Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[Capitalism Forever]

Can this discussion end? It's embarrasing.

For whom, and why?

[Richard_Halley]

Poohat: Aesthetic appreciation is based on ones values, not ones eysight... Same goes for taste in foods. Preference for Coke/Pepsi, Sweet/Sour, etc... is not (primarily) a matter of the workings of your taste buds, but rather of your minds integrations of their data with other concepts (specifically: values).

Granted that there may be slightly different interpretations of a given food to one person's sense of taste than another's. This is not related to this discussion, the equivilence of these in eyesight is colorblindness, near/far sightedness, and otherwise poor eyesight. Notice: these differences are in the senses alone; they are seperate from the integration with values (and other concepts). Aesthetic judgement is the job of the mind, not the senses.

So unless you are argueing that the eyesight of a homosexual is inheriently different from that of a hetrosexual, in which case you had better provide some evidence, than I suggest you drop this "tastes" nonsense.

[poohat]

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.

No, I'm asking for evidence that there are significant differences that go beyond surface level. I'm fully aware that women have breasts and men have willies, however this has nothing to do with whether or not their 'nature' is identical.

Negroids are fairly different from Caucasians on the surface level, however this is not in itself sufficient evidence to assert that they somehow have a different 'nature', or that they differ from Caucasians in non-aesthetic ways. The same applies with gender. Your unsupported assertion that men and women are essentially 'different' simply because they happen to have dissimilar physical appearences is no different from the unsupported claim that blacks and whites are fundamentally different, and it should be treated with the same level of contempt.

[Richard_Halley]

I presume you are ignoring my arguement, poohat?

[Areactor]

Here's a better question

If you are in control of your sexual preference; how can you attempt to change it?

[LucentBrave]

That is a good point, Areactor. I mean, can it be done by choice? How can one person spend half their life having one sexual preference then switch over to another one? Of course, I do know some highly religeous people who were living by subjective standards for years. Then, after discovering objectivist beliefs, they decided that objectivism is the better way to go. However, are these two situations alike or not? Is one a matter of coice and the other isn't? What affects the persons decision in these two situations. I'm not attempting to make an argument here. I would just like some clarification on this.

Edited March 13, 2004 by LucentBrave

[Richard_Halley]

The same way you would change your culinary or aesthetic tastes... by changing your values. The question is: which values make one choose a given sexual preference.

[LucentBrave]

Thank you for the clarification. I do wonder if your question will ever be answered. While I do understand my values and applying them when making my own choices, I don't understand a homosexual's values. Nor do I think it possible for me to do so.

[Trey Givens]

Assuming that the biology of sexuality is the way y'all are assuming it is, I don't think it's really possible for a person to spend their whole life gay and then suddenly have a revelation that they're straight.

It requires that the values that set sexuality are so deeply engrained in an individual consciousness that it's extremely unlikely that anyone is completely aware of all the many, many integrations that went into forming it.

So, I don't think it's close to religion at all. Then again, I don't think that human biology is the way that is being assumed here.

And the accusation that this requires a denial of the notion of free will is an admission of an inability to distinguish between the gender of and the consciousness of the individual inspiring sexual attraction. It also requires ignoring those facts of reality which cast doubt on the negative to my claim.

Do you think that if sexuality is the result of myriad levels of integrations that proper value judgments and integrations must necessarily result in heterosexuality?

If so, I do not see how one may both deny a connection to biology and sexual orientation and turn around to claim that gender is of any importance in the matter. (Because if you say "yes" to the question above, we're back to asking "Why?" and inevitably you come back to CapFo's diagrams of males and females, which do not show all the necessary information to draw a conclusion. Aaaaannnd then we're back to debating freewill.)

If not, wouldn't that mean gender has no importance at all and hetero-/homosexuality is just a coin toss depending on who you meet that embodies the requisite values? That's a rhetorical question really because gender is of very obvious importance in the selection of a lover.

[Richard_Halley]

First of all Trey, Ayn Rand very clearly lays out what she includes as human nature and clearly states that all else is a result of freewill. So if you are going to start including other things in human nature, realize that you are argueing against freewill (and therefore Objectivism). To paraphrase Ayn Rand: There is no such thing as freewill with tendencies.

Now that that is out of the way:

It requires that the values that set sexuality are so deeply engrained in an individual consciousness that it's extremely unlikely that anyone is completely aware of all the many, many integrations that went into forming it.

I don't see any basis for this statement. If one of the key integrated concepts that makes up these values is changed, surely the person would begin to notice a contradiction and be compelled to fix it. If you give me evidence for your statement than I beg your forgiveness, but for now I will take the advice of Ellsworth Toohey: this looks like an attempt to abdicate resposibility for these values, which you should be defending.

And the accusation that this requires a denial of the notion of free will is an admission of an inability to distinguish between the gender of and the consciousness of the individual inspiring sexual attraction. It also requires ignoring those facts of reality which cast doubt on the negative to my claim.

Here you are implying an ability for the gender to hinder the freewill. If gender decides what I will find romantically appealing, why doesn't decide what I will find aesthetically appealing, or what kind of car I will drive, sports I will like, or any other 1950's stlye sterotypes?

Do you think that if sexuality is the result of myriad levels of integrations that proper value judgments and integrations must necessarily result in heterosexuality?

This question is precisely the main issue here. And it depends on which values inspire someone to be homosexual (or hetrosexual). Whatever moral judgement passes on these values, one should pass on the sexual orientation associated with them. But since we have yet to identify these values it is impossible to pass moral judgement on them.

If not, wouldn't that mean gender has no importance at all and hetero-/homosexuality is just a coin toss depending on who you meet that embodies the requisite values?

Quite possibly... once again, it depends on the morality of the values in question.

That's a rhetorical question really because gender is of very obvious importance in the selection of a lover.

Only if there is no freewill.

I am happy to hear any arguement regarding any of these things. But if you are going to throw out the freewill, please throw out the name Objectivist with it.

[LucentBrave]

I once again agree with Richard. I cannot see how considering gender in the situation at hand is all that important. Most homosexuals claim that they don't like the opposite sex because of how they act or think, which are pretty much the same things that we consider when choosing someone of the same sex for ourselves. I've never heard a homosexual male say that he likes another male because he has a penis. These things have nothing to do with gender. It's all about what values they are looking for in another person. Gender does play a big part in the relationship, such a sexual intercourse, but we all know that a relationship or what a rational person wants in a significant other is not just sex. I think that it has more to do with what you want out of the person as a whole.

Furthermore, I think that the question at hand cannot be answered. Homosexuals are individual people too. They have their own set of values, much like I have my own. Can you say why I chose to live up to my standards and values and stand by them? No- and no one, other than myself, has a right to. It's like trying to take a homosexual and put him under a microscope to see what makes that individual homosexual "tick." That is something that I don't have the knowledge for or the time to do, nor would I really care to.

[danielshrugged]

Ayn Rand very clearly lays out what she includes as human nature and clearly states that all else is a result of freewill

Do you mean to say that everything about human biology that Ayn Rand didn't write about is not part of human nature and open to free will? I don't imagine you would say that.

It might also help to note that same-sex sex is common in other species that lack free will.

I suppose I just think this all requires lots of knowledge about human biology and psychology that we do not have.

[Richard_Halley]

I meant very simply what I said...

Ayn Rand made herself clear regarding what was a part of human nature and that everything else was freewill.

To be more specific (I was refering to quotes I used in a previous post and thought this to be clear), human nature consists only of the fact that man has no automatic actions, and may only live by freewill.

And what other species, without freewill, do is completely outside of the realm of this discussion.

I suppose I just think this all requires lots of knowledge about human biology and psychology that we do not have.

Psychology, yes. This is science by which we are to identify the values in question...

As for biology, it is only a significant issue if you drop your agreement with the Objectivist concept of freewill.

Again I am willing to hear arguements against freewill, but not from anyone claiming to be an Objectivist.

And Lucent, I wonder what you suppose psycologists do.

Can you say why I chose to live up to my standards and values and stand by them? No- and no one, other than myself, has a right to.

Also, doing exactly this (at least in some degree) is a neccessity in making a judgement about a person. Why someone does what they do is often more important than what they did, when considering ethics.

[Trey Givens]

I suppose I just think this all requires lots of knowledge about human biology and psychology that we do not have.

That's exactly what I've been saying, daniel. Thank you for also recognizing this aspect of reality.

I don't see any basis for this statement.

You actually compared sexual attraction to aesthetic values, which leads me to conclude that you have recognized the obvious: sexual attraction is the result of many layers of integrated values. I'm just saying that there are so many layers to it and so deeply rooted in a person's psyche that most people probably aren't able to trace every single value to its point of origin. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

Here you are implying an ability for the gender to hinder the freewill.

No, that's not at all what I'm implying. I'm stating that gender is a relevant consideration when choosing a mate.

When you identify yourself or anyone as X-sexual, you identify their gender and also the gender of their mate. I'm sure you know what homosexual and heterosexual mean, so I won't go into defining which groups choose which people of which gender.

But since we have yet to identify these values it is impossible to pass moral judgement on them.

Hm. Ok. I'm interested in hearing about that.

Only if there is no freewill.

Are you seriously saying that what gender someone is bears no importance to you as to whether or not you would consider them for romance?

D'OH!

I see what you're saying and you've got me wrong. I'm not saying that YOUR gender matters in picking a love. I'm saying that the gender of the object of your affection matter to you.

[Trey Givens]

Most  homosexuals claim that they don't like the opposite sex because of how they act or think, which are pretty much the same things that we  consider when choosing someone of the same sex for ourselves. I've never heard a homosexual male say that he likes another male because he has a penis. These things have nothing to do with gender.  It's all about what values they are looking for in another person.

And Lucent, there is more to being male than having a penis. Most homosexuals *I* know are attracted to members of their gender on the physical level only for being members of their gender.

I have met women who have the values I admire in a potential lover, but I'm not attracted to them because they are women.

[Trey Givens]

I wonder why it is that infants respond positively to images of symmetrical faces and negatively to asymmetrical faces without regard to culture, race, or experience.

What are your thoughts, Richard_Halley?

[danielshrugged]

All right, I misunderstood a few of your claims. I'm in basic agreement (though I would emphasize different things--but that's not too important).

I still don't want to call biology irrelevant, though. I'm not asserting that it IS relevant. And I'm not saying that genetics makes one gay or straight. I'm just saying that one shouldn't claim that biology has no implications at all. Scientific studies which make some connections between sexual orientation and the brain call for further investigation.

[Trey Givens]

I still don't want to call biology irrelevant, though. I'm not asserting that it IS relevant. And I'm not saying that genetics makes one gay or straight. I'm just saying that one shouldn't claim that biology has no implications at all. Scientific studies which make some connections between sexual orientation and the brain call for further investigation.

Oh, Daniel! This is no time for half-measures! heh heh heh...

Actually, if you review my posts MUCH earlier in the conversation, I made it clear that I do not know what the origin of sexuality is but that scientific evidence available casts some doubts on this presumption that the gender of the object of your desire (just so we're clear) is not completely a matter of volition. (I also grant some skepticism to this evidence as well given how politically charged the subject of homosexuality is.)

I think it was CapFo who argued the "Either sexuality is biological (and it's not) or homosexuality is immoral" dichotomy.

He'll have to jump in here if I say it wrong, but I believe the argument was something like this: If all the characteristics of his lover including gender are a matter of man's volition, then implicit in the fact that men and women are biologically compatible, heterosexuality must be the result of properly held values.

I'm not all that clear on how that argument really holds, but neither can I readily state the problem. But it looks to me like we're asking ourselves if that's really true or not.

So, I'm interested in hear what is to be said on that.

[Richard_Halley]

Ok, Trey...

I'm just saying that there are so many layers to it and so deeply rooted in a person's psyche that most people probably aren't able to trace every single value to its point of origin. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

I will consider this to be a fairly reasonable arguement, and worthy of consideration. And so I will refrain from insulting you further. But I still am not sure that this means it would be hard to change a sexual orientation if one's beleifs/values changed. I would like to retract my previous suggestion regarding your motivation, but reserve the right to reissue it should need be.

I'm saying that the gender of the object of your affection matter to you.

Yes, your prospective mate's gender matters, but only because you have already chosen that gender as your preferred one. Since this discussion is about the nature of that choice, any arguement hinging on this fact is outside the realm of this dicussion.

No, that's not at all what I'm implying. I'm stating that gender is a relevant consideration when choosing a mate.

So long as you are speaking only of the prospective mate's gender here as well... my preceding statement may be viewed as repeated here.

Hm. Ok. I'm interested in hearing about that.

This is my primary concern in this discussion. I have no idea what specific values or kinds of values inspire somone to be homosexual. An understanding of these values is imperitive if I wish to make a rational judgement about the actions of homosexuals...

And Lucent, there is more to being male than having a penis. Most homosexuals *I* know are attracted to members of their gender on the physical level only for being members of their gender.

I have met women who have the values I admire in a potential lover, but I'm not attracted to them because they are women.

And so we enter relevent topic...

Trey has made it clear that the basis for his choice lies in the aesthetic values of the male body. Now, to answer our question, we must find out why.

edit: I posted this before reading trey's last post and need to add this. It is clear that men and women are biologically compatable; the question we need to ask is are there legitimate reasons to reject that compatablity. Actually, in keeping with my arguement about freewill, this compatablity is next to meaningless, except in that it is an easy default for someone whos values don't drive him one way or the other.

[Richard_Halley]

I wonder why it is that infants respond positively to images of symmetrical faces and negatively to asymmetrical faces without regard to culture, race, or experience.

The symmetrical faces are of greater interests to the babies' concept forming faculty. Basically, there is more to be learned from them.

As for the scientific studies:

They do call for more investigation (which we here are not qualified to make). But the nature of this investigaion deals with the validity of the freewill itself, no less.

As of now, unless I am mistaken, there is no proof. And besides... I am reluctant to believe scientists when it comes to issues this high the political ladder (figures don't lie, but liars figure).

[Trey Givens]

I ... reserve the right to reissue it should need be.

Hahahaaa... Same to you!

So long as you are speaking only of the prospective mate's gender here as well

That's all I've ever been talking about. The only reason YOUR gender would be important would be for our purposes of identifying you as a homosexual or heterosexual, not in your choosing/not-choosing thereof.

Even the folks who are vehement about there being biological origins to homosexuality do hold that your gender is relevent to you in choosing a mate. In fact, that's counter to their own claim in the first place.

Oh, but I wanted to comment on this:

Trey has made it clear that the basis for his choice lies in the aesthetic values of the male body. Now, to answer our question, we must find out why.

This varies, really. Don't you think? Aren't there different reasons one may be attracted to the female form?

Also, there are all kinds of shapes and sizes of people and the "look" you may enjoy varies from that which others enjoy at least that much.

I'm just not sure how to start addressing that question without talking about what is my personal preference, which I DO think is a result of my volitionally held values.

Ideas?

[Trey Givens]

As for the scientific studies:

They do call for more investigation (which we here are not qualified to make).

We are now on the same page with that. I was telling this forum many, many, many posts ago that we couldn't comment on THAT part of the issue.

My mistake was that I accepted CapFo's argument which I see now needs greater exploration.

As of now, unless I am mistaken, there is no proof. And besides... I am reluctant to believe scientists when it comes to issues this high the political ladder (figures don't lie, but liars figure).

I think that's reasonable, too.

[Richard_Halley]

This varies, really. Don't you think? Aren't there different reasons one may be attracted to the female form?

Oh yes. I am not speaking of your values as representative of all of homosexuality, but rather as an example. I am using you as an example because you are here, because I figure that if there is a good reason to choose homosexuality, the Objectivist picked it.

Hahahaaa... Same to you!

And given your last few posts, I shant be needing to reintroduce that as a possibility. (the post you quoted was not factoring the posts immediately before it, read the edit)

[Trey Givens]

the post you quoted was not factoring the posts immediately before it, read the edit

No, no. I took it into account. MY comment was to say that in the same way you were insulting me from the lofty perch of your good judgment, I was doing the same to you, only I held my tongue because trading insults isn't good use of my time. And you said you reserve the right to reissue your judgment on me and my response is to say that I reserve the same.

That's all. That's why I was pleased by your statement, because of course you do.

I am using you as an example because you are here, because I figure that if there is a good reason to choose homosexuality, the Objectivist picked it.

I'm really not sure how to answer this, though.

It makes sense to me to be attracted to men. The male form is strength and vitality to me. I appreciate the directness and power of male beauty as opposed to the grace and litheness, which connotes nurturing and restfulness that I associate with female beauty.

I don't think that brings us any closer, though, because I can see why either one is attractive.

How would you respond to being asked why you're attracted to women?

[Richard_Halley]

Essentially in the way that you described the female form... Look at the work of Michael Wilkinson. That is my answer.

I think this does bring us slightly closer to understanding the differences.