Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

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.

I have already provided evidence that the Objectivist position is contrary to this (read back to the quotes I gave from "The Objectivist").

Here is a basic arguement as to why that position is correct:

The psychology in question, as you have mentioned, is self-decided at some point in life (i.e. it is based on values which were accepted in childhood). This, I presume, is why you have put the "volition" in "indirect-volition." So our discussion comes back to a decision that was made and now cannot be changed. One cannot take back a murder either, but murder is not exempt from moral judgment.

Also, since my origional statement stated very clearly my reasons for suspecting you, and included recogniton of the fact that you may have merely made a mistake, and the same reasons I had before are not refuted, I will not be apologizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The only thing I want to know from anyone who believe homosexuality is immoral, abnormal, and changeable is how does a homosexual become a heterosexual? Surely this would be one of the greatest breakthroughs in history if you came up with a magical, logical (sic) pill, breathing exercise, mental manipulation, contemplation, hypnotic psychology, that some how “cured” this “abnormalcy”.

I would also like to know what kinds of values I and every other homosexual or bisexual had chosen in childhood that heterosexual children didn’t accept.

But I’m still wondering how some immoral acts aren’t followed by some punishment of some sort. Do homosexuals grow retarded? Do they sneeze more? Tumor? Collapse the Roman Empire? What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea why this issue interests most of you, but I suspect it is because it is related to questions of gender and romance. And since there seems to be a great deal of confusion and disagreement about these (more fundamental) topics, consider:

1. What does gender consist in? What are masculinity and femininity, biologically and psychologically?

2. What facts in reality give rise to the possibility and necessity of romantic relationships?

3. What is the difference between a morality and psychology? Does a psychological problem imply a moral problem?

My advice, which I'm sure most of you won't heed, is to start thinking through these issues, by yourself or in a different thread, carefully and rationally, apart from homosexuality. This thread is, for the most part, a string of pointless assertions on a scattershot of issues that haven't been clearly related or identified.

And keep in mind that introspection is of paramount importance here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to know what kinds of values I and every other homosexual or bisexual had chosen in childhood that heterosexual children didn’t accept.
I am not a psychologist and do not pretend to know what deep seeded errors lead to what problems. What I do know, is that whatever errors we are dealing with (conscious or otherwise), they have led you to reject your physical nature. Note: It is the action of the rejection that is being judged here, not the psychological errors.

But I’m still wondering how some immoral acts aren’t followed by some punishment of some sort.

Some immoral actions are un-punishable because no rights are violated. If you meant to say "immoral acts aren't followed by some negative consequence," they are. In this case, not seeking an ideal relationship in accordance with your nature, results in your ending up with an inferior relationship. This is the only consequence that I see, though it is possible that there are others.

As far as changing... that is a personal issue. And it is not one that I can give much advice on (not being a psychologist). However, as Dr. Hurd says "...you can and should rise above your past." I suspect that, whatever the problem may be, it is changeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is in reference to the hermaphrodite questions.

A true hermaphrodite is a male (Y chromosome) or female (X chromosome) who has both male and female reproductive organs. That means, they have both a penis and/or testes, AND ovaries and/or uterus.

A pseudohermaphrodite can be one of two things:

A male, who looks like a female but has male reproductive organs or

A female, who looks like a male but has female reproductive organs.

Also, a hermaphrodite can only be a male or female, depending on the chromosome they were assigned at copulation (X or Y).

Any questions, just ask, I can answer them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard_Halley wrote:

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.

For the record, I will not be responding to this entity in the future.

Making charges of dishonesty, even of _suspected_ dishonesty is not something a rational person does on the basis of something so flimsy as him not liking the fact that someone didn't include a quote he wanted to see. A rational, benevolent person in that situation _asks_ why it was omitted, he does not make accusations of dishonesty, and he does not assume that he is omniscient. That, however, is precisely what this entity did.

Also for the record: I omitted that quote because it is _irrelevant_, and because it was taken out of context and jammed into a completely different context without justification.

It has been asserted that "the Objectivist position is contrary to this", this being the claim that one cannot judge a homosexual as immoral. I will ask people then to explain how to reconcile this will Dr. Peikoff's stated view that homosexuality is "Improper but not necessarily immoral". I heard this said in _person_, and it is also on tape.

Just to nip accusations of "appealing to authority" at the bud, the "Improper" part comes from Ayn Rand's own view that homosexuality is "inconsistent with anatomy" (a point that has been made elsewhere in this thread); the "not necessarily immoral" part comes from the recognition that many (virtually all in my view) homosexuals are that way because of what Bearster called "deep seated integration errors" (not immoral), but _some_ engage in homosexual acts arbitrarily (immoral).

Mark Peters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though IdeaSave will not be responding to me anymore, I will continue to post so that those who care to examine what Objectivism really says about the issue.

Firstly, I will point out that IdeaSave acts rather defensive about my statement, considering that, after mentioning what it seemed like he was doing, the first thing I said was, "...this may not have been your goal..." Also, my stated point was not anything bad about IdeaSave, but a general "evidence should be provided" statement. Here is the statement in question:

Also, your omission 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... many people could have been confused in the same way you were.

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

IdeaSave accuses me of assuming that I am omniscient... clearly this is not the case; I did say "seems" didn't I? He than says:

I omitted that quote because it is _irrelevant_, and because it was taken out of context and jammed into a completely different context without justification.

However, the quote is not irrelevant... when discussing the philosophy of Objectivism, quotes from Objectivist literature are not irrelevant. Also, he does not provide any evidence that it was taken out of context in any way that matters. Rand states clearly:

A man is not to be condemned or excused on the grounds of the state of his subconscious.  His psychological problems are his private concern which is not to be paraded in public and not to be made a burden on innocent victims or a hunting ground for poaching psychologizers.  Morality demands that one treat and judge men as responsible adults.

This means that one grants a man the respect of assuming that he is conscious of what he says and does, and one judges his statements and actions philosophically, i.e. as what they are--not psychologically, i.e. as leads or clues to some secret, hidden, unconscious meaning.  One neither speaks nor listens to people in code.

This quote is the entirety of two paragraphs from the essay, "The Psychology of 'Psychologizing,'" from the March 1971 issue of The Objectivist. If one is to argue that they are taken out of context, one must provide some evidence of this.

But apparently IdeaSave has heard "in _person_" that Homosexuality "is not necessarily immoral." He says that this is on tape, but does not mention where, and then proceeds to tell us what was meant by this statement, without providing any evidence. I admit the possibility that he may be right in his assessment of Peikoff's statements. However, since we have yet to see any evidence that Peikoff did, in fact mean, what IdeaSave says he does, I am sticking by the Ayn Rand quote as Objectivism's standpoint.

Furthermore, following IdeaSave's logic regarding psychological problems, murders, rapes, and countless other crimes, may be dismissed is amoral since they are "the result of deep seeded psychological problems. I will say it yet again, the psychological issues themselves, are outside the realm of morality, the actions are not.

As for the rationally of my accusation, IdeaSave has this to say:

Making charges of dishonesty, even of _suspected_ dishonesty is not something a rational person does on the basis of something so flimsy as him not liking the fact that someone didn't include a quote he wanted to see.

You are correct, IdeaSave. However, this is not what I did. My accusation was based on the things accomplished by that omission, not the fact that I didn't like it. I took Ellsworth Toohey's advice, and my accusation is where it led me. I considered the possibility that the omission was an honest mistake, and crafted my statement likewise. If It was an honest mistake, all you had to say was: Yeah, next time I will provide some evidence. Instead you have chosen to continue making claims, and providing no evidence, and, on top of it, you have not even addressed the evidence that I have provided. The possibility that your repeated omission is an honest mistake is dwindling (though still present).

If anybody cares to tell me why any of this is wrong, and provide evidence, I will be happy to retract those statements which are incorrect. For the time being, it is my judgment I will trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to noblesoul.com

5.2.5 Homosexuality

Rand's only known public comments on the subject of homosexuality were during a question and session following a speech in 1971. The exchange was as follows:

Q: This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?

A: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.[*]

Reports of private conversations held before and after 1971 indicate that she sometimes expressed a more qualified position, stating that because the psychological origins of homosexuality were not clearly understood, blanket moral condemnation would be inappropriate. Because she did not speak at length on the subject in public and no essays about it were published by her or her associates during her lifetime, any further details of her positions are not known, although her personal disapproval and distaste for homosexuality are clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Richard

Is your view on homosexuality mainly based on anthropology?

And would you say that you would of thought differently on the subject matter if you lived in say, ancient Greece, Rome, or Sparta?

And finally before I ditch this topic (it is becoming a drag). What other immoral actions or psychological problems would you say are up to par with homosexuality?

Another question, would you agree for a homosexual to parttake in a psychological damaging experiment in order to "change for the better" a.k.a, become a heterosexual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view on the subject is completely based on the physical nature of man, and the fact that he should not reject it.

And would you say that you would of thought differently on the subject matter if you lived in say, ancient Greece, Rome, or Sparta?
I really don't think this is relevant, but I imagine that if I lived in these times I wouldn't have as strong a philosophical base as I do now, and wouldn't even be able to consider the subject in the way we have here.

And finally before I ditch this topic (it is becoming a drag). What other immoral actions or psychological problems would you say are up to par with homosexuality?

I can't answer this question since I do not know what psychological problems lead to homosexuality. But I agree, this topic is becoming a drag. I won't be posting here again unless someone provides a reason why my stated position is wrong. If I do not respond to an argument; that should be taken to mean that I have already dealt with that argument in a previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eesh.  Books like that are beneath comment.

Obviously it might become controversial. Chris C has written a 5000+ word view on the book. In my opinion, it looks like Religious Right + Objectivism= Freak Quasi-Objectivist proproganda but I'll keep an "open mind".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this would be an interesting share. It's from the Independent gay forum, a conservative gay site.

Ayn Rand's work enjoys surprising popularity among gay youth. The author explores why.

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

A WELL-INFORMED FRIEND asked me recently why Ayn Rand is so popular among young gays and lesbians.

“Is she?î I asked.

He assured me that he keeps running into young gay Rand fans in social circumstances and on the Internet. Just recently a gay man visiting his home page told him he should read Ayn Rand.

I had not thought much about it before, but it seems reasonable that a writer who stresses individuality, trusting your own perceptions and confidence in your ability to achieve against the odds would be popular among young gays who might feel particularly assaulted by social pressures contrary to their own deepest feelings.

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/varnell/varnell34.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is sexual desire biological or psychological or is it a combination of the two? Why would any of the three matter when looking at the situation from an objectively moral point of view? It is moral for everyone to pursue life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness so long as it does not involve coercion. If a person needs another person in his/her life to be able to experience happiness, and everyone directly involved is consenting, then nothing else matters. It is a moral relationship. Or have I missed something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

Hallucinogens alter reality. Its sole purpose is to enable the user to deny reality and live, temporarily, in a lie. It is the conscious act of sacrificing life for anti-life.

If relationships between an individual woman and an individual man meet the requirements of a moral union (Dagny and John for instance) then why would the union be non-moral if the individuals are of the same sex? If it is immoral to have rules, regulations and laws specifying certain groups; opposed to the moral rules, regulations and laws for individuals; than how can it be moral to condemn a relationship based solely on the groups the individuals have been placed in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is not contextlessly based on pleasure. It's based on what is the type of life proper to Man. Homosexuality certainly isn't proper to Man as heterosexuality is; but whether it is improper is another question. That's not to say that improperness is a valid reason to ban something; it's not; but it's a perfectly valid reason to condemn something. Everything is an object to be judged. The question of groups is a red-herring; the real issue is the physical attributes of the two individuals. Not to mention, of course, the all-important question of what they value and what constitutes their virtues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is not contextlessly based on pleasure.  It's based on what is the type of life proper to Man.  Homosexuality certainly isn't proper to Man as heterosexuality is; but whether it is improper is another question.  That's not to say that improperness is a valid reason to ban something; it's not; but it's a perfectly valid reason to condemn something.  Everything is an object to be judged.  The question of groups is a red-herring; the real issue is the physical attributes of the two individuals.  Not to mention, of course, the all-important question of what they value and what constitutes their virtues.

I'm not debating whether homosexuality is moral or immoral but I'm still wondering what cure the nay-sayers say homosexuals should take.

Off the back of my head I remember reading an article analysising a study over homosexuals in a heterosexual relationship. Most if not all the relationships grew dim because of the lack of emotion and sex, thus most couples sunk deeper into depression.

I'm just quite afraid that if homosexuality (Yes, I do mean orientation) is unchangeable, then what are the pros of trying to change? Probably zip. But denying oneselves sexuality would be evasion and I can only imagine the cons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I can't really accept that some decisions are forced upon you by your bilogical nature. Yes, ther may be millions of proofs out there that because of genes, or chemicals, or compositions of cells, you will almost automatically end up doing some specific thing. I won't say "beleive", because I have already seen how that word causes such conflict when not uses precisely, so i'll simply say that i can't accept that. because i can't accept the idea that we don't have control over all of our decisions. I think you always have control, whether you wish to use it or not. I understand that the condition or consequences of every choice vary and very often you are pressured into a decision you wouldn't ordinarily do, because of it's effect on someone else or whatever. But in situations such as this one, when it is only your own personal decision about the way of life you wish to lead, i think you have the choice. I'm not debating against science because I don't know all the facts but it is in my beleif to thing that all living things are born as a part of nature. And nature has it's strict rules that can't be bent or broken. I beleive all humans(to not make this so drastic in saying "life"), are born with their nature to be attracted to the opposite gender. Whether there is a mutation, or extreme mess up in the hormonal levels, is a completely different thing, but in talking about the average human being, i think it is so. Now those circumstances change, because we are always affected by our environment and those around you. So usually if something changes to make that individual go aside from it's nature, it's as a cause of some sort of manipulation or corruption to the innocent taht cannot conceive it or understand it. All of the homosexuals I know went through some sort of instance i their past, small scenarios or acts, not exatly abuse or anything like that, but just moments and innocent actions that began to alter their perception little by little till one day they made they choice. I mean, once it becomes a part of who you are, you can't refute it. This is just about being born into it, which I don't beleive.

Then, if it has already become a part of them: the thoughts, the feelings, the drive, then it becomes a matter like one of the members here said, that it then becomes about whether or not you wish to give into or deny that desire. I think the choice lies here, but I'm not sure how it should be viewed. what I'm writting about is when you choose to deny that temptation. I have seen two responses to the effect of this. One is is The Fountainhead between Roark and Dominique. They deny each other what they most desire until it becomes unbearable and the seperation makes everything else even more powerful, while having the denial still be meaningful and important as well. The other comes from Oscar Wilde's "Picture of Dorian Gray" it said, "But their own souls starve and are naked. Nothing remains then but the recollection of a pleasure, or the luxury of a regret. The only way to rid a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden itself"

Could there perhaps be a second meaning to the latter that I didn't see? Which is more true? Someone please explain this to me cause I've had some difficulty with such topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so i'll simply say that i can't accept that.

Is that really all there is to it? Or is there a reason you can't accept it?

I will provide you with a few good reasons why not to accept it, as an example...

We can observe that our choices are just such, choices. You can prove inductively that freewill exists.

Also, because freewill is a necessary precursor to knowledge, the "scientific" arguements against freewill are stealing concepts. They use freewill to disprove it? Not possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The ignorance concerning the role of biology in homosexual behavior would amaze me - if I didn't realize that its the classic "blank-out" Ms Rand referred to. It is intentional.

Just as most heterosexual behavior is rooted in hormonal interaction with the brain, so, of course, is most homosexual behavior. If you don't see that, you are in denial.

I never sought out to discover the roots of homosexual behavior. And I didn't have to. There is a huge amount of experimental evidence to prove it.

It is easy enough to manufacture a gay human if your start with him or her as a fetus. This being the case, there is no choice involved, and therefore, no ethical consideration comes into play. People find the sex attractive that their hormonal and mental structure leads them to... and that's it. Not shocking. Not even all that interesting unless you really get into thinking about who finds who sexually attractive...

Just so no one thinks I have any special advocacy going on here, I am a 39 year old married father of two who works in the insurance industry right now. But when I was in college, my major was the physiology of behavior. Drug addiction, mental illness, that sort of thing.

Here's a little more detail.

One time, needing an easy enough topic to write a ten page term paper in a short amount of time, I chose "hormonal control of primate behavior." In 4 hours with back issues of "Endrocrinology" magazine, the trade mag for researchers into hormones, I had far more material than I could use.

You can manufacture a gay human any time you want. Its a straightforward interaction of prenatal hormone exposure presetting brain response and adolescent hormone release. They accidently made a whole bunch of gay men in the fifties when they tried out a tranqulizer for pregnant woman made with female hormones. The kids were followed for years. They had a fifty percent higher rate of gay fantasy and behavior than the average.

Researchers make homosexual baboons and chimpanzees for various research studies.

Plus, there is always a small proportion of homosexual behavior in any animal population, human included. This percentage of total goes up with overcrowding. The cause of this increase is not certain.

By the way, you notice that the Old Testament warns against man lying down with man. This means that homosexual, "gay," behavior was certainly known back then. Were these ancient tribal wanderers raised by an effeminent dad while mom went to work at the office? Let's get serious. Every culture in the world has gay folk, how they deal with them is what differs.

Hormone exposure as a fetus, largely a result of your mother's biology, pre-sets the brain to react to hormonal exposure as a child or adolescent. Since male and female bodies both produce both testosterone and estrogen class hormones, the mental reaction to these hormones are mediated by pre-natal exposure. Boy babies usually get more testosterone and then react to the same in later life. Expose a male fetus to a lot of estrogen during brain development, and when estrogen is released later in life the brain will react appropriately. This also explains why homosexuality tends to run in families.

Anyway, it would be great to get out of both the dark ages and other people's bedrooms, and start judging people by the contents of their character, and not whom they find sexually attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, it would be great to get out of both the dark ages and other people's bedrooms, and start judging people by the contents of their character, and not whom they find sexually attractive.

I read John Galt's post with interest. I have read similar information from a variety of sources and I agree that biology provides a strong basis for attraction; this coupled with early sexual experiences and then latter development of pattern behavior. The neuro-sciences are still developing but the data they have amassed just can't be ignored. Too much evidence leads to the conclusion that homosexuality has its origins in brain chemistry.

Now, for me, the interesting discussion is the effect this has on our understanding of free will. Free will doesn't operate in a vacum. It exists in the context of human consciousness. But human consciousness is affected by brain chemistry. A person with a certain hormonal composition may be acting entirely according to their nature by being attracted to the same sex, just the same way that a person with a different brain chemistry is obeying his nature by being drawn to the opposite sex. If it is the case that biology is significantly (or entirely) determinative, then morality doesn't factor in to the equation and a terrible injustice is being commited against homosexuals.

Ayn Rand operated on certain assumptions of human biology. She may not have had enough science to accurately account for homosexuality in her theories on sexual attraction. I don't think its sacrilege to say that. Few people worship her more than me (metaphorically speaking). I even have a huge portrait of her in my house directly accross the front door. :dough: But I feel that whenever she ventured into areas that require a detailed scientific understanding, her conculsions may have suffered. Her views on sexual attraction fall in this catagory. And IMO the valid answers can only be obtained through using her epistemology in the end. So I don't think its a sin against Objectivism to disagree with her regarding homosexuality.

[Note here: any philosopher will be limited in their ability to access the nature of the world by the base of knowledge their culture has amassed. We can't fault Aristotle that he thought the sun moved around the Earth or that smoke traveled upwards because of the tendancy of all things to move towards the celestial. There simply was not enough scientific understanding in his era to reach the right conclusions about these derivative issues. The same in all likelihood will be true of Rand.]

From everything I've read and seen, homosexuality is not a moral failure. It seems to me the result of hormonal misalignment during the pre-natal period. These people are acting according to their biological nature. They shouldn't be condemned for it. IMO, Objectivists should be warry of addressing an issue soley with philosophical reasoning that may not be a philosophical issue at all, but a scientific one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make extraordinary claims there, John Galt; why don't you give us a link or some other sources by which we can verify the studies you cite? I'd like to find out more about them.

--------

You said: "Anyway, it would be great to get out of both the dark ages and other people's bedrooms, and start judging people by the contents of their character, and not whom they find sexually attractive. "

Whom (i.e., which person) one finds sexually attractive is determined by one's character. But as to which sex one finds sexually attractive, that may be different matter. I don't think one can choose to be sexually attracted to either one (or even both) of the sexes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...