Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think it happens only in Pashtun culture. While I was in Maldives last summer, my wife told me that many of the immigrant Bangladeshi workers have homosexual relationships simply because they are starved of female companionship (you can walk along the streets in Male' at night and see them holding hands and cuddling along piers and retaining walls). And with the increased segregation of women from men in the country (due to increasingly strict Islamification), I wouldn't be surprised if it is already a trend in the population of Maldivian men (and women). This is just from my own observations and info from my wife (who is Maldivian), and I don't have a study to cite, so take this with a grain of salt.

But is it possible that in the absence of the opposite gender, and if two people share many values, that it could turn into a sexual relationship? I'm not talking about having sex with your best friend. More like years spent with men in sparse quarters with no female contact (or the opposite). Being that sex is good and love is an expression of intense sharing of values, is homosexuality in this context immoral (if one isn't particularly attracted to men)? I tried not to setup a "lifeboat" question (I don't know the correct term), but that is the reality and context many people live with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is it possible that in the absence of the opposite gender, and if two people share many values, that it could turn into a sexual relationship? I'm not talking about having sex with your best friend. More like years spent with men in sparse quarters with no female contact (or the opposite). Being that sex is good and love is an expression of intense sharing of values, is homosexuality in this context immoral (if one isn't particularly attracted to men)? I tried not to setup a "lifeboat" question (I don't know the correct term), but that is the reality and context many people live with.

It depends on how the situation came to be. If they are segregated from the opposite sex because of false ideas from religion, or in prison (a different set of ideas was involved there), then yes it is immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afghan Men Struggle With Sexual Identity, Study Finds

Apparently homosexuality en masse can be caused by culture. By the evidence, there are multiple causes of homosexuality. Some of those causes can be judged as immoral in the same way any idea is judged, others not.

I would vehemently disagree that culture causes the phenomena of homosexuality as such. I would agree that culture could perhaps increase the perceived prevalence. Physiological evidence shows that both men and women could potentially enjoy homosexual sex. Is it a far stretch then, to assume that perhaps humans are biologically ambisexual?

I think any argument that strictly restricts homosexuality to a purely environmental or otherwise conditioned cause is inherently flawed. It just doesn't jive with the physiology of the human body.

And as far as the Maldives, with guys holding hands, sometimes the boundaries of acceptable nonsexual male intimacy are more permissive in other cultures than America. I've heard that heterosexual Russian men hold hands in some parts of the country...

Edited by brandonk2009
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that qualifier "as such" accomplish? What distinction is being made?

Meaning, I don't believe that one can purely blame the culture for the sexual orientation known as homosexuality. When I used "as such" I meant, homosexuality as sexual orientation, not homosexuality as the characteristic behavior of a group of homosexuals.

I would agree that a culture has an effect on the behavior of not just homosexuals, but every member of the culture. For example, no homosexual is born with limp wrists and lisps. That is something that is controlled by environment. However, I don't think you can make the case that sexual orientation is conditioned or a pure result of environment. There is too much physiological evidence to suggest otherwise.

I want to emphasize "pure"—I am open to the possibility that environment (which affects psychological development) affects sexual preferences. However, too many people package sexual orientation with sexual attraction. I've talked about this distinction in earlier posts. I think that environment has a lot to do with one's sexual attraction (for example, I like these qualities in men: strength, intelligence, assertiveness), however sexual orientation seems to be more connected to physiology (such as the research done in the brains of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals) than with mere environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A guy who plays football is a football player. Someone who lies is a liar. A person engaging in sexual activity with the opposite sex is heterosexual, if the same sex homosexual, and if both (ever, even if only once) bisexual. It is a pretty simple conceptual scheme having the merit of being based on evidence. In general, what you do is who you are. Those Pashtun tribesmen who are buggering each other because they have been brainwashed into despising women as foul, unclean beasts are an example of culture induced homosexuality. If 'sexual orientation' is the generalization from individuals found sexually attractive to (by measurement omission) the gender, a pattern of sexual attraction, there is no way those Pashtuns can deny being homosexual in that sense either.

I'll bet none of the evidence for physiological causes of homosexuality includes a good sample of Pashtun men.

edit: deleted requote

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A guy who plays football is a football player. Someone who lies is a liar. A person engaging in sexual activity with the opposite sex is heterosexual, if the same sex homosexual, and if both (ever, even if only once) bisexual.

However, behavior that is commonly associated with homosexuals is not an inherent result of homosexuality. A guy who plays football is a football player, but the fact that one football player drinks beer frequently does not apply to all football players. For example, in America, the stereotype is that homosexual men are effeminate. Anyone who believes that should take a trip to San Francisco during Folsom (gay leather fetish celebration, personally, I'm not into it). The non-sexual behavior is separate from the sexual orientation. In the same vein, I would argue that the Pashtun hatred towards women is separate from their sexual orientation. This would jive with the fact that in America, many homosexuals gravitate towards women-friendship.

All humans are born ambisexual (suited to either sex). Is it unreasonable to suggest that this biological ambisexuality affects sexual orientation later in life? Every culture—the Pashtuns (and other middle Asian cultures), Ancient Greeks and Romans, the Japanese, the American Indians, African cultures—have all, at some point in time, shown homosexual behavior. With that fact in mind, I would argue that most cultures in fact repress natural bisexual behavior rather than condition bisexual or homosexual behavior.

My assumption, which you are free to attack, is that humans are biologically inclined to be bisexual. The "human's can only reproduce heterosexually" does not really apply here... sex for humans, and for other animals (the example I have in mind is the bonobo ape), is beyond just reproduction.

I'll bet none of the evidence for physiological causes of homosexuality includes a good sample of Pashtun men.

The physiology of the Pashtun men, though they may have dark skin, dark hair, and an abundance of body hair is not all that different from men of other races: All men have sensitive prostates, all men have a bundle of sensitive nerves around the anus—it doesn't take much creativity to see what I'm suggesting. In short, all men have the physical potential to engage and enjoy (immensely) homosexual sex. Other research has shown differences in brain structures (structures that develop prenatally) and hormonal differences between homosexual and heterosexual men (though I don't know the exact details of the study, there may be differences that are accounted by race). There is even a bit of research in genetics, which suggests that perhaps there are genes which are transferred only through the maternal lineages, that contribute to homosexuality. This latter fits with my own family, I had a gay Uncle on my mother's side. But I would never suggest that this research, which is at a stage of infancy, is conclusive and proves everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, behavior that is commonly associated with homosexuals is not an inherent result of homosexuality. A guy who plays football is a football player, but the fact that one football player drinks beer frequently does not apply to all football players. For example, in America, the stereotype is that homosexual men are effeminate. Anyone who believes that should take a trip to San Francisco during Folsom (gay leather fetish celebration, personally, I'm not into it). The non-sexual behavior is separate from the sexual orientation. In the same vein, I would argue that the Pashtun hatred towards women is separate from their sexual orientation. This would jive with the fact that in America, many homosexuals gravitate towards women-friendship.

Pashtun woman hatred has direct impact on what they can find sexually attractive, so it is not all analogous to fashion sense and mannerisms. The first case is causal, the second comprises a list of effects, accomodations, and advertisements of the pre-existing condition.

All humans are born ambisexual (suited to either sex).

If all humans are so biologically similar, why doesn't that lead to concluding that differences between cultures are due to, duh, fundamentally different aspects of the cultures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I'm going to emphasize that I reject any argument suggesting that homosexuality is caused purely due to environment—that includes any sort of psychological viewpoint stemming from cultural perspectives. The pure psychological view ignores all the physiological factors and components to human sexuality.

I would agree that Pashtun misogyny is a result of the culture, but I do not think that Pashtun homosexuality or any homosexuality is caused by culture. The problem with assigning a causal factor between misogyny and homosexuality is multidimensional: 1) that factor is restricted to Pashtun (and perhaps other Arabic) culture, 2) misogyny exists among heterosexual men who show no desire for gay sexual behavior, and 3) physiological and genetic evidence suggests that bisexuality/homosexuality is already a natural tendency prior to the development of any psychological perspective.

You ask, "If all humans are so biologically similar, why doesn't that lead to concluding that differences between cultures are due to, duh, fundamentally different aspects of the cultures?" I must ask, What's your point? What do you want me to say? Yes, differences between cultures are due to differences between cultures. That's not much of a point and as you said, "duh".

Here's my point: The existence of bisexuality and homosexuality does not differ between cultures. Every culture in the world has exhibited an abundance of homosexual or bisexual behavior. How then do you account for such a widespread phenomena? In order to explain it, you can't begin to look at the differences between every culture—you have to look at what is the same. The one thing that every culture in the world shares is: humanity—we all share the same fundamental physiological/genetic structure (fundamental in the sense, that without having the same physiological/genetic structure you couldn't define a species).

I've said everything I can on the relationship between culture and homosexuality. I don't think anymore is necessary nor do I really want to debate it anymore (it bores me). I'm finished with that debate. But this isn't to say that I think human sexuality is strictly governed by one's genes—sexual preferences are governed by a combination of factors. It's my view that the predominant factor is physiology and genetics, and that humans are naturally inclined towards bisexuality. If you want to debate the science and evidence for that, I'm open to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I'm going to emphasize that I reject any argument suggesting that homosexuality is caused purely due to environment—that includes any sort of psychological viewpoint stemming from cultural perspectives. The pure psychological view ignores all the physiological factors and components to human sexuality.

This is not persuasive. The assertion that there is not one person, ever, anywhere, who willingly engaged in homosexual activity in response to a sexual attraction set up by accepted ideas and cultural norms is contrary to fact in the case of the Pashtun.

Here's my point: The degree of bisexuality and homosexuality does differ between cultures. And since we are so biologically similar, the ideas characteristic of a culture must cause the difference.

I would agree that Pashtun misogyny is a result of the culture, but I do not think that Pashtun homosexuality or any homosexuality is caused by culture. The problem with assigning a causal factor between misogyny and homosexuality is multidimensional: 1) that factor is restricted to Pashtun (and perhaps other Arabic) culture, 2) misogyny exists among heterosexual men who show no desire for gay sexual behavior, and 3) physiological and genetic evidence suggests that bisexuality/homosexuality is already a natural tendency prior to the development of any psychological perspective.

1) Is not a problem. Where else in the world is there such quality of misogyny that the men have convinced themselves to feel sexual revulsion toward women?

2) Heterosexual men who are also misogynist are not so misogynist as to despise everything feminine, or they could not continue to be heterosexual. The Pashtun do despise everything feminine, their misogyny prevents them from finding women attractive, they are no longer heterosexual.

3) The evidence does not support the hypothesis that every instance of homosexuality is biological in origin, only perhaps that some are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the total lack of attraction that the vast majority of people have towards their siblings (of either gender) is an indication that the emotions of sexual attraction can be conditioned through cultural influences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to get this straight, Objectively:

a. Based upon lesser info at that time, Ayn Rand condemned homsexuality as immoral.

b. When further information revealed that homsexuality has a strong predisposed element, O'ism officially overturned that position - based I think on the premise that it is irrational to condemn what is in one's nature, and non-volitional. (Open to correction on this.)

c. New studies now indicate what was actually obvious, that situation and circumstance, AND free choice, play a large part in "Ambi- sexuality" (new one on me :P ).

d. So some previous heteros can make a 'lifestyle choice' for either sex, arbitrarily.

e. So now that practising homosexuality/bisexuality for some or many is volitional again, does one go back to condemning it - if only for those who choose this ?

My personal view is that I won't, but I admit I don't exactly understand why not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

e. So now that practising homosexuality/bisexuality for some or many is volitional again, does one go back to condemning it - if only for those who choose this ?

Volition is necessary, but not sufficient to deem something immoral. The act must also be against one's rational self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the total lack of attraction that the vast majority of people have towards their siblings (of either gender) is an indication that the emotions of sexual attraction can be conditioned through cultural influences.

Sexual attraction, yes. Sexual orientation, no.

I've made this distinction earlier in this thread. Sexual orientation denotes the sexual preference for the same gender, another gender, either gender, or neither gender. Sexual attraction denotes preferences in physical (as in appearance) and/or personality characteristics, or other qualities of a person. Physiological and biological evidence suggests that sexual orientation is a naturally developing phenomena. Sexual attraction, however, has been shown to be heavily influenced by environment or culture... ultimately psychology.

Incest is a rather recent, startling (for me) phenomena in the gay porn industry, particularly between identical twins (lesbian twins have been popular for centuries). I don't think that their homosexuality was conditioned, I think that perhaps their desire for each other was. Incest is psychologically repulsive to most siblings, yet a few siblings with different psychological mindsets find such a relationship perfectly ok.

In response to whYNOT, I'm making the argument that sexual orientation does develop outside of man's volition. However, I'm open to the argument that culture and home environment have a lot to do with how the sexual orientation plays out later in life. For example, a man who may be bisexual, but represses his homosexuality for psychological reasons. Or the homosexual who marries a woman and recants later... etc. Either way, the existence of homosexuality or bisexuality should not be a moral issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First thing's first - homosexuality is not identified or caused [explicitly] by any factors of the endocrine system, i.e., no hormonal influences can non-volitionally "decide" for the person if they have sex with the same gender, e.g., it cannot dictate any injunctive behaviour of giving anal pleasure or recieving anal pleasure. This is associated to the relation of the subject and their intamate partner, but is in no way a causation. I, for example, am a homosexual. I have very few "feminine" characteristics and rarefied "masculine" ones. I am my own individual. My masculinity is identified [by myself] and integrated by the metaphysical factors, i.e., I have the qualifications of a male reproductive organ. This in no way dictates that i will prefer women, or even men. Which brings me to a second point. I am not one to ever negate scientific endeavor. However, in the field of ethics, the cause of homosexuality being supposed as hormanal or environmental is fallacious in that the "researchers" have already decided in their minds that the cause is what they are researching. Now, I understand that there are other studies done in the field of this socialogical matter, but again, the topic of whether homosexuality is ethical or not is an entirely different science -which, Ayn Rand herself stated that ethics is a science in its own. Furthermore, there is an explicit distinction between homophilia, i.e., having a love for the seame sex; and homosexuality, i.e. initiating that love via a sexual action.

As far as man is concerned, volition is a prime factor at this point. Does he (the homophile) choose to accept his feelings for the same sex, or does he ignore this and conform to the collective standards of his surroundings? What is the cause of his feelings for the same sex? Are they thereby valid feelings?

The causation of homosexuality, I cannot begin to identify due to my ignorance of psychology. But, as far as ethics is concerned, his feelings are at the very least existential, and are not subordinated as a means to knowledge in this particular context.

So, back to my very first staement. In regards to all that I have previously said, homosexuality is completely volitional. It is by choice.

I choose to be a homosexual, yes. Do not misunderstand me though.... Homophilia is not volitional (at least not in any historical proof it's not). Having attraction and affection for the same sex is, I dare say, in all cases an inocent "intuition".

An intuition is an effect of circumstance that is subconsciously calculated as reasonable and true, but frequently cannot be immediately identified, proven, or integrated with reality.

So, as an example, (an ironic one) about a year ago, my parents many times forced me to go to [Christian] church with them, and the sermon that the pastor had was in objection to homosexuality. After the message was finished, my family and I started to leave. A very good looking young man around my age passed by and immediately I had an (animalistic) sexual attraction to him as the butterflies teemed throughout my very essancce in that tiny moment. Not his values but his physique. This intuition of apathy for the females around me ( and the fact that I hardly noticed their presence), and the concentration of predilection towards the young males around me as a demonstrative factor, I would say, is an example in case of my intuition that females were undesireable and males were desireable.

This was not a choice. Neither was it an injunction learned or given by those in my environment telling me to have such a predilection.

But, what I do, what the homophile does with his feelings IS of volition... Not to imply that doing something is wrong, For the choice of productive acheivement is one of the prime standards of Objectivism! Volition is by no means negative.

If the homophile choses to fullfill his desire by having sex with another man, then he is a homosexual. I heard a primitive but effective analogy(from a gay, male aquaintence) to this subject, which goes like this: I feel that I need to have sex with men. This want is like the hunger for food. I can choose to not eat food and starve my self, or I can eat and sustain myself. I can lust for men and do nothing, thereby depraiving my mind, or I can initiate sexual intercourse, thereby sustaining my confidence and mind.

I now come to this conclusion: It is logically unethical for a homosexual to NOT have sex and achieve his values (while sharing them with his partner). It is also unethical and Highly immoral for someone to initiate a force that hinders or stops the homosexual from achieving this, e.g., neo-conservative legallity dictating that homosexuality should be forbidden, or if one were negatively acted upon because they were a homosexual.

Here is an excerpt of a comment I posted in a Facebook debate on this matter which I think should wrap my thoughts up nicely:

NO ARGUMENT can lead to homosexuality being wrong.

By its very nature, consentual homosexuality cannot be wrong (logically).

Homosexuality is not wrong, and never will be.

You will never find me at a gay parade. You will never find me trying to initiate a law that gives gays more rights than is necessary. Yes, the epicene and the rude homosexuals are of a disgusting behaviour, but, the stereotype that they are all like that is equally revolting. I say this with pure logic and experience: There is no argument against homosexuality that is without error. I am not saying that the gay paraders are right, thus contradicting myself. But, those against gays, are not only irrational, but seek mindsets as dictators. I can understand a heterosexual's disgust of gays, for I am disgusted by heterosexuality.

We all have reasoning minds. We all have the potentiality to reason. We are all human beings. Gays are not equal because being different is fine. Gays are not equal because they are the same. They are equal because they are reasoning human beings. Some are flawed, yes. But who can you claim, regardless of orientation, has not one flaw?

The religious call for us to reason and think rationally, but when it comes to the showdown....they won't be there. Of course religion is immaterial; however, sadly, the religious fools enjoy acting childish too much. They would rather you be unhappy than to be proven logically wrong.

I say this: Any man who initiates force, vis a vis his religious opinon, upon another is bastard and a parasite to society.

If you hinder a person from achieving a same-sex relationship or marrital status, you are less than a man. You are a slave to your irrationality and whims. And continue on by making everyone else a slave according to your subjctive errors.

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...