Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[Capitalism Forever]

I believe CF contested my wording on what appears to me to be a technicality

You believe correctly.

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.

It is important to recognize that sexual behavior involves a lot more than just an "orientation." While your breathing and heartbeat are automatic and work perfectly well even if you do absolutely nothing about them consciously, you will not have sex with anyone unless you make some conscious choices and act on them (except if you are raped, but then the person who does the raping makes such conscious choices).

There are three kinds of things that make you interested in sex: 1) the automatic responses of your body to sense perceptions; 2) your emotional response to sense perceptions; 3) the emotions you feel towards a person.

#1 arises independently of who the person perceived is, or whether it is a person at all; it is just an automatic bodily response to a specific input to one of your senses. The more such inputs your various senses receive, the stronger your bodily response will be.

#2 is a result of your previous value-judgments, but still independent of the person in question. If a negative emotion is involved, it can counteract #1 and neutralize or negate it; if a positive emotion is involved, it strengthens #1. The presence of strongly negative emotional responses explains why most people say they "cannot imagine" being sexually attracted to a person of the same sex, a child, a dead body, an animal, etc.

#3 is a result of your evaluation of the specific person and your choice of a partner in life. If you have a very negative opinion of somebody, it can neutralize the combined effect of #1 and #2; if you see a lot of virtue in a person, it strengthens the effect. If you have made a strong commitment to a specific person as your exclusive partner in life, the effects of #1 and #2 will disappear or at least diminish to the point of being uninteresting for every other person.

Your experience will not be complete unless you have positive reactions at all three levels. Since men and women complement each other, both in the bed and in life in general, heterosexuality is ideal for the purposes of both #1 and #3. This is why a rational person will already have a preference for it at level #2, when deciding what to be "oriented" toward, and will further confirm it at level #3, when deciding whom to spend his life with.

It should be noted that the superiority of heterosexuality at level #1 is so obvious that it takes a deliberate act of evasion to be unattracted to the other sex. As I have said before, such value-judgments are probably triggered by cowardice--a fear of the unknown. If a person is attracted to both sexes, that is not necessarily a result of active evasion; it may simply be because of a passive failure to think the matter through.

[Capleton]

CF:

Since men and women complement each other, both in the bed and in life in general, heterosexuality is ideal for the purposes of both #1 and #3.

Just because a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina they can be said to compliment each other only biologically (i.e., in the context of procreation). On a mental level it takes more than "biological compatibility" for the development of romantic love. When a male is growing up (and even in adulthood) his closest circle of friends are males and as such men seem to compliment each other also. Humans compliment humans, pure and simple.

It should be noted that the superiority of heterosexuality at level #1 is so obvious that it takes a deliberate act of evasion to be unattracted to the other sex.

I don't think that you have a right to use the evasion bit because your "logic" isn't potent enough to warrant it. As I recall level 1 concerns: "the automatic responses of your body to sense perceptions." From the quote it is evident that you did not say if the "responses" were good or bad all that could be ascertained is that the responses were not volitional (if you are to be believed). Are we to believe that a man being attracted to another man is not volitional at this level? If so, how does this validate your previous claims? The only superiority that heterosexuality has is in a social context (homosexuality is taboo) and in the realm of procreation.

As I have said before, such value-judgments are probably triggered by cowardice--a fear of the unknown.

Fear of what: "unknown"? Blank out. Do gay men have automatic information about the men that they date? Don't they have to go through all the drama in getting to know another human being? How then can they be afraid of the "unknown" when one human cannot read the mind of another (regardless of sex)?

If a person is attracted to both sexes, that is not necessarily a result of active evasion; it may simply be because of a passive failure to think the matter through.

Since reading "Fact & Value" I have been wary of such "arguments" as presented above. Note: I do consider Peikoff to be thoughtful fellow but he is not infallible and he has said some pretty silly things. Anyhow, I am done with this forum I am quite frankly bored by such ill-conceived arguments.

[danielshrugged]

While I disagree that what is frustrating Capleton is comparable to what Peikoff says about dishonesty in Fact and Value, I share concern for CF's thinking here. Frankly, CF, you sound about as absurd as someone who loves chocolate ice cream and condemns anyone who loves vanilla as an evader. The charge of evasion is a serious one, as I'm sure you know, and I don't like the perception it creates among people when self-proclaimed Objectivists throw it around like you have (something, Capleton, I would say Peikoff does not do). At the very least, when YOU are convinced a belief, or in this case a subsoncious orientation, requires evasion, you'd better be prepared to explain yourself very well and show why. I don't think you've done that.

It is also absurd to call homosexuality cowardice, when many homosexuals illustrate great amounts of courage just to act on their desires and not fear having others know about their homosexuality.

[Capitalism Forever]

Frankly, CF, you sound about as absurd as someone who loves chocolate ice cream and condemns anyone who loves vanilla as an evader.

No, I sound like someone who prefers good quality capitalist ice cream to the junk that used to be sold in Soviet Block countries and says that anyone who thinks he could never eat the capitalist ice cream, only the commie one, must in a usual context have arrived at this conclusion as a result of an evasion.

I inserted "in a usual context" in the sentence above because our preferences regarding food are often influenced by emotions that are valid but unrelated to nutritional issues. For example, a guy who grew up in a Communist country and ate junk ice cream when he first dated his wife but was forced to eat American ice cream when he was tortured would have a very positive emotional reaction to junk ice and a very negative one to American ice. Since the value he gains from remembering his first date with his wife, as opposed to remembering the torture, far outweighs the value he would gain from eating better ice cream, I would not fault him for preferring the junk ice.

But while eating the right kind of ice cream is not essential to a successful life, having the right kind of romantic relationship IS--so no such caveats apply there.

The charge of evasion is a serious one, as I'm sure you know, and I don't like the perception it creates among people when self-proclaimed Objectivists throw it around like you have

I'm not a "self-proclaimed Objectivist." I'm a student of Objectivism. I did not "throw it around" ; I made this observation after quite an amount of thought I put into the matter, as demonstrated by the length of the thread and my posts in it. Further, I am not suggesting that such people (i.e. ones completely unattracted to the other sex) should be persecuted or anything--after all, they do not violate anyone's rights--I just noted that I think there is some evasion involved.

It is also absurd to call homosexuality cowardice, when many homosexuals illustrate great amounts of courage just to act on their desires and not fear having others know about their homosexuality.

You might just as well say that it takes courage to tell your commanding officer that you just soiled your pants.

[Areactor]

No, I sound like someone who prefers good quality capitalist ice cream to the junk that used to be sold in Soviet Block countries and says that anyone who thinks he could never eat the capitalist ice cream, only the commie one, must in a usual context have arrived at this conclusion as a result of an evasion.

I inserted "in a usual context" in the sentence above because our preferences regarding food are often influenced by emotions that are valid but unrelated to nutritional issues. For example, a guy who grew up in a Communist country and ate junk ice cream when he first dated his wife but was forced to eat American ice cream when he was tortured would have a very positive emotional reaction to junk ice and a very negative one to American ice. Since the value he gains from remembering his first date with his wife, as opposed to remembering the torture, far outweighs the value he would gain from eating better ice cream, I would not fault him for preferring the junk ice.

But while eating the right kind of ice cream is not essential to a successful life, having the right kind of romantic relationship IS--so no such caveats apply there.

I'm not a "self-proclaimed Objectivist." I'm a student of Objectivism. I did not "throw it around" ; I made this observation after quite an amount of thought I put into the matter, as demonstrated by the length of the thread and my posts in it. Further, I am not suggesting that such people (i.e. ones completely unattracted to the other sex) should be persecuted or anything--after all, they do not violate anyone's rights--I just noted that I think there is some evasion involved.

You might just as well say that it takes courage to tell your commanding officer that you just soiled your pants.

Hmmmm, as a Homosexual, I cannot possibly know what I'm evading. What? Heterosexual sex?

Calling me, some one you haven't even met, a coward. But I guess your free to believe whatever you like. I don't argue over the internet.

[weissmuller]

The morality of homosexuality can parallel to other individually harmful acceptances such as religion and altruism.

On first analysis from ?godlike? point of view such ideas are adverse to the individuals who harbor them, but to call them immoral in themselves is dependent on how the individual?s belief system effects others.

An old lady who chooses to throw her limited time and wealth into a church is generally not viewed as in immoral act as it is not directly penalizing any other individual. Through similar reasoning one could say homosexual who willing engage in such relationship is not violating others rights and should be permitted to do so at their own expense. So with this one could say homosexuality is not immoral and should be accepted into society.

But if we reexamine these acts we can see they are not as innocent as portrayed. The old lady, who dedicates her life to religion, has in sense allocated her life work to powering this evil. She, along with millions of others provides the resource needed to keep this monster alive. Sacrificing her own life to the church, she aids in spreading the virus to other minds who will be enslaved by the same doctrine and suffer the same fate. Her acts are as moral as a leper working in a soup kitchen.

In a lesser sense homosexuality, along with other diseases of the mind including suicide, eating disorders, socialism, etc, are spread through similar mechanism. They may not be as active in spreading their cause as the missionaries, but non the less through their actions they encourage others. Without their conscience choice they are infecting individuals by living through the values others have imposed on them. Just as a man with a cold unwilling spreads his ailment to others as his body responds to the induced inflammation with burst of virus tainted coughs, those who practice evil will spread it to innocent victims.

Some may say the analogy with a physiological infection is a little harsh and deny that beliefs bear any resemblance to a virus. But from an unbiased perspective the collation is almost frightening. For this reason and this reason alone all these acts can be considered immoral for they directly jeopardize the welfare of others.

[Capitalism Forever]

On first analysis from ?godlike? point of view such ideas are adverse to the individuals who harbor them, but to call them immoral in themselves is dependent on how the individual?s belief system effects others.

The standard of morality is one's life. A person who acts rationally to further his life acts morally; a person whose actions are destructive of his life acts immorally.

Things which do not violate the rights of others can still be immoral; a violation of rights is just one form of immorality--although it is the only form of immorality that warrants retaliation by force, since it is wrong to initiate force.

[AshRyan]

Right. There is a crucial distinction between what is immoral and what is (properly considered to be) criminal. Regardless of whether homosexuality is immoral or not, I think everyone here would agree that it is certainly not criminal and that laws against it are tyrannical.

[Areactor]

The morality of homosexuality can parallel to other individually harmful acceptances such as religion and altruism.

On first analysis from ?godlike? point of view such ideas are adverse to the individuals who harbor them, but to call them immoral in themselves is dependent on how the individual?s belief system effects others.

An old lady who chooses to throw her limited time and wealth into a church is generally not viewed as in immoral act as it is not directly penalizing any other individual.  Through similar reasoning one could say homosexual who willing engage in such relationship is not violating others rights and should be permitted to do so at their own expense.  So with this one could say homosexuality is not immoral and should be accepted into society.

But if we reexamine these acts we can see they are not as innocent as portrayed.  The old lady, who dedicates her life to religion, has in sense allocated her life work to powering this evil.  She, along with millions of others provides the resource needed to keep this monster alive.  Sacrificing her own life to the church, she aids in spreading the virus to other minds who will be enslaved by the same doctrine and suffer the same fate.  Her acts are as moral as a leper working in a soup kitchen.

In a lesser sense homosexuality, along with other diseases of the mind including suicide, eating disorders, socialism, etc, are spread through similar mechanism.  They may not be as active in spreading their cause as the missionaries, but non the less through their actions they encourage others.  Without their conscience choice they are infecting individuals by living through the values others have imposed on them.  Just as a man with a cold unwilling spreads his ailment to others as his body responds to the induced inflammation with burst of virus tainted coughs, those who practice evil will spread it to innocent victims.

Some may say the analogy with a physiological infection is a little harsh and deny that beliefs bear any resemblance to a virus.  But from an unbiased perspective the collation is almost frightening.  For this reason and this reason alone all these acts can be considered immoral for they directly jeopardize the welfare of others.

That's the thing, I'm not a gay collectivist. I neither judge people by their sexuality in any way. I don't understand why number 1, you'd call socialism and suicide diseases of the mind. And 2, you compare homosexuality with a cold. I don't believe your being harsh, but mistaken.

[weissmuller]

That's the thing, I'm not a gay collectivist. I neither judge people by their sexuality in any way. I don't understand why number 1, you'd call socialism and suicide diseases of the mind. And 2, you compare homosexuality with a cold. I don't believe your being harsh, but mistaken.

You missed my point.

The disease is an analogy, I am not talking about a physical pathogen as the basis for these mental states. Instead I aimed to show how cultural ideas grow by spreading from mind to mind, just as a virus spreads from body to body. Thereby anyone who willing accepts and aids such ideas is fueling the concept as it grasps additional victims.

Personally I am no more for legal control over homosexuality than I am for a government ban on religion. You can?t force a mind through such intervention. Instead I favor exposing the cause of these ailments guarding individuals from them.

This may trouble some due to personal investments and will straight out refuse such a vantage point on culture. Instead they?ll seek some alternate and generally mystical explanation for the concepts that enthrall them. I know that those who will argue this point will not do so through facts and logic but through feelings and faith.

[Areactor]

You missed my point.

The disease is an analogy, I am not talking about a physical pathogen as the basis for these mental states. Instead I aimed to show how cultural ideas grow by spreading from mind to mind, just as a virus spreads from body to body. Thereby anyone who willing accepts and aids such ideas is fueling the concept as it grasps additional victims.

Personally I am no more for legal control over homosexuality than I am for a government ban on religion. You can?t force a mind through such intervention. Instead I favor exposing the cause of these ailments guarding individuals from them.

This may trouble some due to personal investments and will straight out refuse such a vantage point on culture. Instead they?ll seek some alternate and generally mystical explanation for the concepts that enthrall them. I know that those who will argue this point will not do so through facts and logic but through feelings and faith.

Hello weis

I don't argue very much so I ask questions instead if you haven't noticed. Have you had any contact with a great number of homosexuals? Do you believe homosexuality is a mental illness? And if you do or do not, what do you think causes homosexuality. And lastly, how do you think one could prevent homosexuality or even turn a homosexual person to a heterosexual?

[weissmuller]

Hello weis

I don't argue very much so I ask questions instead if you haven't noticed. Have you had any contact with a great number of homosexuals? Do you believe homosexuality is a mental illness? And if you do or do not, what do you think causes homosexuality. And lastly, how do you think one could prevent homosexuality or even turn a homosexual person to a heterosexual?

I apologize if I sounded overly hostile on this subject. The majority was not directly aimed at you or for that matter anyone, instead it was a strong statement to drive home my point.

The essential part of my viewpoint is the nature of homosexuality. It is obvious that a truly "gay gene" is not responsible, as such would last only a single generation. The argument for certain genes predisposing one to accept this standpoint is valid, but it must be remembered that such a phenotypic trait would be the sum of both the gene and the environment. Regardless homosexuality is definitely not hardwired due to the gradient of characteristics held by the individuals. I am not an expert here, but am fairly confident that each individual homosexual is quite unique; traits including as age of conception, fashion, life style, etc.

If the cause isn't physical, genes, then it must be psychological, cultural. Basically the cause of homosexuality is cultural induced. Here is where it ties into religion and politics. All are traits of the mind induced by culture that lead the individual to a certain lifestyle. Just as a gene for blue eyes leads to the blue eye phenotype, certain ideas/cultural components lead to a mental "phenotype".

The basic ideas that lead to a belief in god are similar but different to those that lead to socialism, both have a common denominator. The net effect on the individual aids in the spread of the ideology. Such acts as self-sacrifice of time and money as well as devotion to "spreading the word" are all eventualities of the religious belief and aid in furthering the creed into other minds. Here is how religion, socialism, and other harmful doctrines have stayed alive through the centuries; they propagate themselves through the minds they enter. They may be logically harmful to the individual accepting them, but due to their nature they continue. This is the source of the virus analogy, a self-propagator, at the expense of their host.

Homosexuality is not in itself a core replicating idea. Instead it is an eventuality of other cultural concepts that predominant parts of the modern society. Such are not logically beneficial to the individual, but just as with religion, all that matters is that minds will accept it. By leading men to certain course of action, these ideas will continue to spread themselves. They are nothing more than parasites that leach men of their valued lives, they remain not due to anyone?s conscious desire, but because the modern world presents an environment in which they flourish. There is a cure, one with a higher cultural value than the cure for cancer.

*********************************************************

As a side note I would like to make it clear that I am not an anti-religion extremist or a gay basher. Less than I year ago I myself was a devout christian, who clung to such beliefs regardless of the facts. Much of my current understanding into cultural evolution, cosmology, and logic was gained under influence of religion. I took great interest in Objectivism while cursing Ayn Rand for her atheist beliefs. It was not till I discovered for myself the nature of the god I worshipped. Not an omnipotent creator, but instead a parasitic creation, an eventuality of cultural evolution over the millennia. I know from experience its near impossible to convert individual in this position due to their deep rotted tenets, but it is the only way to the Objective world and I desire such a rational society above all else.

[Guest R]

Weissmuller,

The issue is simple: is sexual orientation a product of choice?

If it is not a product of choice, then any question of homosexuality's morality or immorality is non-existent; for we cannot be held morally accountable for that which we do not choose. This is Objectivism 101.

Thus far, I have not seen any convincing evidence that one's sexual orientation is a matter of choice. I know that I certainly did not choose my heterosexuality; nobody reasoned me into being sexually attracted to girls; I just am. And every homosexual that I have spoken with about the matter feels exactly the same way about their sexuality: it was not a choice at all; they just felt that way; end of story. (Actually, many of them have said that if sexual orientation was a choice, they would choose to be heterosexual due to our culture's traditional hostility towards homosexuals.)

So, weissmuller, if you cannot provide any compelling evidence to support the claim that sexual orientation is a product of choice (like the acceptance of ideas and beliefs most definitely is), then you have no rational grounds on which to believe that homosexuality is immoral.

[y_feldblum]

There are very many choices (or value-judgments) in life that are made over a course of time, catalyzed by an extreme experience, and require an extended and perhaps difficult process to reverse. To be homosexual is one.

[weissmuller]

Weissmuller,

The issue is simple: is sexual orientation a product of choice?

If it is not a product of choice, then any question of homosexuality's morality or immorality is non-existent; for we cannot be held morally accountable for that which we do not choose. This is Objectivism 101.

Thus far, I have not seen any convincing evidence that one's sexual orientation is a matter of choice. I know that I certainly did not choose my heterosexuality; nobody reasoned me into being sexually attracted to girls; I just am. And every homosexual that I have spoken with about the matter feels exactly the same way about their sexuality: it was not a choice at all; they just felt that way; end of story. (Actually, many of them have said that if sexual orientation was a choice, they would choose to be heterosexual due to our culture's traditional hostility towards homosexuals.)

So, weissmuller, if you cannot provide any compelling evidence to support the claim that sexual orientation is a product of choice (like the acceptance of ideas and beliefs most definitely is), then you have no rational grounds on which to believe that homosexuality is immoral.

But what is choice?

If by choice you mean the consciousness direction guided by rational thought, then I would say very few people in the modern world have any choice in their fate. How many christians have spent years equally reviewing the diverse class of religions available and then choosing the god they will worship? Practically none, they were indoctrinated when defenseless, either by age or accident. Through others influence they accepted beliefs without a logical understood.

What about other facets of the modern world? How many individuals rational chose to follow a fashion craze or hold political options that go beyond an iteration of their favorite news channel? The fact is the majority of the world does not live through consciousness thought, but through blind supervenience. They are nothing more than pawns in a grand contest forming an environment where the ideas of culture can prosper parasitically without regard to the individuals they grasp.

It is only when one accepts a rational core as the center of their mind and makes decisions with full cognizance of their implications that one's actions are truly choice.

By such you could say the majority homosexuals are not so by choice, as the majority of society is corrupted by default. But that is not what we are discussing, the issue is whether one can rationally pursue homosexual interest, the answer is clearly no.

Can such a state be consciously altered, yes. The body is simply a machine designed to cope with the environment. There are many harmful exaptations, molded for a world significantly different than our modern one, but they are only expressed by environmental influence. The environmental control is consciousness, it determines what the mind and body will be exposed to. Just as one who chooses to expose their body to refined carbohydrates and trans fatty acids while suffer the consequences of obesity and diabetes, one can induce the trait of homosexuality. With sufficient will one can always change the environment and thereby the state.

The conflict arises since most would not even begin to accept responsibility to one's self. The modern world is a gray blob that no longer makes moral distinctions. Man no loner holds a desire to live the highest. Instead he accepts a decayed partial existence were both mind and body have rotted through his actions.

It is not easy for a man to brand himself on the wrong end of a moral scale, so instead he denies such a scale exists. Rather than take conscious effort towards a moral self, he'd rather attempt to prove his current state is satisfactory.

Here is the problem of modern society. Homosexuality is a minor fragment of the purgatory. Only when a man can rationally view himself and his world for both its virtues and its vices, and chose to correct the former, will the problems of today vanish. When an individual can not only accept an objective astuteness, but chose to direct it at oneself.

[Trey Givens]

There are very many choices (or value-judgments) in life that are made over a course of time, catalyzed by an extreme experience, and require an extended and perhaps difficult process to reverse.  To be homosexual is one.

This comment is correct up to the last sentence.

R states the case clearly and simply. If this is a choice, only then can we discuss the moral value of homosexuality.

However, contrary to the assertion that sexuality is a choice, there is scientific evidence available that at least casts significant doubt on the notion that sexual orientation is the product of value-judgments at all.

We're confronted at this point with no conclusive evidence in either case, so it seems that individuals will have to decide this for themselves until we know enough about Reality to answer the question.

[Guest TA]

R says:

"Thus far, I have not seen any convincing evidence that one's sexual orientation is a matter of choice. I know that I certainly did not choose my heterosexuality; nobody reasoned me into being sexually attracted to girls; I just am."

The same of course is true of necrophiliacs, pedophiles, sadists and masochists. Does that mean there in a "pedophilia" gene?

Let's be clear on the following: When Ayn Rand and Objectivism says that "man is a being of self-made soul" - that there are no innate or environment-determined desires, emotions or values - this does *not* mean that a person necessarily sits down a Tuesday at one o'clock and "chooses" some desire, emotion or value, because he himself or somebody else "reasoned" him into it. It means merely that these *ultimately* depend on your thinking and conclusions.

But something as deep and personal as one's sexual desires are always deeply rooted in one's whole network of both conscious and subconscious premises - and the latter may be deeply buried and elusive to introspection. One's emotions may therefore seem to one as "just me," but that is no evidence at all for determinism.

If one wants to argue against the Objectivist position on this issue, one should at least not substitute a ludicrously caricatured simplification of it as one's target.

[IdeaSave]

Hi all,

I'll add a post to the intros section when I get time. For now, I'd just like to say that I agree with TA's point that a person's emotional and psychological makeup (including sexuality) derives ultimately from that person's thinking. I'd like to add, though, that I think others in this thread haven't given that point sufficient consideration.

People make true/false, good/bad judgments pretty much continuously from an early age (2?) to the day they die. These judgments are at the perceptual level and subconscious (e.g., "That tastes good") initially, and then become more abstract and conscious over time as the person matures. The sum of these thousands of judgments define who that person is intellectually, emotionally and psychologically. Note that all of these judgments and the observations/experiences that led to them happen after birth - there are no innate judgments of any kind.

This includes the emotion of sexual/romantic attraction. A person, any person, who looks at another and feels such attraction (or doesn't) has not directly chosen that feeling, but he _has_ indirectly chosen it. Perhaps more accurately, he has _programmed_ that response into himself over time through the choices he has made. Such a response is an indirect consequence of the aforementioned thousands of choices the person made while growing up.

To put that another way, if you take the idea that there are no innate ideas (including value judgments) seriously, then you have to reject as impossible the claim that sexuality is genetically determined, and accept that it is volitional (in the indirect way I've described).

This doesn't make a person's sexuality a moral issue, however. It would be a moral issue if it were the result of a conscious weighing of alternatives and then a choice, but that is extraordinarily rare, if it happens at all. You can't hold a person morally responsible for his emotional/psychological makeup - otherwise everybody with problems in those areas has to be branded as immoral, which is ridiculous.

By everything I know, the above is the reason why Dr. Leonard Peikoff holds that homosexuality is _improper_ but not necessarily immoral. Improper here derives from Ms. Rand's view that homosexuality is inconsistent with anatomy. I believe both Rand and Peikoff would say that homosexuality is a result of judgments that are inconsistent with the facts, i.e., _wrong_ judgments.

That's certainly my view, but if that is an incorrect summary of Ms. Rand's or Dr. Peikoff's view, please correct me.

Mark Peters

[Areactor]

I think maybe the greatest question of them all is if homosexuality is genetically perverse or psychologically perverse, then what kind of harm surfaces from out a homosexual person?

And secondly, if homosexuality can be cured, what is that cure?

[poohat]

the recoginition of the fact that men and women have different natures,

You've made this claim several times in this thread; are you planning on providing scientific evidence for it at some point?

Also, I dont like this false dichotomy that either homosexuality EITHER manifests as a biological phenomenon OR it is immoral. Even if sexual orientation was shown to be purely psychological, why would individual who made the choice to act homosexually be acting immoral? Why would making this psychological choice be detrimental to his long-term happyness? You could certainly argue that SOME people 'choose' homosexuality for negative reasons (sexual abuse/whatever), but it seems exceptionally naive (not to mention flying in the face of all evidence) to claim that ALL do.

[Nim]

The information was gathered from "The Owner's Manual For The Brain", in section 12 "Sex and Gender: The Wiring Is Different".

SEXUALITY

A section of the hypothalamus called the BSTc is 50% larger among MALES than among FEMALES regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. But among transsexual men (not surgically transexual but men who feel that they are really women trapped in the body of a man), the BSTc is not only smaller on the average than other men's; it is also smaller than women's.

Homosexuality runs in families, appear randomly in birth order, and exhibit early childhood gender noncomformity.

The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus is of equal size in women and homosexual men but is twice as large in heterosexual men.

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


STUDY SUBJECTS                             SEXUALITY

*71 sets of identical twin females.        48% of the lesbians had a lesbian sister.

*37 sets of fraternal twin females.        16% of the lesbians had a lesbian sister.

*35 sets of adoptive sisters.               6% of the lesbians had a lesbian sister.


*182 heterosexual men                      16% showed more ridges on the left hand than the right.

*66 homosexual men                         30% showed more ridges on the left hand than the right.[/code]


A study done on 34 homosexual men, 75 heterosexual men, and 84 heterosexual women. Showed that the anterior commissures (a communication link between two brain hemispheres) of the homosexual men were 34% larger than those of heterosexual men and 8% larger than those of women. 


note: twice as many homosexuals showed more ridges on the left than heterosexuals. these print patterns are completely formed within four months of conception. women and gay men have a higher incidence of  higher left-hand ridge counts. While the womens were 13% larger than the straight men.


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


Gays and lesbians have a higher incidence of left-handedness.


Homosexual men have larger connections between the two hemispheres.


Both men and women with higher left-handed ridge counts excel at typically feminine tasks such as those involving nurture and verbal skills.


Many gay brothers share a strip of DNA passed down from their mothers.


Inner ears of lesbians respond to sounds in a manner that resembles a male's response more than a female's.


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


The male fruit fly (drosophila) possesses a powerful high-level gene that governs his sexual behavior. One mutation of the gene leads to indiscriminate, or bisexual, behavior; another mutation removes the desire to mate; and yet another mutation removes the ability to perform the "courtship buzz." Yet fruit flies with all three mutations are perfectly healthy otherwise.

[Nim]

Another interesting instance of homosexuality in nature:

"A similar phenomenon occurs in cases where a cow brings two fraternal twins, one male and one female, to term. Because (unlike humans) such twins share hormones via their placental blood interface with the mother cow, male hormones produced in the body of the fetal bull find their way into the body of the fetal cow and masculinize her brain. The result is a freemartin (unconventional heiffer), a cow that will eventually try to mount other cows the way that a bull would."

While it's easy for people to see that sometimes male and female body parts get mixed up (herms, merms, and ferms), it takes some research to see how the things inside of males and females can get mixed up. Currently I've been reading about how some males have an extra X (female) chromosome. It's known as "Klinefelter's syndrome" if anyone is interested.

[IdeaSave]

Nim,

The thing to keep in mind about all the things that you quoted is that no evidence was given one way or the other about whether those things are causes, consequences, correlations or irrelevancies (and nothing was given to enable us to judge for ourselves). Also, no information was given about the studies themselves. Were they scientifically valid? Did they take care to correct for confounding factors?

The example from the non-human animal world is totally irrelevant because cows don't have free will. That indicates that the authors don't consider volition to be relevant, and that they don't recognize any fundamental difference between human and non-human sexuality. Those things by themselves invalidate their claim (assuming that their claim is that homosexuality is genetic).

And that brings up several really important questions: Was volition considered in any way, shape or form by this book's authors? Did the authors ever identify what, fundamentally, sexual/romantic attraction _is_? Did they say anything at all about _values_ and _value judgments_, and how those relate to this issue?

Mark Peters

[Capitalism Forever]

You've made this claim several times in this thread; are you planning on providing scientific evidence for it at some point?

Sigh.

Exhibit A: a man's body. Exhibit B: a woman's body. Compare exhibit A with Exhibit B.

I could get into the details and write a scientific essay on the matter, but this forum is on philosophy, not biology, and besides I don't consider it very productive to explain the obvious.

Why would making this psychological choice be detrimental to his long-term happyness?

Sigh.

I don't consider it very productive to repeat myself. Please read my posts on this thread.

[Nim]

The thing to keep in mind about all the things that you quoted is that no evidence was given one way or the other about whether those things are causes, consequences, correlations or irrelevancies (and nothing was given to enable us to judge for ourselves).

I don't know what your talking about. Let's take this tid bit for an example "A study done on 34 homosexual men, 75 heterosexual men, and 84 heterosexual women. Showed that the anterior commissures (a communication link between two brain hemispheres) of the homosexual men were 34% larger than those of heterosexual men and 8% larger than those of women."

What exactly else do you need to know about it to see the differences between male homosexuals, males heterosexuals and female heterosexuals?

Also, no information was given about the studies themselves. Were they scientifically valid? Did they take care to correct for confounding factors?

I told you where I got it from, if your suspicious that they're lieing or that the research was done wrong and want to look into it more then go ahead. I don't expect you to take it in, I personally thought it was really interesting and thought that some other people would too.

The example from the non-human animal world is totally irrelevant because cows don't have free will. That indicates that the authors don't consider volition to be relevant, and that they don't recognize any fundamental difference between human and non-human sexuality.

I don't beleive in the concept of free will, I believe in having a will of course but I don't see it as either being free or unfree. The way I see it, we make choices based on our physical nature, just like any other animal. If your brain changes then you mind changes. Testosterone makes human females and cows more masculine. Testosterone causes visible and neurological changes in many different species. If you don't see it that way then I am not going to try and convince you. If anyone is interested in the information I provided or want to look into it more then fine, if they think its lies or failed research, then that's fine too, I just wanted to add something scientific to this thread since I hadn't come across any after reading the whole thing.

Those things by themselves invalidate their claim (assuming that their claim is that homosexuality is genetic).

What claims? The author of the brain book thinks the wiring between males and females are different in all species. So talking about other species doesn't invalidate his claims. And I am not sure what free will has to do with the fact that he believes the "wiring" is different between males and females. And I don't know about the opinion of the scientists who did the cow research, what I quoted was all that I saw from them. My post was aimed more at just providing some information rather than my opinion or anyone elses.

And that brings up several really important questions: Was volition considered in any way, shape or form by this book's authors? Did the authors ever identify what, fundamentally, sexual/romantic attraction _is_? Did they say anything at all about _values_ and _value judgments_, and how those relate to this issue?

Hehe. This isn't a gays rights book or anything. It's just a Gigantic book about the brain. It only mentions homosexuality in chapter 12.