Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[Richard_Halley]

(One kind of) homosexuality is the adult result of deep integration errors made in early childhood.

I agree here, but this is not to say that the actions resulting from these errors are exempt from moral judgement.

A man is not to be condemned or excused on the grounds of the state of his subconscious... Morality demands that one treat and judge men as responsible adults... one judges his statements and actions philosophically, i.e., as what they are...

"The Psychology of 'Psychologizing,'" The Objectivist, March 1971.

Clearly, Rand believed that moral judgement is to be exercised without consideration for the psychological issues which may or may not have had an effect on an individual's actions.

Also, homosexuality is a choice, anyone disagreeing with this had better start up a new thread asking about the nature of freewill. This thread is not the place for that discussion.

Clearly, the physical nature of man makes it desirable that he should have a romantic relationship with a woman, and vice-versa. As a result, if one wishes to defend homosexuality, than one must provide a good reason to reject this physical nature. I, however, see no such reason. Should someone provide one, I will reconsider my judgement, but for now I say: homosexuality is immoral.

Could it be that in sex, the woman is the value sought by the man?

As for this: I am interested in hearing more, but only because I think this is not actually what you mean. Clearly, the woman must also value the man. This part of the discussion, however, should be moved to Cap Fo's thread in "Miscellaneous." I will mention this there.

I agree about poohat, it has been suggested a number of times that we boot him, and I think the admins should seriously look into following up on these suggestions.

[y_feldblum]

I don't know about the philosophical issues (I mean: I do), but I would ban him for his username alone. It demonstrates a frivolously perverse hatred of self-esteem equivalent to calling oneself a shit-head (that's very nearly what he does call himself) in earnest and laughing about it.

There are no fine lines and grey areas in judgment. The issue is black and white. Everything volitional is to be judged. Period. Men form their system of values by volition alone. Period.

[poohat]

fair enough, I'll stop posting here.

[Areactor]

Richard Halley

So do you believe homosexuality, the orientation is immoral or the action itself. And what leaves heterosexuality out of questions?

Oh yes, and if homosexuality is immoral, what are the consequences of being homosexual or acting on homosexual desires?

[Bearster]

I think the concept volition forces me to disagree with your knot theory.

That's why I brought up the example of shooting oneself in the foot. Once the action is taken, it's not a volitional choice to un-do it.

I've had lengthy discussions with people that I later concluded were so confused about everything that they literally didn't have the conceptual tools to find their way out of the dark maze they built in their minds. Damage had been done, and reinforced over a period of decades.

In any case, this isn't the most important premise...

As for this: I am interested in hearing more...

A man is a valuer in all contexts. At work, at play, at rest, he identifies the values required for his life and acts to gain and keep them. This includes the context of romance.

A woman, on the other hand, has a dual nature. In most contexts, she is a valuer; her mind identifies the values her life requires and she acts to gain and keep them. But in romance, she is the value gained and kept--by a man--and she knows it. Of course, she values the man who gains and keeps her, but this is a bit of an equivocation on "value". He gains and keeps her; she does not "gain" him in the same sense of the word.

She is gained by him. This is a process of letting him know she is available, and communicating her value to him. Then she must determine if he is worthy--i.e. he must gain her. The nature of her femininity demands that she verify his virtues including rationality, honesty, productivity, etc. And his ability. And his masculinity. A wrong choice here could literally be fatal (men are much much stronger than women), not to mention if she plans to bear children, she needs a protector and provider during the time when she is not mobile.

Look at the courtship process. Regardless of culture, in essence it's a process of the woman making herself attractive to the man, and the man proving his virtue and masculinity in various ways.

Why isn't this a process of the man making himself attractive to the woman, and she proving her virtues and strenghts?

There is something that I would like to underscore here. We are not brains in vats, with our consciousnesses cartwheeling through time and space on whim. We are mind and body, integrated. The man has a male body; the woman has a female body. His is strong; hers is soft.

[Richard_Halley]

So do you believe homosexuality, the orientation is immoral or the action itself.

The action of choosing to be homosexual is what I am suggesting is immoral. If, by "orientation," you mean, "the psychological reasons for making that choice," than that is beyond the realm of moral judgement...

And what leaves heterosexuality out of questions?

Read my last post again... I answered this quite sufficiently there.

...what are the consequences of being homosexual or acting on homosexual desires?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you are suggesting that immoral actions require punishment. If so, this is not the case. More likely you are saying that immoral actions necessarily entail negative consequences. Once again, not the case (except that you are being immoral if you commit them). Whether this particular action does, however, is something I have given no consideration to.

Bearster:

This knot theory of yours is something you should start another thread on... I think it has some merits. I would make one correcton however... it should say "a knot which would be hard to untie," as opposed to one which can't be.

For clarification, I should mention that IdeaSave's theory of "indirect volition" is completely irrellivent to all moral judgement. Whether an action is a "direct" choice, or a product of the subconscious, is not to be considered when passing moral judgement on that action.

[Areactor]

Richard Halley

Now I must ask, how does one go about becoming a homosexual and how does one get out of homosexuality. The only people I know who welcomes the premise that a person can stray from homosexuality are Christian psychologists and sociologists. I would like to know the Objectivist's answer to shunning one's homosexuality. Personally, it could solve the problem for millions. There wouldn’t be any gay terror coming from the far left and no one will be able to inflict any damage towards homosexuals.

I wonder, are you saying certain immoral actions aren't followed by any consequences, neither to anyone or oneself? If so, I would like to know your views on what makes these kinds of non-punishable actions immoral.

How do you handle immoral people in general?

[Areactor]

Oh yes, and whats your views on hermaphrodites and transsexuals?

[Richard_Halley]

Areactor: You should read "The Virtue of Selfishness," there is an essay in there entitled "The Objectivist Ethics" which would cover most of your questions about morality.

I am not a psychologist, and do not pretend to know what, if any, deep seeded issues lead to homosexuality, nor how to fix them...

Also, I am not a biologist, and do not pretend to know the physical make-up of hermaprodites--I assume you are speaking of real hermaphrodites, not bisexuals--and so I find myself ill-suited to decide what their sexual preferences should be. Although I am under the impression that most hermaprodites are not capeable of sexual intercourse (I may be wrong).

[Bearster]

More likely you are saying that immoral actions necessarily entail negative consequences. Once again, not the case

What in the world makes an action "immoral", aside from that one is knowingly choosing harm to one's self?

[Richard_Halley]

Correct, Bearster. I had exempted the consequences already discussed from consideration when developing my answer. So, it was a mistake to make my answer in the form of a general statement about all immoral actions. Thanks for the correction.

If so, I would like to know your views on what makes these kinds of non-punishable actions immoral.

Italics Mine

This, however, makes it seem that the question was actually regarding punishment, not merely consequences. In which case, my answer was satisfactory.

[danielshrugged]

Clearly, the physical nature of man makes it desirable that he should have a romantic relationship with a woman, and vice-versa.

This isn't so clear to me.

[LucentBrave]

Yeah. Even though I'm not a homosexual, I still find myself echoing Daniel's statement.

[Areactor]

Hermaphrodites are capable of sexual intercourse but not sexual reproduction.

I ask this because I'm wondering, according to your logic of the sexual relationship between a human man and woman, are hermaphrodites excluded.

[always_learning]

I’m not really sure about this, so if anyone really knows speak up, I thought there were two types of hermaphrodites, there are terms for both of them but I do not know what they are (pseudo-something I think), basically there are males who also have female parts, and females who also have male parts. If this is not the case let me know, I’m no expert.

Also, if someone is just as much female as male, how could the choice to be with either sex be harmful to them. Can anyone think of an example, in the case of a hermaphrodite, that would make it immoral for them to choose one or the other? I can’t.

[always_learning]

danielshrugged and LucentBrave:

What do you mean? You don't see the immediate advantage in male and female physical relationship? There are of course many other factors to take into account, no question there, but only physically speaking…

Richard_Halley:

Clearly, the physical nature of man makes it desirable that he should have a romantic relationship with a woman, and vice-versa

Whats to argue with?

[danielshrugged]

The other implied half of Richard_Halley's claim is that the physical nature of man makes it undesireable for him to have a romantic relationship with a man--at least in comparison to what he can get from a woman. I understand, given man's nature, why some romantic relationship is desireable; I do not understand why a woman is better than a man for the purpose, given only that he has a man's body.

[Richard_Halley]

I do not understand why a woman is better than a man for the purpose, given only that he has a man's body.

It is clear that there is a physical compatability between women and men that does not exist in homosexual relationships. So to take part in a homosexual relationship is to reject either that compatability or ones body (or both).

There may be rational reasons to reject the compatibility, but I can't imagine what they are, and in thirteen pages on this thread we have yet to see an example. So I have ceased to put off moral judgement on this issue. If anyone can provide me with a reason to make either of these rejections, I will be happy to discuss it with you.

If there is still any question regarding my first paragraph, you will have to make it more specific than a blanket "I don't understand statement."

[IdeaSave]

Sorry to be the one to bust out the gory details, but unless you keep a good supply of lubrication on hand, or don't mind some rather uncomfortable sex, this is just not true.

Sorry to be so blunt, but have you ever heard of rape? A woman DOES NOT HAVE TO BE INTERESTED in order for intercourse to occur, period. A man DOES, period.

Come on people, this is _really_ basic stuff - this point should not be even a little bit controversial.

Mark Peters

[danielshrugged]

It is clear that there is a physical compatability between women and men that does not exist in homosexual relationships.

This is true.

So to take part in a homosexual relationship is to reject either that compatability or ones body (or both).

I'm not sure this follows. I'm sure some homosexuals understand that men and women have compatible body parts, and I'm sure someknow their body works the same way as others of the same sex. What they might not see, as I don't, is how the compatibility of body parts imposes any moral responsiblity (gays and lesbians are, after all, able to have sex).

It is conceivable to me that, because of the kinds of sex necessitated by the involvement of people of the same gender, the act would not have the same metaphysical importance (because of how people would have to be positioned during the actual sex and other factors). However, since I am a heterosexual virgin, I have a hard time reaching any conclusions from this line of thought.

[IdeaSave]

« Honestly, this entire concept of "indirect volition" seems downright absurd to me. »

Is downright absurd. A thing is volitional or not.

The fact is that there is a relationship between volition and emotions, between volition and a person's psychology, and it is an _indirect_ one. People don't choose their emotions or their psychology, but people do make a large number of value judgments (subconsciously held) while growing up that _result_ in them feeling what they feel, and having the psychology that they do.

Come up with better terminology if you like, but the concept is correct.

« That an emotion as such, and a person's psychology as such are not properly subject to moral judgment is a well-established view in Objectivism. »

That virtues and values are properly subject to moral judgment is true; "well-established view", unless you testify otherwise, appears to be an appeal to authority (the logical fallacy of); and emotions are the product of values.

There is no fallacy in pointing out, in a forum on Objectivism, that a given view is well-established in the literature, and that it is therefore a good idea to read that literature rather than expect others to present it here.

Mark Peters

[Richard_Halley]

There is a compatibility, daniel, in hetrosexual relationships which does not exist in homosexual relationships. This makes it to ones benifit to seek a hetrosexual relationship, unless one has some reason not to persue that compatibility.

IdeaSave:

I don't like the terminology you use and--discounting for purely epistimological studies--there is no reason to identify such a concept. Rand was clear that, ethically, there to be no consideration for what actions are brought by subconcious beliefs (which were chosen at some time or another) and which are brought by conscious choices.

There is no fallacy in pointing out, in a forum on Objectivism, that a given view is well-established in the literature, and that it is therefore a good idea to read that literature rather than expect others to present it here.

You are correct here to. However, there is a fallacy in using the arguement that psychology is irrelivent to ethics as evidence that certian actions are exempt from judgement. Also, your ommission of the quotes in question seems to have been an attempt to allow your misunderstanding of Rand's statements to pass over to us. This may not have been your goal, but had I not provided the quotes--which were located in a single essay in an issue of The Objectivist in 1971 (I doubt most people happen to have this essay on hand as well as the time to find it)--many people could have been confused in the same way you were.

My point is: it is better to provide a breif quote as a starting point for people to research your statement. Or to list which article they should read as evidence.

[MinorityOfOne]

Ideasave: I guess you don't consider rape "uncomfortable sex", huh?

For healthy sex, the only kind we should be concerned with in forming a theory of romance, mutual interest is not optional. Wait, in case that's not clear enough, let me try it RadCap's way.

HEALTHY sex is the ONLY KIND we should be CONCERNED with in forming a theory of ROMANCE. Rape is NOT healthy. MUTUAL INTEREST is NOT OPTIONAL.

Get it?

[IdeaSave]

MinorityOfOne:

You are missing the point. I am not trying to "form[ing] a theory of romance". It is simply a _fact_ that a woman's consent is not required for intercourse to occur. That no decent man would act without such consent doesn't change the fact that it isn't required.

Richard_Halley:

There is no justification for your veiled accusation of dishonesty on my part. Also, given that you haven't shown that it is proper morally to judge someone regarding a psychological issue you are in no position to be calling me "confused" for denying that it is proper. The burden of proof is on _you_ not me (and quoting Ayn Rand doesn't meet that burden).

You owe me an apology.

For others reading this:

There is in fact a reason to identify such a concept as "indirectly volitional": we need it to understand what emotions are, we need it to grasp the concept of a person's "psychology". Without the understanding that our emotions are programmed (Ayn Rand's own terminology) by prior thinking, by prior usage of our free will, we have no way fully to differentiate between thought and emotion.

Bearster got it right when he wrote:

(One kind of) homosexuality is the adult result of deep integration errors made in early childhood.

What's the moral status of this kind of homosexuality? Does one adopt the intrinsicist/dogmatist position and condemn such a person to perpetual sin? Or does one acknowledge that the adult homosexuality is not choosing this consciously?

This is what I think he meant by indirect volition. Yes, it was volitional choices that led to homosexuality. No, they weren't consciously made by the adult.

I agree with this, and it does clarify what I've been trying to say. This also identifies the reason why one cannot judge such a homosexual as immoral: his/her sexual attraction to others of the same gender is simply a fact that is essentially unchangeable by today's psychologists. To call such a person immoral is radically unjust.

As far as I am aware, this type of homosexual is the typical case, not a rare one. It's nearly useless therefore to focus on those who consciously choose to engage in homosexual sex even though they don't feel that kind of attraction. Engaging in _any_ sexual act "just for the hell of it" is definitely immoral, but how does that help us understand the typcial case?

Mark Peters

[Richard_Halley]

IdeaSave, have you even read my posts?

There is no justification for your veiled accusation of dishonesty on my part.

My accusation was not veiled. I stated fairly plainly that I suspect you of being dishonest and gave my reasons even more plainly. If you wish to defend yourself, don't do so by saying "there is no justification," I already gave you my justification.

Also, given that you haven't shown that it is proper morally to judge someone regarding a psychological issue you are in no position to be calling me "confused" for denying that it is proper.

I already said that it is not proper to judge someone's psychological issue, but that the action resulting is still subject to moral judgment. And since what we are arguing about is what Objectivism says about the subject, quoting Ayn Rand does satisfy my burden of proof.

There is in fact a reason to identify such a concept as "indirectly volitional"

Yes there is. But as I said, it is purely epistemological and does not pertain to ethics.