Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Either sexuality is volitional or not. I believe that to the extent of whether or not one is heterosexual or homosexual it is not. So, in a sense I agree with CF's notion that

They [the sexes]have different minds to the extent that they have different bodies. You get your sense of identity from the signals your body delivers to you via your nervous system; it is from these signals that you induce who you are and what kind of life is proper for you. Since the body of a man is partly different from the body of a woman--in fundamental ways--some of these signals will be different for the two sexes, in fundamental ways. And thus, the ideas about a proper life will be different too.
Except that our scientific understanding, though limited, does indicate that these biological factors that influence your (sexual) identity are not necessarily specific to gender. Meaning, an body that is, by all external appearances, male, may influence that individual's identity in ways that are typically associated with females or, more precisely, in ways that are associated with homosexuals. (I would cite the many studies on homosexual/heterosexual male hippocampus development here along with other medical comparisons.)

Based upon that, I would contend that although homosexuality is certainly not the biological norm, heterosexuality or homosexuality is not a matter of choice and therefore not in the realm morality.

But consider the notion that it is volitional. CF's list of needs that are satisfied by romantic relationships seems fairly complete, but his understanding of those needs and how they are satisfied is also not supported by observation or definition.

Love & friendship: No problem with that, it is perfectly possible for people of the same sex to be best friends.
Agreed.

Sexual satisfaction: Don't ask me, I never tried it. :-) But I suppose it must be possible, otherwise people wouldn't do it.
Indeed.

Tenderness: This is where the problems start. There is a difference between petting and being petted. When somebody pets his child or his dog, or when a husband pets his wife, it means: "I love you and I appreciate you for being the way you are. I care for your well-being." When the child or wife pets back, it essentially means: "Thank you."
This lacks a clear definition. We may gather from his later examples that this refers to the emotional satisfaction derived from a physical relationship that is directed toward the pleasure and well-being of recipient. There isn't any reason why gay men or woman cannot share this.
In a homosexual relationship, one of the partners inevitably has to play the role of a man and the other has to play the role of a woman, even though both are men or both are women. This is an implicit admission that the relationship is just a cheap substitute for something more real.
CF's lack of familiarity with homosexual relationships is showing here. First, in a literal sense, both partners are of the same gender. In many cases, neither individual takes "a role" specific to a particular gender but rather both act to their mutual pleasure. It is most likely that CF is identifying particular sex acts as 'masculine' or 'feminine,' but the imagination need not travel far to think of some particular actiona in which a heterosexual couple might reverse roles in the sense that CF means without any compromise to either party's gender identity. There isn't any reason to draw a distinction between "petting" and "beng petted" as both acts provide pleasure to both the giver and the recipient. Indeed, there are many actions, both homosexual and heterosexual, that may be subsumed under this euphemism of "petting" wherein it is impossible to make such a distinction. Masculinity and femininity aren't precisely objective sets of characteristics and behaviors, but rather, many, if not most, are set by social convention. Such conventions vary arbitrarily even within the United States to a certain extent and exist for the sake of making communication and interaction easier and more efficient. Much of CF's later posts and conclusions rely upon these assumptions and false distinctions to draw conclusions.
Excitement of discovery: In a heterosexual relationship, you discover what the mind and body of a person of the other sex is like. As a homosexual, you will only encounter a mind and body similar to yours. You completely forgo the experience of learning to know the secrets of the other sex.
This should not be included for two reasons. 1) Individuals are individuals and they do not have identical bodies unless you're an identical twin and even in the unlikely event that a couple were not related but had identical bodies, they still remain separate and distinct individuals. The "element of surprise" that CF seems to relish is still present. 2) This isn't necessary to maintain a healthy, fulfilling sexual relationship otherwise, would not aged couples lose interest due to a simple exhaustion of their options?
Self-respect: A self-respecting person will strive to earn the love of another by being as attractive as possible, spiritually as well as physically. If you happen to be a woman, this means being beautiful, charming, lovely, cute, and attractive in a feminine way. If you are a man, it means being strong, brave, resolute, and handsome in a manly way. Trying to defy the reality of your sex and attempting to put a man into a woman's body, or a woman into a man's body, is bound to turn you into a pitiable creature that is neither attractive as a man nor as a woman.

This presumes that homosexual men are not attracted to masculine men but only feminine men and therefore all of them strive to appeal to one another by increasing their feminine characteristics. That's also demonstrably false.

Is there anything I left out? Yes, there is. A heterosexual relationship has to offer something tremendously exciting and satisfying that I still haven't covered. There is a barrier you have to break through when building a relationship with a person of the other sex.
This ignores the values upon which romantic relationships are established. Between men and women friends and lovers there is still the task of discovering mutual values.

The extended description CF offers also presumes that men are simply sex-crazed animals waiting a willing recipient. Heterosexual and homosexual men alike should object to just a noxious accusation.

To conclude: If homosexuality/heterosexuality is not a violitional part of an individual's nature, and it most likely is, then it is outside the bounds of moral regard. If it is voltional, it remains unestablished why a wo/man cannot value another wo/man romantically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The point you guys seem to miss is that I am not talking about merely having a "good" romantic relationship. I am talking about having THE BEST POSSIBLE. And I am not saying that any given heterosexual relationship is inherently better than any given homosexual relationship; what I am saying is that if you want the best love possible, you'll be looking out for someone special who belongs to the opposite sex.

Yes, homosexuals can have sex too. Yes, a Yugo is a car too; it might even be a pleasure to drive it. But if you are given a choice between a Yugo and a Rolls Royce, all other things being equal, you would be a damn fool to choose the Yugo.

Of course, each of us has to make his own value-judgments regarding cars as well as romance. But if someone comes up with the answer that a Yugo is just as good as a Rolls ("You can use both to get where you want, so what's the difference?" etc.) you'll forgive me if I conclude that the person is evading reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if someone comes up with the answer that a Yugo is just as good as a Rolls ("You can use both to get where you want, so what's the difference?" etc.) you'll forgive me if I conclude that the person is evading reality.

I would say that this depends on context. For someone who is saving up money and just needs to drive from place to place now and then, I think that he, if his choice were between the Yugo and the Rolls, ought to choose the former. Similarly, one's choice of whether to have a relationship with a man or woman depends on what one is attracted to. It would be absurd to choose a relationship with a woman if one were, by nature, not attracted to women. So you still give no reason for me to think that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality for all people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that this depends on context. For someone who is saving up money

This is what I wrote (emphasis added):

But if you are given a choice between a Yugo and a Rolls Royce, all other things being equal, you would be a damn fool to choose the Yugo.

"All other things being equal" implies that the cars are offered at equal prices (for example, as company cars, or something like that). I hate to remind you of this, Daniel, but it makes little sense to have a discussion with someone who replies to my posts without trying to understand them.

Similarly, one's choice of whether to have a relationship with a man or woman depends on what one is attracted to. It would be absurd to choose a relationship with a woman if one were, by nature, not attracted to women.

Here, as in your previous post where you asked "Why dismiss the possiblity that this is simply an automatic biological response?" you ignore my argument that emotions are a reflection of your value-judgments. You do not have specific emotions "by nature" ; you have them because of the values you have chosen to pursue. Your need for a romantic relationship is given by your nature, but your love for and attraction to a specific person depends on your choices.

To give you an analogy, while you get hungry after not eating for a while by nature, the kind food you like is up to you. If you irrationally decide that the only thing you will eat is toothpaste, you will starve to death pretty soon, no matter how much toothpaste you devour.

If you want to live long, your taste in foods should reflect your real needs in life; if you want to have the best possible romantic relationship, so should your "sexual orientation."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All other things being equal" implies that the cars are offered at equal prices (for example, as company cars, or something like that).

That doesn't change my point, since you haven't shown that, in the case of homosexuality, all other things are equal.

emotions are a reflection of your value-judgments. You do not have specific emotions "by nature" ; you have them because of the values you have chosen to pursue. Your need for a romantic relationship is given by your nature, but your love for and attraction to a specific person depends on your choices.

Emotions are a reflection of your value-judgments, and properly formed value-judgments reflect your nature as well as they nature of the thing towards which one has an emotion. You haven't shown that the value judgments of a homosexual are not based on some peculiarity of his nature.

To give you an analogy, while you get hungry after not eating for a while by nature, the kind food you like is up to you. If you irrationally decide that the only thing you will eat is toothpaste, you will starve to death pretty soon, no matter how much toothpaste you devour.

Some people, because of a peculiarity of their nature, require diets high in sodium, whereas for most people such a diet would be unhealthy. If that person loves sodium, that emotion is entirely rational.

If you want to live long, your taste in foods should reflect your real needs in life; if you want to have the best possible romantic relationship, so should your "sexual orientation."

Agreed. But you have not shown that high sodium diets are never a reflection of one needs in life, nor have you shown that homosexuality never reflects one's real needs in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't shown that the value judgments of a homosexual are not based on some peculiarity of his nature.

"You haven't shown that there is no white-bearded old man hiding somewhere in the sky controlling our destinies." "You haven't shown that the value judgments of Osama bin Laden aren't based on some peculiarity of his nature." I thought you knew better than to ask me to prove a negative, Daniel!

All humans currently living on earth belong to the same subspecies of the same species: the homo sapiens sapiens. This means there is no fundamental difference between them, other than the fundamental difference between the two sexes.

Until you show me evidence of a particular peculiarity in the nature of some people who are homosexuals, I have no reason to believe there is any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had to add my part to this discussion...

Here, as in your previous post where you asked "Why dismiss the possiblity that this is simply an automatic biological response?" you ignore my argument that emotions are a reflection of your value-judgments. You do not have specific emotions "by nature" ; you have them because of the values you have chosen to pursue. Your need for a romantic relationship is given by your nature, but your love for and attraction to a specific person depends on your choices.
I submit that you have yet to enlighten us as to why the choice to be with someone of the same sex is immoral. To say that humans need romance by their very nature is to suggest that they can find romance with other humans beings (i.e., people of either sex).

To give you an analogy, while you get hungry after not eating for a while by nature, the kind food you like is up to you. If you irrationally decide that the only thing you will eat is toothpaste, you will starve to death pretty soon, no matter how much toothpaste you devour.

The above is certainly true but the analogy really does not address the issue at hand. A human being can survive without being in love or a romantic relationship (e.g., a monk). A human can also survive by repressing their sexual desires so in that case one may argue that such abnegation is irrational but one can't say that it is life threatening (without much explanation). The concept of romantic love is a fairly new one. Before romantic love developed in the West people used to have their spouses chosen for them by their parents, tribe or society. I think in some respects romantic love (both an emotional and sexual love, as opposed to Platonic love) is being limited by the idea that society or the tribe must dictate what relationships are allowed or ideal (in the case of heterosexuality and homosexuality). In essence one's choice of a spouse must be approved by society and not by what one finds sexually attractive and values as such. What if I am attracted to a man physically and also by his sense of life?

If you want to live long, your taste in foods should reflect your real needs in life; if you want to have the best possible romantic relationship, so should your "sexual orientation."

What makes a romantic relationship the "best possible"? It seems to me that the individuals who are in a relationship are the only people who can say what is best for their relationship. One's choice of partners much reflect one's real needs in life and as such a man who is attracted to and desires another man ought to seek a relationship along those lines (provided that the relationship is based on mutual esteem and values). At this point you may object by saying that it was not your contention that values are not involved but that the wrong values are invloved. From what you have wrote so far I gather than you think that a homosexual relationship is deficient in many regards. How are the values wrong (if that is indeed your contention)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you knew better than to ask me to prove a negative, Daniel!
I'm not. Although the sentence is gramatically negated, YOU are the one asserting that something is the case. You are asserting that all people have the same nature with respect to sexuality. That is a POSITIVE. To say that you have failed to show the absence of a peculiarity is the same as to say you have failed to show the presence of an identity.

An analogy: The sun can blind those who stare at it. One cannot from that fact conclude that a flashlight can blind people. One must show that the flashlight has some identical nature with the sun. It isn't enough to say that both are lights (just as it isn't enough to say that both heterosexual and homosexual are homo sapiens sapiens).

All humans currently living on earth belong to the same subspecies of the same species: the homo sapiens sapiens. This means there is no fundamental difference between them, other than the fundamental difference between the two sexes.

A 2 year old child is a homo sapien sapen. Should he be attracted to the opposite sex? No, because the nature of a child differs from that of an adult. You haven't shown that all members of the same sex have the same nature with respect to sexuality.

Until you show me evidence of a particular peculiarity in the nature of some people who are homosexuals, I have no reason to believe there is any.

I'm not claiming there is a peculiarity. I'm claiming that since you haven't proved that homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same nature with respect to sexuality, you cannot dismiss that they might have different natures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A human being can survive without being in love or a romantic relationship (e.g., a monk). A human can also survive by repressing their sexual desires so in that case one may argue that such abnegation is irrational but one can't say that it is life threatening (without much explanation).

"Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death" -- Ayn Rand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not. Although the sentence is gramatically negated, YOU are the one asserting that something is the case.

LOL "You're quite positive about your negative, so prove it!" I have seen the same trick used so many times in debates on God: "You're the one asserting that atheism is true, so prove it!"

When you speak of "some peculiarity" in a person's nature, your statement isn't credible until you show evidence of a specific peculiarity and also show how exactly it makes homosexuality better for that kind of person's life. But I wouldn't try too hard to find the homo sapiens homosexualis if I were you: I very much doubt that such a subspecies would pass the Darwin test! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you speak of "some peculiarity" in a person's nature, your statement isn't credible until you show evidence of a specific peculiarity and also show how exactly it makes homosexuality better for that kind of person's life.

But I'm not claiming there IS a peculiarity or that it makes a person's life better. I'm making no claims about what causes homosexuality here. YOU are making claims that homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same nature with respect to sexuality.

Both Earth and Jupiter are planets. People can live on Earth. Ought one to say people can also live on Jupiter until one finds evidence to the contrary? After all, they are BOTH planets (just as homosexuals and heterosexuals are both homo sapiens sapiens).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOU are making claims that homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same nature with respect to sexuality.

The reductio ad absurdum of that argument has already been made on this thread. By the same logic, you could excuse pedophiles, thieves, murderers, dictators, terrorists--anyone--on the basis that maybe there is some peculiarity in their natures that makes them do their respective things.

We are all humans, which means that while there are superficial differences in appearance between us, there are no fundamental ones within either sex--i.e., all men function the same way, as do all women.

(Yes, there are a few freaks that are neither men nor women, but the homosexuals we are talking about do not belong into that category.)

Both Earth and Jupiter are planets. People can live on Earth. Ought one to say people can also live on Jupiter until one finds evidence to the contrary? After all, they are BOTH planets (just as homosexuals and heterosexuals are both homo sapiens sapiens).

The concept "planet" simply means a large, spherical bulk of matter orbiting around a star. For a planet to be inhabitable by people, a number of other conditions must be fulfilled. The concept "homo sapiens sapiens," however, implies a specific genetic makeup that varies from individual to individual with regard to superficial traits, but whose essence stays the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept "planet" simply means a large, spherical bulk of matter orbiting around a star. For a planet to be inhabitable by people, a number of other conditions must be fulfilled. The concept "homo sapiens sapiens," however, implies a specific genetic makeup that varies from individual to individual with regard to superficial traits, but whose essence stays the same.

How do you know that man's sexual nature is part of his essence?

you could excuse pedophiles, thieves, murderers, dictators, terrorists--anyone--on the basis that maybe there is some peculiarity in their natures that makes them do their respective things

No, since one generalizes that all men have free will and cannot be made to do things. This generalization is based on positive evidence, including one's observations of oneself and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid this has reached an impasse.

CF has been very clear:

We are all humans, which means that while there are superficial differences in appearance between us, there are no fundamental ones within either sex--i.e., all men function the same way, as do all women.

And that is precisely the point that I contest -- unless the point being argued is that sexuality is completely without physiological origins. I don't believe anyone here is arguing that wildly surreal position.

And it must be conceeded that given present scientific ignorance on this matter, there isn't a way to conclusively prove that homosexuals are physiologically and morphologically distinct from heterosexuals.

However, there have been scientific studies that have given us reason to suspect that there is a physiological origin for sexual orientation. This means that my contention is that there are a fundamental differences between how heterosexuals and homosexuals of either gender function in terms of sexuality. We could go around and around about the relative reliability of such findings and debate the virtue of the various psychological studies on the topic and we could wrangle about the personal virtues of individual homosexuals and their knowledge and experience, but the ultimate conclusion will be that we do not know with 100% certainty that homosexuals are distinct from heterosexuals in the way that is vital to this discussion.

Those who have reached conclusions on this matter must be reasonably assured of their position given the information available to them.

Those who do have first-hand knowledge of the subject will simply have to make the best judgment possible to them on the matter until science is able to support (or refute) their position, but I do not believe, contrary to my fervent wish, it is possible to resent unquestionable empirical evidence at this time to support the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those who have reached conclusions on this matter must be reasonably assured of their position given the information available to them.

I just don't think it really matters. I am not a homosexual, so I will have to remark strictly on my heterosexual desires. Though I look primarily at the intellect and the correlation of values, I have certainly met men who stimulate me intellectually and have matching values to mine. Yet these men are unacceptible to me as partners, because I don't find the traits of men particularly attractive.

When dealling with attraction to women, intellect again is the strong motivating factor as well as the correlation of values, but its not all there is to my desire. I also look for attractive features that sexually stimulate me, and these happen to be feminine features. The combination of that attraction and the other extremely important attributes make for a relationship that makes for happiness and contentment.

And that's all anyone's ultimate goal is, and all it should be. If my tables were turned and I found the masculine features attractive, it would be worthless to deny myself a relationship with a willing male partner who met these same criteria but had obviously masculine features. As long as it were not self-destructive, a function of self-loathing, and were not allowed to overtake or replace my own concept of self or my own identiy as my focus, there can be no ethical problem when happiness/selfishness is the moral premise.

I have seen a lot of homosexual couples that live in horrible, unhappy, dependent relationships. But the exceptions keep me focused on the possible, particularly those few I've seen that are happy, full of mutual love, respect and attraction, and an absence of fatalist dependency. It would be absolutely ludicrious of me to say to these men that this goes against their nature, and that they should deprive themselves of this happy relationship in order to either appease their unthinking bodily processes or some council of Objectivists who claim to know better what kind of happiness they can obtain through a little stoicism for the sake of greater nature.

I have to put the mind, where all proper sexual desires come from, above whatever bodily processes themselves are itching. It might be bold of me to say so, but I don't think these men exist to appease any number of others who might claim that they are betraying themselves by seeking an individual happiness without harming innocents along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I scent the Argument From Intimidation, m0zart.

Billions of years ago the two sexes evolved, and since then nearly all but the lowest species have evolved to mate one sex with the other. It is in the nature of and is a benefit for perceiving animal to be physically attracted to, enough to copulate with, only the opposite sex. Heterosexual desire as such is a natural life-enhancing phenomenon.

Homosexual desire as such does not come from nature. Desire for pleasure does, but homosexuality comes nurturally, from what one learns. Nature has not designed the various species to support it. There is no fundamental difference in how homosexuals and heterosexuals were designed to act, but only in how they learned to act.

Trey, there have been many scientific studies supporting this contention as well. There have been many scientific studies claiming the Earth's environment is going to hell, and there have been many claiming not. The evidence for both natural homosexuality and supporting Kyoto is shaky at best. Given present scientific profisciency, I am surprised you are not surprised a "homosexual gene" hasn't yet been discovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I scent the Argument From Intimidation, m0zart.
You sense incorrectly.

Billions of years ago the two sexes evolved, and since then nearly all but the lowest species have evolved to mate one sex with the other. It is in the nature of and is a benefit for perceiving animal to be physically attracted to, enough to copulate with, only the opposite sex. Heterosexual desire as such is a natural life-enhancing phenomenon.

Which seems entirely irrelevant from a moral perspective UNLESS there is also a natural obligation to procreate.

Which there is not.

Homosexual desire as such does not come from nature. Desire for pleasure does, but homosexuality comes nurturally, from what one learns. Nature has not designed the various species to support it. There is no fundamental difference in how homosexuals and heterosexuals were designed to act, but only in how they learned to act.
Who designed them to act in any particular way?

Does this include how homosexuals learned to act?

Trey, there have been many scientific studies supporting this contention as well. There have been many scientific studies claiming the Earth's environment is going to hell, and there have been many claiming not. The evidence for both natural homosexuality and supporting Kyoto is shaky at best.

That also seems irrelevant to me. This is essentially a list for ethics, and the contention from at least one poster was that fulfilling your desires and seeking your happiness wasn't the only thing that you needed to pursue in Objectivist ethics.

The answer given was shaky at best. It assumes that we owe servitude to our natural processes, even if they produce unhappy results or make heavy demands on our own pursuit of happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which seems entirely irrelevant from a moral perspective

Every is implies an ought.

Who designed them to act in any particular way?

Nature.

Does this include how homosexuals learned to act?

Most people eat; it is the most natural way to fulfill the natural urge of hunger. Some take nutrition directly through IV; it is not the natural way.

This is essentially a list for ethics, and the contention from at least one poster was that fulfilling your desires and seeking your happiness wasn't the only thing that you needed to pursue in Objectivist ethics.

Seeking one's happiness in the method proper to Man is the good and the purpose of life in Objectivist ethics.

It assumes that we owe servitude to our natural processes, even if they produce unhappy results or make heavy demands on our own pursuit of happiness.

Strangely enough, we owe servitude to the notion of rights, though they make me the evil in seizing other people's property with my rather large gang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature.

If we take science into account, particularly the process of microevolution, and the fact that there is a constant 1 to 3 % of men in this country who are unquestionable homosexuals, it would be just as easy to see that nature is filtering out perhaps badly placed genes.

Still, I don't see how it could matter either way. The last time I checked, Objectivism isn't equivalent or even comparable to Darwinism. If individuals through no fault of their own have developed homosexual feelings, either genetically *or* due to an environmental influence in their development, it isn't unnatural to them. Otherwise the assumption is that human beings are exactly the same from generation to generation (a claim that is false), and that they should be slaves to a collectivist notion of how most men are, rather than how that individual man *is*.

Most people eat; it is the most natural way to fulfill the natural urge of hunger. Some take nutrition directly through IV; it is not the natural way.

Is taking food through an IV immoral?

Seeking one's happiness in the method proper to Man is the good and the purpose of life in Objectivist ethics.
To assume that all men are the same from a genetic standpoint is an obvious collectivist fallacy, as is the assumption that all men should be the same in individual preferential behavior.

Strangely enough, we owe servitude to the notion of rights, though they make me the evil in seizing other people's property with my rather large gang.

Where my own life and happiness are the standard, I seriously doubt I could live in self-denial to an impulse that to me would be wholly natural, as natural to the feel as heterosexuality is to me now.

If I were a homosexual, and the acts involved in homosexuality were unnatural or even self-destructive, even to the point that it shortened my life span, I'd much rather really *live* for ten more years than wallow in literal self-denial for forty or fifty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M0zart, I was responding to Trey before, and as such was speaking about the origin of "sexual orientation" - whether natural or learned. I did not explicitly mention whether homosexuality is moral or immoral.

You cannot take a statistic among people and then elevate it to a necessary fact of nature based on evolution. Just because approximately 10% of people in America live below the poverty line does not mean it is necessarily based in the nature of men. Likewise, homosexuality, no matter the constant percentage in this country, is not necessarily genetic. It may be learned, and it is my contention that it is. Ie, people are born heterosexual, yet there are some who learn to switch their orientation later in life, whether consciously or unconsciously, whether by their own choice or by others without their knowledge. Nowhere do I make or imply the assumption "that human beings are exactly the same from generation to generation," and nowhere does my contention imply it.

My point in my last comment, "strangely enough...," was to counter your implication in "we [do not] owe servitude to our natural processes" that humans can somehow override nature as mystics and subjectivists and collectivists claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ie, people are born heterosexual

I would say that people are born asexual : a newborn baby is not sexually interested in anyone. Sexual desires first arise at the age of puberty, triggered by the bodily processes that take place in that age. The object of such desires in each individual depends on the more or less conscious choices the individual makes. The ideal choice is to be interested in the most virtuous person of the other sex that you can find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CF:

The ideal choice is to be interested in the most virtuous person of the other sex that you can find.

Ideal for who? It is your contention that humans are born asexual but you have not rendered anything that leads me to believe that heterosexuality is the grandest orientation. First you stated the "is" but your method of getting to the "ought" seems to be arbitrary to me. Are you saying that ethics is a social convention in that heterosexuality is accepted as the standard by most societies?

I do not think that Objectivist principles give any validity to claim the homosexuality is immoral. If someone were to ask you what Objectivism says about homosexuality (i.e., its application to this matter) what would you tell them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capleton,

I believe CF contested my wording on what appears to me to be a technicality - when sexuality develops. I said "people are born heterosexual" when in reality, as CF points out, people are born not sexual - or asexual - but are biologically programmed to develop sexually at puberty in a specific manner: heterosexually. People can learn to override their natural functions: they can learn to regulate - hack, if you will - breathing, heart rate, states of consciousness, and that which is called sexual orientation. One is not born able consciously to slow his heart at will, and one is not born programmed to develop homosexually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is your contention that humans are born asexual but you have not rendered anything that leads me to believe that heterosexuality is the grandest orientation.  First you stated the "is" but your method of getting to the "ought" seems to be arbitrary to me. Are you saying that ethics is a social convention in that heterosexuality is accepted as the standard by most societies?

Please read my previous posts on this thread.

If someone were to ask you what Objectivism says  about homosexuality (i.e., its application to this matter) what would you tell them?

What I have already said on this thread.

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...