones you don't to make it appear that the issues are resolved, even per Rand.

No, it is just "resolved" per Eric Clayton; until someone can prove me wrong to my satisfaction, which is possible (see the abortion thread as evidence), but so far has NOT been done here.

4) My argument doesn't rest on anything being biologically determined. Quite to the contrary, I'm the one here arguing that sexuality is not biologically determined.

I'll go back and read what you wrote, this is a very long thread.

[Alfa]

Then you must prove why is it wrong to choose a compatible mate of the same sex if sexual determinism is not a factor and therefore procreation is not the primary object of sexual intercourse when in the scope of Romantic Love. Face it, the only argument you can use that puts a same-sex couple in an immoral light is if you use sexual determinism as the base of your argument, you cannot do it on philosophical grounds, nor even psychological grounds.

Femininity and Masculinity are two concepts that evolved from socially ascribed roles based on physical determinism- roles that have been slowly eroding the more people have come to realize that neither a penis nor a vagina should dictate how they behave over their own minds. Instead of being caught up in such third world notions as Masculinity and Femininity, as an Objectivist and a logical man you should solely be preoccupied with individuality. To create social taboos based on whether your body parts dangle or not is to regress upon a state of primitiveness surrounding the concept of sexuality and identity and, quite frankly, it is thoroughly ridiculous. You don't strike me as very objective. You are trying to create two sexes of the same species into two different species-- and what's worse, you are trying to do so with the only creature on creation (as far as we know) who has gone beyond the rudimentary nature of the animalistic state and whose primary existence is mentally, socially an individual, regardless of gender. Gender and sexuality do not matter except in the fields of medicine and biology where they apply (childbirth, hygiene, etc)-- if you want to equate man's "Nature" at the genital level, why stop there? Let's say it would be immoral for sighted people to marry the blind. We can even start building a case for race--- I know Rand wrote a very lengthy essay about race, but hey---- Nature is nature: just as you have individuals of different genders, you have individuals of different races. Just as you can only have men coupling with women being moral, so something along similar lines must stand for the different races, regardless of what Rand said--- after all, if you can conveniently disagree with Peikoff without "having to say" why precisely, I can conveniently disagree with Rand's essay in order to craft this little pseudo-argument in the spirit of your previous posts.

What's up, Doc?

This is just disgusting....

First of all, you mentioned what an Objectivist should be preouccupied with. Well, Ayn Rand's position on masculinity and femininity is quite clear. First you can read the famous quote regarding a woman president. Then I suggest you read The Fountainhead, specifically the part where Roark takes Dominique. That's Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It also shows that Ayn Rand fully understood the sexual polarity between men and women, and she did so without any compromise.

The idea of freeing oneself from gender roles is the most evil idea that has come from feminism. It's objective is destruction, and it is not the destruction of something bad for the sake of something good, it is instead based on pure malevolence. The purpoise of such ideas are to destroy men(and as a result of that they also seek to destroy any proper women) because they are men, because these people hate and fear men. By convincing a lot of men that they have no balls these feminists have succeeded very well.

Femininity and Masculinity are two concepts that evolved from socially ascribed roles based on physical determinism- roles that have been slowly eroding the more people have come to realize that neither a penis nor a vagina should dictate how they behave over their own minds.

What you are essentially saying is that gender is a social construction based on physical characteristics, and it is of no importance if we use mind over matter. Well, cultural context matters for how we percieve masculinity and femininity, but the foundation is our biological nature. You can of course evade this and choose not to act accordingly. Just be aware that you are evading the facts of reality and you are separating mind and body.

To create social taboos based on whether your body parts dangle or not is to regress upon a state of primitiveness surrounding the concept of sexuality and identity and, quite frankly, it is thoroughly ridiculous.

This is also an argument feminists use to destroy (male) sexuality. It's primitive to adhere to "old fashioned" gender roles, and specifically the male sexuality is primitive and ugly. Instead we must be open minded and not limit ourselves to such beliefs. There are no sexual taboos as long as the sex is consentual - everything goes. What it is, essentially, is sexuality without identity. It's sex without purpoise - perversion rather than celebration.

You are trying to create two sexes of the same species into two different species-- and what's worse, you are trying to do so with the only creature on creation (as far as we know) who has gone beyond the rudimentary nature of the animalistic state and whose primary existence is mentally, socially an individual, regardless of gender.

No. Sexual polarity is about two sides of the same coin - two genders of the same species.

We are not individuals regardless of gender. We are individuals of a specific indentity, a specific nature, and gender is part of our identity.

Let's say it would be immoral for sighted people to marry the blind. We can even start building a case for race--- I know Rand wrote a very lengthy essay about race, but hey---- Nature is nature: just as you have individuals of different genders, you have individuals of different races. Just as you can only have men coupling with women being moral, so something along similar lines must stand for the different races, regardless of what Rand said--- after all, if you can conveniently disagree with Peikoff without "having to say" why precisely, I can conveniently disagree with Rand's essay in order to craft this little pseudo-argument in the spirit of your previous posts.

Now you are being stupid.

[JJJJ]

It seems like people fall in the same trap over and over again, and forget what is the "master" and what is the "servant". Objectivism is the servant, a way for you to achieve happiness(the master). You should apply objectivism, in order to be happy, not you should do A, so you can "achieve" objectivism.

This is relevant in the sense of, what should a person that is attracted to the same sex, do, IN ORDER TO BE HAPPY? His happiness is the factor he should take into acount, not the fact that he should stay true to every conclusion Rand may have made at one point or another.

And i have yet to hear a single argument for why a man who is not attracted to women, should choose selibacy and refrain from homosexual romance with a moral person he values.

My own estimate, that may be or may not be wrong, is that in this case Rand fell into the trap that collectivists often fall in. Due to the fact that many homosexuals are whim-worshipping, hedonistic hippies, she made the wrong conclusion, that it is the homosexuality that is the immoral thing, even though it was the whim-worshipping and hedonism. Just like many people become racists because they see so many immoral black people, not understanding that the immoral part is not the skin color, but the ideas and actions of a person. Rand did not usually like package deals, but in this case she sadly seemed to do that.....

Its sad that so many homosexuals are immoral, but it doesnt mean that homosexuality is the immoral thing. Just like many arabs are immoral, it is not their ethnicity that makes them immoral. The opposers of homosexuality should really try and focus on homosexuality itself, and not try to make it into some big package deal..... Why is it wrong for a person who values a person of the same sex, and wants to engage in romantic activities with him, to do so?

[brian0918]

Miss Rand presented her views on the subject first hand. Which of these should a rational person put more stock in?

If she simply made a side comment, well then a rational person should disregard it. Has she explained her view in any detail? Or are you simply arguing from authority?

[Capitalism Forever]

Objectivism is the servant, a way for you to achieve happiness(the master). You should apply objectivism, in order to be happy, not you should do A, so you can "achieve" objectivism.

This is relevant in the sense of, what should a person that is attracted to the same sex, do, IN ORDER TO BE HAPPY? His happiness is the factor he should take into acount

[...]

she made the wrong conclusion, that it is the homosexuality that is the immoral thing, even though it was the whim-worshipping and hedonism.

(emphasis mine)

You're really making this too easy for me!

In the first part of your post, you pretty much make happiness (an emotion) the standard of value. You don't literally say "Happiness is the standard of value," but you very emphatically imply that it is the only thing that ultimately counts, the only fundamental factor one should consider when choosing one's actions, the true "master" to be served by all you do--in other words, the standard.

In the second part, you give whim-worship and hedonism the condemnation they deserve. But what is hedonism? Taking positive emotions, such as pleasure and happiness, as the standard of your action, without regard to their objective basis or lack thereof. What is a whim? An emotion without reference to an underlying rational evaluation. Whim-worship and hedonism are acting based on whatever feels good, and never questioning the reasons behind the feelings--not because you trust your emotions to be usually well-integrated with your rational evaluations and representative of your standard of value, but because you hold emotions to be indications of value in themselves--because they are your standard of value.

This is the great inescapable contradiction of all those Objectivists who want to exempt sexual desires from an objective existential foundation. You can either make an unintegrated "It feels good" the master of your life, or you can make your life qua man the master of your desires--but you cannot do both. There can be only one master.

[brian0918]

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.

Why is a penis more important in determining your values than, say, having an extra finger? Why does a specific body part imply having certain values? Why does anything beyond the content of your mind determine what you value?

And what of hermaphrodites? Are they incapable of having values? Surely the two competing body parts cancel out their respective values, leaving the individual amoral and apathetic about existence...

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 maybe that boy is simply denying "his true nature".

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.

What is "his own nature"? Why do you get to define what is "his own nature"? Why is it that whenever he does something you disagree with, you frame it as him "denying facts" and "denying his nature", but when he likewise chooses something you agree with, you frame it as him "accepting reality". Do you really believe that all that is involved in rational thought is framing situations in a way that supports your conclusions, entirely separate from context and the facts of reality?

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

It does? Maybe you are able to oversimplify things by only choosing to see two categories. Does that mean there really are only two psychological categories? You have shown no evidence to support this.

It's only in contrast to a woman that a man can fully appreciate his masculinity

According to who? You? If a man says he fully appreciates his masculinity when he is with another man, can you rationally argue that he is wrong without assuming that he has an innate "nature" that is always true regardless of his perceptions and rational conclusions?

They either don't have the polarity at all or they try to fake it.

Again you think you are providing evidence by framing a situation in a way that supports your conclusion. You have provided no evidence or rationale. When a heterosexual acts heterosexually, you frame it as "acting according to one's nature". When a homosexual acts homosexually, you frame it as "contradicting one's nature" or "trying to fake it". You have not provided any actual reasoning, though.

Edited July 28, 2008 by brian0918

[Capitalism Forever]

penises and vaginas

...are not the only relevant difference. Let's not forget about testosterone and estrogen/progesterone.

[brian0918]

there is NO SUCH THING as "biological determinism".

Then what do you call your repeated statements that men have true "natures" and women have true"natures" that would be immoral to choose to go against? This is simply biological determinism that avoids using the words inherent, innate, etc. This is just as bogus as Creationism being relabeled as Intelligent Design, and God being replaced with Intelligent Being.

The simple fact is: You're relabeling biological determinism as "one's true sexual nature".

Let me present another situation to you:

1. A person acting rationally decides they value X, Y, and Z, for A, B, C sound reasons.

2. That person looks for someone who holds the same values for the same reasons, in order to share and prosper in those values.

3. They decide between themselves how to represent the culmination of their values. If this involves sexual gratification, they act accordingly.

Nowhere does this involve picking a sex, however this seems entirely rational from beginning to end. Whatever sex you end up with should be of no concern provided they agree with your values for the same reasons. The only opposition I can envision to this is the following:

a) an aversion rooted in the belief that such a situation would require you to personally select someone of the same sex

an empty, contrived objection attempting to cut the discussion off by holding up sexual preference as the primary value to which all other values must kneel down - all done through a complex rationalization completely separate from the facts of reality.

Edited July 28, 2008 by brian0918

[dan_edge]

This post is a brainstorm of many thoughts that have been floating around in my head after reading through this thread.

I do not believe that masculinity and femininity are "third world notions" which "do not matter." In my paper on the Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality, I argued that: "The psychological experience of sexuality is rooted in one's positive evaluation of his sex as an integrated, individuating element of self -- and it is experienced to the fullest through psychological visibility in the context of a romantic love relationship." Experiencing sexuality as a value means experiencing one's gender as a value. How is it possible to experience one's gender as a value? Read my paper to find out.

If my arguments are valid -- if it is legitimate to experience one's gender as a value, and if one can experience the full reflection of this value only through perceiving the opposite sex -- then an argument can be made that homosexuality is suboptimal. Why? Because there is an element of psychological visibility that is unattainable to one who is romantic only with members of the same sex. If human beings were asexual, if there were no men and women, then there would be no such thing as sexuality. In some respects, homosexuals live in an asexual world, where gender identity is not a value.

(It's funny, in a lot of ways I can advance EC's argument against homosexuality better than he can. This is because I have demonstrated that gender identity is indeed a value. EC has a basic understand of why this is so, but has not proven it, so his argument comes across as tenuous.)

If homosexuality were purely volitional, then one could argue that it is immoral. The gay man would have to say, in effect, "I realize that sexuality is a potential value, and that I can experience it only through a romance with members of the opposite sex. But I choose to eschew this value, and not pursue it." If one cannot experience his gender identity as a value in a homosexual relationship, then one would be trading a lesser value for a greater one if he chose to restrict his romantic relationships only to those of the same sex.

However, this does not mean that gender identity is the only value attained in a romantic relationship, nor that the lack of it negates other, more significant values. Two men (or two women) can experience a wonderful depth of psychological visibility in a romantic relationship. They can share fundamental philosophical values, possess countless complimentary differences in personality, and develop a private world with one another over a lifetime of romance. In almost every respect, the height of values possible to a homosexual couple mirrors that of a heterosexual couple. Only gender identity qua value is missing.

Still, this does not let volitional homosexuality off the hook. If one lived a life of perfect virtue, except that he chose to trade one very small value in for a lesser value, then the choice is still immoral. Even if homosexuality is a psychological disposition inherited from early childhood, one can still make the argument that it is immoral.

I predict that EC's essay (if he writes it) will contain some variation of the following argument: There are many suboptimal psychological dispositions which one inherits from his childhood. For instance, I was taught Christianity from the time I could breath. This indoctrination impacted my emotional experience of life into young adulthood. Even after I discovered Objectivism, as late as high school, I felt guilty at times for not sacrificing my values to others. But should I follow these feelings, simply because I feel them? No. When one experiences emotional confusion resulting from ideas automatized from early childhood, he ought to set the emotions aside and follow his reason, trusting that eventually his emotions will fall in line with his new professed beliefs. Why should homosexuality be any different? If one acknowledges that he can experience his gender identity as a value, and that he will never see the reflection of this value in another member of the same sex, then shouldn't he set his emotions aside and make choices purely on the basis of his reason? Will not his emotions (attraction to the same sex) eventually fall into line with his new professed beliefs (that gender identity is a value), and he will become attracted to the opposite sex?

The answer to these questions are very complex. Indeed, it is the crux of this whole issue.

Consider another example. If one were taught from a young age that sex was evil, then this indoctrination could effect his emotional life for a very long time. Even some very rational people retain psychological issues from childhood into middle age, and expel them only through intensive psycho-therapy. Consider a rational man who greatly values romance, but experiences some guilt when he makes love to a woman. Does this mean that he should not pursue romance until he has resolved all of his psychological issues? Even if it takes years to overcome them? Absolutely not! Even if there are some elements of romance that he cannot experience to the fullest, it would be a tragedy if he did not pursue romantic love at all.

Assume that the gay man is in a similar situation. He has inherited a psychological predisposition from childhood which makes it impossible for him to experience some elements of romantic love to the fullest. Does this mean that he should avoid romantic love altogether unless and until he can change this predisposition? Hell no! He ought to pursue romance and achieve the greatest height of values possible to him. I don't know if EC acknowledges this or not, but it is an important point: for the gay man, heterosexual romance is impossible. One simply cannot experience romantic love for someone he is not sexually attracted to. Sexual attraction is an essential, necessary element of romantic love. So whether one believes that homosexuality is suboptimal, immoral, or neither, he must acknowledge that the gay man's only choice is: same-sex romance or abstinence. EC may not realize it, but he is arguing on the side of abstinence. Because the gay man cannot experience one (relatively minor) element of romantic love, EC implicitly argues that he should eschew romantic love entirely. Talk about trading in a lesser value for a greater one!

As to the question of whether or not a homosexual ought try "converting" himself to heterosexuality: My opinion is that, in most cases, he should not. There are several reasons for this: 1) The lack of understanding in the field of psychology regarding homosexuality is so striking, one would be hard-pressed to find a psycho-therapist who would be any help. 2) Even if such a "conversion" were possible, it would probably take years or decades, during which time one may have to avoid long-term romance. This would be such a waste of potentially happy years, it's probably not worth it. 3) If one falls in love with a member of the same sex, then the private world developed with that person may greatly outweigh any potential value in "converting" to heterosexuality. 4) As one experiments with romance and sex in young adulthood (which, for a gay man, would only be possible with members of the same sex), his personality and sexual style develop around his sexual orientation, making homosexuality a greater (legitimate) value, while at the same time making "conversion" even more difficult. (I have a lot of thoughts clarifying #4 on this list, but I'm running out of time here).

So, in summary, my opinion is: homosexuality is a suboptimal psychological predisposition most often resulting from early childhood experiences. Though it may limit some (relatively minor) elements of romantic love, it does not negate the most significant values possible through romance. Gays would be wasting a great portion of their lives if they chose long-term abstinence while attempting to "convert" to heterosexuality. Therefore, I regard homosexuality as perfectly moral, and I highly respect all who seek to achieve the greatest values possible to them in a romantic love relationship. I reject any notion that homosexuals who pursue legitimate values are immoral. I also regard as misguided and disgusting the view that gays should avoid romantic love unless and until they are "converted." Such a view implicitly advocates massive self-sacrifice, it fails acknowledge the incredible values possible in a homosexual romantic relationship, and it displays a complete lack of understanding of romantic love in general.

--Dan Edge

[Alfa]

...are not the only relevant difference. Let's not forget about testosterone and estrogen/progesterone.

Yes, and let me just clarify that when i'm talking about penises and vaginas I am also reffering to what these organs imply in a wider context.

[KevinDW78]

then an argument can be made that homosexuality is suboptimal. Why? Because there is an element of psychological visibility that is unattainable to one who is romantic only with members of the same sex.

I would be willing to accept this argument.

homosexuality is a suboptimal psychological predisposition most often resulting from early childhood experiences. Though it may limit some (relatively minor) elements of romantic love, it does not negate the most significant values possible through romance.

I'm still not convinced of the first premise (and as a gay man I am looking at it with first-hand knowledge). But again, I think this is a very well presented argument that I would be willing to accept because I don't think this premise is necessary for the rest of the argument to be sound.

[JJJJ]

(emphasis mine)

You're really making this too easy for me!

In the first part of your post, you pretty much make happiness (an emotion) the standard of value. You don't literally say "Happiness is the standard of value," but you very emphatically imply that it is the only thing that ultimately counts, the only fundamental factor one should consider when choosing one's actions, the true "master" to be served by all you do--in other words, the standard.

In the second part, you give whim-worship and hedonism the condemnation they deserve. But what is hedonism? Taking positive emotions, such as pleasure and happiness, as the standard of your action, without regard to their objective basis or lack thereof. What is a whim? An emotion without reference to an underlying rational evaluation. Whim-worship and hedonism are acting based on whatever feels good, and never questioning the reasons behind the feelings--not because you trust your emotions to be usually well-integrated with your rational evaluations and representative of your standard of value, but because you hold emotions to be indications of value in themselves--because they are your standard of value.

I may have understood objectivism totally wrong, but dont you see the difference between happiness, the state of mind, and pleasure, a sensation that has no permanent effect.

Hedonism, is seeking of pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Pleasure, is not the same as happiness. I mean, an unhappy person may masturbate and feel pleasure, but that doesnt make him happy. I dont really know what it is you are arguing, but i dont really understand what it is you are asking me, as i thought this is quite straightforward? "It feels good" is not the same as "i am happy".

I have understood that the pursuit of happiness in mans greatest purpose, and at least i try and live that way....That is the way i try and apply objectivism in my life, so i will be happy.

This is the great inescapable contradiction of all those Objectivists who want to exempt sexual desires from an objective existential foundation. You can either make an unintegrated "It feels good" the master of your life, or you can make your life qua man the master of your desires--but you cannot do both. There can be only one master.

Still, "it feels good" and "it makes me happy" is not the same thing, and im really baffled about your reply.... The question is:

If you love a person, and are attracted to him/her, why should you refrain from a romantic relationship that makes you happy, just because you are of the same sex? What is it that makes a man, someone that is romantically only interested in women?

I may have misunderstood Rand completely, but as far as im conserned, i live "qua man", BECAUSE it promotes my life and happiness, and this cant be overlooked. Happiness is the purpose of living qua man. By living as a human being, i will be happy, but that is the value of living as a human being. There is no value in living as a human being, just for the sake of it.

Im really baffled about what it is that you mean, and maybe its just my english skills that prevent me from understanding you. But i get the feeling you are saying that living as a human being is something that is valuable in itself, and separate from the fact that it promotes your life and happiness? But maybe i misunderstood you.....

[KevinDW78]

Still, "it feels good" and "it makes me happy" is not the same thing, and im really baffled about your reply

Just use a different example. If a serial killer feels happy by hacking up women into little pieces, does that make it moral to do so because it is what makes him happy> What about pedophiles who rape 4 year olds? it makes them happy - so why is it immoral?

[brian0918]

JJJJ:

In the same vein as what KevinDW78 said: what if it makes you happy to have promiscuous sex with random people? Is such a thing not possible, or do you believe that such people are not "truly happy" and that they are denying their "true inner self"? Wouldn't this then be the same argument EC, Alfa, etc are making against homosexuality - that it denies the "true inner self/nature"?

Edited July 28, 2008 by brian0918

[EC]

This post is a brainstorm of many thoughts that have been floating around in my head after reading through this thread...

--Dan Edge

You are correct (for the most part) good job! You nearly presented my views exactly as I see them, but (as you correctly stated) in a much better way because it is in a more fully integrated form versus my relatively random and disjointed defensive remarks against all the various "whack-a-mole" attacks presented to me. That is why I want to take the time to write this in a more concise form, I will do this, but it's not at the top of my list in terms of important things to do (really, homosexuals don't bother me that much, at least when they aren't talking trash constantly lol ). My point has never been to convince others to think like me,rather it is just make it plain that I do not agree with the status quo here. When I do write a full expansion of my reasoning I suppose that would have to be implicit premise for doing so however; although, truly, I couldn't care less whether anybody agrees with me about anything, I just want it known when I DON'T sanction an idea.

I don't know if EC acknowledges this or not, but it is an important point: for the gay man, heterosexual romance is impossible. One simply cannot experience romantic love for someone he is not sexually attracted to. Sexual attraction is an essential, necessary element of romantic love. So whether one believes that homosexuality is suboptimal, immoral, or neither, he must acknowledge that the gay man's only choice is: same-sex romance or abstinence. EC may not realize it, but he is arguing on the side of abstinence. Because the gay man cannot experience one (relatively minor) element of romantic love, EC implicitly argues that he should eschew romantic love entirely. Talk about trading in a lesser value for a greater one!

This is where we diverge. I don't think a homosexual should abstain from the only type of relationship he can have at the present time--that would be a sacrifice given the context of his situation. Therefor it would be an action of greater immorality to do so. However, a man shouldn't just shrug his shoulder's saying, "Well, this is what I've become for whatever reason, and since it would be extremely hard to correct this minor departure from the ideal, I shouldn't even try, and more than that--other's have no right to judge this choice not to try because it whould be so hard for me to change."

In other words, given the context, do what you have to do within your present context to live a happy life. This is obviously moral. What is immoral is not even trying to understand and possibly correct this lack of the ideal in one's character.

There is a quote from VOS that I want to use here to accentuate the above point, but presently I am at work, and don't have access to the book.

So, I'll quote that later when I get the chance.

P.S. To everyone--don't smoke crack! lol

[EC]

JJJJ:

In the same vein as what KevinDW78 said: what if it makes you happy to have promiscuous sex with random people? Is such a thing not possible, or do you believe that such people are not "truly happy" and that they are denying their "true inner self"?

Yes, because they are denying their nature qua ideal man.

Wouldn't this then be the same argument EC, Alfa, etc are making against homosexuality - that it denies the "true inner self/nature"?

As long as you realize that this "true inner self/nature" is NOT intrinsic, but is arrived at by result of objectively reasoning what a man ought to based on his objective nature as man qua man, as the ideal.

[brian0918]

Yes, because they are denying their nature qua ideal man.

Obviously I was replying only to JJJJ, who has a problem with your argument, and not to you, who have no problem with your argument.

[JJJJ]

JJJJ:

In the same vein as what KevinDW78 said: what if it makes you happy to have promiscuous sex with random people? Is such a thing not possible, or do you believe that such people are not "truly happy" and that they are denying their "true inner self"?

I would go with the "not truly happy" part, because i have always understood objectivism in the sense, that living qua man---->happiness, therefore: live qua man. Living qua man just for the sake of living qua man, is something that i have never heard Rand advocate, and it has always been in the context of promoting your own life, and achieving happiness.

However, im not entirely sure that "promiscuous sex" with random people is in itself that bad, just as long as it doesnt replace searching for a romantic relationship and you take care of safety. Its more like masturbating, just in this case, there is another person involved. So as long as you arent trying to replace romance with promiscuous sex, i dont see why it differs from masturbating.....

Wouldn't this then be the same argument EC, Alfa, etc are making against homosexuality - that it denies the "true inner self/nature"?

it would be, if he would have provided me with an argument why heterosexuality is the ideal. Because to me it just sounds like comparing orange juice to apple juice. In the case of a pedophile, it is clear that he cannot achieve the same kind of happiness with relationships with children, because that relationship can never be between to rational minds. Therefore, it is in his best interest to re-evaluate his "preferences"....But i havent gotten a good argument for, why the gender of your loved one is relevant....

[brian0918]

it would be, if he would have provided me with an argument why heterosexuality is the ideal. Because to me it just sounds like comparing orange juice to apple juice. In the case of a pedophile, it is clear that he cannot achieve the same kind of happiness with relationships with children, because that relationship can never be between to rational minds. Therefore, it is in his best interest to re-evaluate his "preferences"....But i havent gotten a good argument for, why the gender of your loved one is relevant....

But the same argument that you say EC is lacking is also lacking in your case with regards to "true inner self". EC argues for some fundamental "masculinity/femininity" difference without showing why it is that men should be masculine/hero and why women should be feminine/hero worshipper, and you argue for an ideal happiness that transcends perception and rationality, supported only by your desire for a coherent philosophical worldview that both accepts homosexuality and rejects certain scenarios (such as happiness derived from random sex devoid of meaning or value).

Edited July 28, 2008 by brian0918

[EC]

Obviously I was replying only to JJJJ, who has a problem with your argument, and not to you, who have no problem with your argument.

Obviously I didn't care and decided to give my answer to your question rather than allow another to speculate as to my meaning, as I would have a "problem" with that.