Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[IdeaSave]

Nim,

A mere list of observations of differences between different populations of people doesn't tell us what those differences _mean_. For example, if we took a population of men and a population of women, then observed that the men are generally bigger, stronger, and weigh more, does that show that a person's sex is _caused_ by those factors, or is a consequence of them (or something else)? Those observations alone don't contain enough information to tell.

That man has free will, that his emotions derive from subconsciously held value judgments (which are hence fallible) and that sexual/romantic attraction is an emotion are all tenets of the philosophy this forum is dedicated to discussing. For that reason, people who grasp those tenets and see that they are true are not going to be motivated to read a book that (apparently) takes the irrelevancy of those tenets for granted.

The bottom line here is that this thread is about the moral implications, if any, of homosexuality. Determining what those are requires knowing what the cause of it is, several views of which have been expressed here. In that context, it is legitimate to interpret what you wrote as arguing for genetics as the cause.

If that isn't what you intended, then fine, but at least now you can see my reasons for asking the questions that I did.

Mark Peters

[DavidV]

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."

This sounds very much like the "scientists" who claim that brain size corresponds to intelligence and/or race. The fact is that there is very little physical variation between male and female brains, and the numbers you quoted are plainly ridiculous. To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no credible evidence connecting sexual orientation to genetics or any physical characteristic – just a lot of hot air motivated by politically-correct “science.”

[Nim]

A mere list of observations of differences between different populations of people doesn't tell us what those differences _mean_.

I can see what these differences means, it means that humans (male or female) that are attracted to males tend to have a heterosexual female brain. Which means that male homosexuals aren't typical males in the physical sense. And then there is the research done on the twin females that shows a pattern that would only arise if homosexuality had it roots in genes. I don't see why anymore information needs to be gathered to see the implications of the results.

So yes, it is evidence for genetics. I hear a lot of people talking about a "gay gene", and that is definitely not something that I think exists, if that is what you mean. I believe that there are male and female genes and that there are many physical attributes that make males and females different from each other both inside and out which can sometimes get mixed up in one person. A large corpus callosum for instance is an attribute of a female, along with ovaries, a clit and menstration.

[Nim]

the numbers you quoted are plainly ridiculous.

I did some searching on the web about it. And I found out that you ARE TOTOALLY WRONG HAHAHAHA. Just kidding. Actually I found this from one source "further research that compares the size of the corpus callosum size in men and women is needed" and this "the hypothalamus is one area of the brain with well-documented differences between men and women". I found a bunch more sources talking about the confusing research done on the corpus callosum and the other commissures between the hemispheres. Apparently different methods of measuring yield different results, such as cutting open a cadaver and looking at it or using MRI. I am still reading a lot about it, the beginning of the research seems to start before 1910. Man... if I keep on wasting my time reading about every topic that gets my attention Im never going to get out of my networking class

[Trey Givens]

Nice of you to look that up, Nim.

I said in an earlier post that there wasn't evidence available at present that conclusively explains the origins of sexual orientation at all.

At the very least the evidence available indicates that sexual orientation is not linked to gender. Simply, having XY chromosomes does not necessarily result in a heterosexual male although it is the most probable outcome.

Looks like we're again stalled at the "let Reality arbitrate" state.

[poohat]

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.

Thats strange, I was under the impression that rational ethics were derived from the facts of reality. Obviously scientific evidence regarding human nature has nothing to do with morality whatsoever though and we should just make up whatever we feel like, right?

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

Surface aesthetic differences do not constitute evidence of significantly differing 'natures'.

[poohat]

oops double post

[Trey Givens]

Surface aesthetic differences do not constitute evidence of significantly differing 'natures'.

heh heh heh... indeed!

And it might also be said that as members of our respective sexual orientations that we've done just that!

[Capitalism Forever]

Surface aesthetic differences do not constitute evidence of significantly differing 'natures'.

How old are you? I hate to be the first one to break this to you, but there is a bit more involved than "surface aesthetic differences."

A discussion of sexuality requires grown-up participants who have at least read about the anatomic differences between men and women and their significance. This is what I meant when I said this was not a biology forum.

[poohat]

How old are you? I hate to be the first one to break this to you, but there is a bit more involved than "surface aesthetic differences."

A discussion of sexuality requires grown-up participants who have at least read about the anatomic differences between men and women and their significance. This is what I meant when I said this was not a biology forum.

Not only am I unaware how the surface aesthetic/anatomical differences affects the 'nature' of the two genders (if it does), but I was under the impression that most psychologists and anthropologists didn't know this either, and that it was still a hot topic of debate within these subjects.

[Trey Givens]

Not only am I unaware how the surface aesthetic/anatomical differences affects the 'nature' of the two genders (if it does), but I was under the impression that most psychologists and anthropologists didn't know this either, and that it was still a hot topic of debate within these subjects.

It is, Poohat. But such a point is not welcome here.

But here's a run down of the questions in this discussion:

Either sexual orientation is a choice or it is not.

If it is, then the question is one of morality, which is what we can and hope to address here.

If it is not, then it is a question of biology which cannot be addressed in this forum.

As a note on the question of biology, there isn't any conclusive evidence that indicates the origin of sexuality. The evidence that it available suggests that it is not entirely volitional but such evidence has been regarded in this forum with profound skepticism and rejected as politically motivated. I think that's somewhat understandable given how some people who claim to be scientists act.

That leaves us with this question: *If* sexuality is a choice then is either homosexuality or heterosexuality moral or immoral?

There are folks in this forum that claim that sexuality is completely a choice and that heterosexuality is always moral (Context-dropping much?) and that homosexuality is therefore always immoral.

The basis of this argument is, as CapFo stated, males have penises and females have vaginas, which work very well together as illustrated by the production of children from copulation between males and females and validated by heterosexuals' profound enjoyment thereof.

It should not be mistaken that CapFo is claiming that the philosophical purpose of sex is propagation at all. That is just an illustration of the biological fact that heterosexuality is the norm. Indeed, no one here has claimed that homosexuality is average or the norm but rather many (including myself) contend that it is only a statistically less probable outcome in biology.

Again, we are trying to avoid discussing biology so detailed remarks about biology are verboten. You should also be aware that citing examples from zoology are herein rejected because the argument by some is that people are entirely volitional unlike other animals, so such evidence does not apply herein.

As an aside: I suspect that examples of hermaphrodites would be rejected as outliers, although I don’t see how that’s reasonable given all the fuss about how appearing female indicates that you would be attracted to men.

And another example: Pointing out that left-handedness and homosexuality occur at roughly the same rate in the population only leads us to conclude that someone should soon start a thread about the morality of left-handedness as soon as we’re done here.

Remember: The question is *IF* sexuality is a choice then is either homosexuality or heterosexuality moral or immoral each?

Someone else, I don’t recall who, pointed out that there is something of a false dichotomy running in this discussion stated as “Either sexual orientation is not a choice or it is immoral.” This comes as a result of CapFo’s stance that if it is a choice then homosexuality is immoral.

That argument, which I and others still hold as completely irrelevant given the facts of reality, has yet to be sufficiently presented.

That's why I've said a few times now that we've reached an impasse on this topic.

[Capitalism Forever]

Not only am I unaware how the surface aesthetic/anatomical differences affects the 'nature' of the two genders (if it does)

Oh, I was hoping you would at least have a sense of irony. Let me then state it in a straightforward way:

There is A LOT more involved than just surface aesthetic differences.

[Capitalism Forever]

There are folks in this forum that claim that sexuality is completely a choice and that heterosexuality is always moral (Context-dropping much?) and that homosexuality is therefore always immoral.

Please go back and read all my posts carefully. NOWHERE did I claim that heterosexuality is always moral; in fact, I made claims to the contrary.

[poohat]

Oh, I was hoping you would at least have a sense of irony. Let me then state it in a straightforward way:

There is A LOT more involved than just surface aesthetic differences.

Yeah this is kind of where I came in. You made this claim on the last page, I asked for evidence, and you still havent provided any.

[Richard_Halley]

Trey: If you are honestly going to claim you have no choice in your sexual preference than i suggest you quit calling yourself an Objectivist. Freewill is essential to the Objectivist philiosophy.

Here i quote from John Galt's speach in Atlas Shrugged:

The key to what you so recklessly call "human nature," the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness.

And later in the same paragraph:

A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior.  He needs a code of values to guide his actions

- Italics mine

If you wish to defend your actions (which, as it happens, I am not attacking) as an Objectivist, than it is the values which led you to those actions that you must defend. Not your "nature."

[LucentBrave]

Wow.....seven pages. I don't recall ever reading that many pages in one topic in any forum that I've frequented.

I don't have as much to comment on this, nor am I going back through the previous posts looking for quotes to use or abuse. I'll just say what I want to say about this topic.

I don't agree with homosexuality. However, I don't think that it's immoral. I can find no reason to imagine it as such.

Yes, we all know the PHYSICAL differences between men and women. I don't see how that has any relevance to sexual preference. A man has a penis, a woman has a vagina, and these two important body parts perform a very important fuction- bearing children. Which is where my disagreement about homosexuality comes into play. I want children. I find men attractive, but I'm not attracted to them. I am attracted to women. Does it seem rational to me that there are homosexuals and they think the way they do?--No. Does it have to be rational to me?-- No, I could care less. It doesn't concern me.

Men and women were also given brains, and the ability to use them. That's where volition comes into play. They can chose who they want to have a relationship with, regardless of sex. Just as long as they are happy with that fact.

I also think that the laws against it are wrong, because the law is against human rights. It's not like the right to free speech, or bear arms, or a right to do anything. It's a law that takes something away- Sexual preference and sexual identity. Again, I could care less that homosexuals feel the way that they do, but based upon what I know about homosexuals, I do know that they do what they do because they want to and really don't care what anyone thinks, just as long as they are happy.

P.S.: I apologize if my sentence structures and spelling are off. I recently had an operation that impedes my typing and my confort to type at all.

[poohat]

Trey:  Firstly, if you are honestly going to claim you have no choice in your sexual preference than i suggest you quit calling yourself an Objectivist.  Freewill is essential to the Objectivist philiosophy. 

What? Does this mean that because I cant make myself like the taste of poo and be repulsed by chocolate, I dont have free-will?

[mordecai]

Ayn Rand did speak ill of homosexuals on one occasion, but she exressed herself differently on several occasions.

Her brother-in-law was an open homosexual and so were some of her "inner circle" friends.

Seeing how she adviced to judge what is immoral according to her essay "How to live a rational life in an irrational society" I very much doubt she found homosexuality immoral.

So the founder of the philosophy you supposedly follow does not think homosexuality is immoral.

Can this discussion end? It's embarrasing.

[y_feldblum]

Why do you allow yourself that degrading handle (username)?

[Richard_Halley]

PooHat: You are speaking of sensory data. You have no sense which tells you if you should be sexually attracted to someone...

And (completely off of the topic here) the answer to your question is YES. While your phisiological reaction may be to spit your "poo" back out, if your values are sufficiently depraved, you would enjoy such a sensation.

And Mordecai... don't get me wrong... I am refraining from judgement, for now, regarding this issue, because I have only begun to consider it. My last few posts have been an attempt to get this discussion away from the disguised version of a freewill/non-freewill debate that it has been. As of yet, I see nothing wrong with an individual being homosexual.

[mordecai]

Why do you allow yourself that degrading handle (username)?

are you referring to me.....??

[y_feldblum]

Mordecai, you cut me in line; I was referring to the user with the degrading handle.

[LucentBrave]

I hope that I'm not the one with the "degrading handle...."

[poohat]

PooHat:  You are speaking of sensory data.  You have no sense which tells you if you should be sexually attracted to someone...

Sexual attraction in this context (note the qualifier) can be thought of as being physical-aesthetic surface level only. Whatever intellectual level attributes you say play a role in sexual attraction can be found in a men as well as women - the only sexual differences are contained in the outward appearances (even if you want to make the unverifiable claim that "men and women have fundamentally different natures", whatever that means, it still remains true that theres going to be at least one man who possesses all the mental attributes you look for in a female, but you wont be attracted to him because he happens to have a penis).

The only differences here are purely physical - ie what aesthetic taste you have, and in this case you have no more control over it than you do over whether you prefer the taste of Coke or Pepsi.

[Capitalism Forever]

Yeah this is kind of where I came in. You made this claim on the last page, I asked for evidence, and you still havent provided any.

Lemme get this straight: You are asking for evidence that the anatomies of men and women are different--that right?

If for some reason I wanted to convince you, I would continue this conversation, but since the people I want to convince already know about the differences I have in mind, you'll forgive me if I stop here.