Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

You should consider miscarriages. I've heard as many as 80% of embryos are simply washed out of the would-be mother's body.

This is evidence against my proposition that,

--in what's most important to a species, Nature wouldn't be likely to be making a statisticaly significant amount of mistakes.--

I will not only have to restate the original proposition, but will also, it seems, have to give up the rest of the argument (that is, "therefor, homosexuality cannot be biological, but must be learned....) as well.

My restating of the first is, "The evidence that the primary purpose of any species is the passing on of genetic material from each current generation to the next is evidencially overwhelming. This does not, however, rule out the occurence of at least one statistically significant category of mistakes in the mechanisms of this transfer, specifically, that is, in tha case of the human species in which there occures a natural loss of up to 80% of all embrios at the earliest part of gestation"

Can I now go from this to retake my original conclusion? Is the very large amount of naturally disguarded embrios truly evidence against that conclusion?

I could conclude from this fact that "if genetic transfer is the primary purpose of any species, and if, in the case of the human species, it is a fact that a very large percentage of the embrios are naturally disguarded--wouldn't it be even less likely in that case, and not more, that the species would then allow up to one quater of the surviving embrios to be utterly useless to the main purpose of the species?"

In addition to this, I think that to maintain that the human species is prone to all sorts of mistakes (including homosexuality) in its pursuit of self perpetuation is difficult to accept on the evidence of billions of human beings alone. There's also the omnipresence and close to omnipotence of the libido, present in the homosexual, too. And I would, of course, submit that it is at least very likely that in this case it is misderected because somehow mislearned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thus, while it may be true that many of todays scientists are concluding biology determines sexual orientation, that has no more meaning than saying many of today's philosophers are concluding consciousness determines reality.

The overwhelming majority of current scientists are, demonstrably, in touch with physical reality, and the overwhelming majority of current philosophers are, demonstrably, not. Therefore, your analogy in regard to meaning, is specious.

If homosexuality is biological, then it has to be a mutation or mistake since the goal of any species is propagation. That would mean biological mistakes were being made, in this case, anywhere from 2 to 5% of the time.

I find it impossible to believe Nature could be making such a mistake on that kind of scale about something(figuratively speaking) it considers to be most important.

    This leaves learning as an explanation.

Nowadays I usually stay out of these homosexuality-as-biological-or-as-choice discussions, not only because they tend to become rather contentious, but also because the arguments presented are often characterized by opinion based on ignorance, rather than knowledge based on scientific fact. With that said, just a couple of brief comments with little to no expectation of follow up on my part.

I have observed that his issue, regarding how homosexuality could survive natural selection if it is biological, is rather poorly understood by those advocates of homosexuality-as-choice. There are a multitude of possible explanations for the continuence of biological homosexuality: for instance, hormonal or H-Y antigen effects during fetal differentiation of the brain.

Hormonal regulation in male-female behavior has been studied for decades, and differing hormonal balances exhibit a wide range of changed behavior. Heterosexual women who are given certain hormonal treatments for medical purposes, report that suddenly they begin to notice body parts on women in a way they never noticed before; they experience a certain attraction that they never had before the male hormone treatment was given. Even preoptic tissue from a male mammalian brain has been transplanted into the female counterpart, and adult changes in behavior, associated with the male, have been observed.

And the ideas for H-Y antigen are also quite tantalizing. Two papers (R. Blanchard and P. Klassen, "H-Y antigen and homosexuality in men," Journal of Theoretical Biology, V. 185, pp. 373-378, 1996, and R. Blanchard, "Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual versus heterosexual males and females," Annual Review of Sex Research, V. 8, pp. 27-67, 1997) put forth the notion that progressive immunization to H-Y antigen could be tied to late birth order and sibling sex ratio. A very recent study (A. Camperio-Ciani, et al., "Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, V. 271, pp. 2217-2221, 2004) confirmed the possibility of this maternal immunization effect suggested by Blanchard, as well as offered evidence that the maternal lines of homosexuals were significantly more fecund as compared to heterosexuals (this last being an offset for the expectation of natural selection).

Now, this evidence is, in my view, far from conclusive, even when combined with a lot of other evidence in the neurophysiology of the brain, hormonal structuring, etc. But the evidence is tantalizing, and it is scientifically based, not ignorant musings to be simply discarded by those who have made up their minds on the issue, absent of consideration of all of the evidence. My own best guess at this point is that some homosexuality is biologically based, and some is acquired. But, until all the scientific evidence is in, I think it is utterly foolish to write off biology in favor of choice, as if doing so is philosophically convincing. It is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If homosexuality is biological, then it has to be a mutation or mistake since the goal of any species is propagation.

By that standard (which happens to be false) is the use of contraception an aberration or a mistake?

It's a biological standard, and thus, cannot be applied to contraception ( a matter of human volition) at all.

Also, you forgot to explain why the proposition was false.

It's false because a species cannot have goals let alone the goal of propagation. Goals and values are only held by individual organisms for the purpose of gaining and keeping their own individual lives. (This is consonant with evolutionary theory and with the Objectivist Ethics.)

99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Existing species are the effect of the successful survival of individual organisms who were the ancestors of existing organisms and nothing more.

Therefore, the proper causal sequence is successful individual organisms cause species. Species don't propagate anything, as a goal or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for pointing out my fallacious reasoning. I stand guilty of hypostatization(I think it's also called the pathetic fallacy). It's terrible to see how easily I slip into these traps-even knowing about them beforehand! In fact, the main reason I'm interested in Objectivism is to clean up my very sloppy intellectual habits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never quite understood transexuals. Homosexuality I see as a preference. But there are some gay men for example who prefer to dress as women while others who are quite happy being men and dress quite manly. The same goes for lesbians...some want to look butch and others are quite feminine.

I suppose if I had a son and he was gay I wouldn't want him to be transexual because to me it seems like he is trying to evade the fact that he was born male. I recently heard on the radio about some experimental procedures where the doctors put a fully functioning penis on transexual women. I just find this strange. I'm not against gays but I don't think its right to deny what sex you were born. what do you all think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The overwhelming majority of current scientists are, demonstrably, in touch with physical reality, and the overwhelming majority of current philosophers are, demonstrably, not. Therefore, your analogy in regard to meaning, is specious.

Isn't this a rather broad stroke? Yes, people doing science today can be trusted to make empirical conclusions from empirical observations (i.e. such and such hormone causes such and such reaction in the brain). But I have learned to be very suspicious of any modern conclusions of a conceptual nature, anything that attempts to provide broad, general explanations about the true nature of things. Now this is not some a priori bias, on my part, because someone else has told me; I'm far beyond that. My conclusions are all based on my own personal experiences, and I've been disappointed and led astray enough to become guarded about people trying to explain the true nature of something to me. For example, in the subject of ancient history, I can trust a modern historian to provide a good cross reference of facts regarding what year Caesar entered his first consulship, or something like that. I cannot trust a modern historian at all to explain to me whether Caesar was a hero or a villain (and most likely I will be told that there are no heroes or villains in history, the worst kind of answer).

Now you will undoubtedly respond that humanities have gone further down the road to hell than sciences have, and that scientists are more likely to provide good answers because they deal with the real world every day, with cause and effect. But isn't it true that you need philosophy to provide the high-level answers, regardless of what intellectual field you are in? A scientist can tell me whether a particle bounced off another particle, and at what speed it fled away, but I can expect to have my whole conception of universe threatened if I ask him "why", or to explain the true nature of particle interaction. He will give me some terrible answer, and I will not be in a position to argue because he knows far more than I do. As I said, I have had this happen to me many times, so I'm not taking someone else's judgments as my own.

Now the subject of sexuality is paramount in the science of human psychology; there are few things of greater importance or difficulty. Are you telling me that I can trust modern conclusions about this subject? With all due respect, I don't think so. Unless it's you, or someone like you, telling me these conceptual-level conclusions, I will be better off disregarding them regardless of how much proof the guy can provide (because, as I said, I'm in no capacity to evaluate his proof since I'm not a specialist in his field; give me a newbie in history and I can 'prove' to him that Greeks and Romans were the worst people to have ever lived).

So this is why my example of historians applies here as well. I can trust a scientist to tell me how the the hormone X affects the biological condition of bodypart Y of the human body, just as I can trust a historian to do the math and tell me a date when event A happened. Neither man in this case needs to do anything more than observe, and to follow the tried-and-true steps that worked before. He is not required to be a moral man, to make conceptual judgments and evaluations for the purpose of bettering human happiness. In situations when the former judgments are required, and when the latter motivation is profoundly necessary, they usually come up short, in my bitter experience. Obviously there are exceptions, and there exist exceptional scientists whose broad conclusions I can, and do, trust, but men like these are not the rule, and I have been confirmed of this fact over and over again.

I wouldn't trust a modern scientist, to tell me anything about the nature of sexuality, if my life depended on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't trust a modern scientist, to tell me anything about the nature of sexuality, if my life depended on it.

I would have to agree, especially in this case. Even hard sciences depend on good philosophy in order to be accurate. Scientists who accept environmentalism, for example, will tell you that global warming is a fact and has been "proven" to be caused by man. Scientists who accept behaviorism will tell you that more than just sexuality is biologically determined. The farther you get from an easily demonstrable fact, the more you are simply taking someone's word for it, at least in this day and age.

I'm not calling for some kind of crazy skepticism here. I just think that it's important to be wary of what scientists proclaim about things which have been exposed to philosophic "taints." As far as I know, that means anything that deals with psychology and anything that deals with "the environment." I'd be curious to know of anything else to watch out for... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be curious to know of anything else to watch out for...  :(

Philosophy and its branches. Sociology too, although I question its status as a science.

Actually, watch out for everything. I'm not calling for skepticism either, but some mathematicians have proposed ideas (such as whole math education - there is a thread about it somewhere on the boards) which I would call insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There is not a one-size fits all reason for why people are homosexual. You have to weed out the moral from the immoral. A moral reason to be homosexual is, for whatever reason, you were born biologically attracted to the same sex, and it *would* be of high value to pursue a relationship with him or her. An immoral reason is you learned to hate the opposite sex for some reason. You fear them, despise them, for whatever reason. For instance, a lot of radical socialist lesbians don't hate *men* but *masculinity*, which means: a hatred of ability. They don't *love* women; they hate men.

I've read somewhere that 90% of homosexuality in men is due to some external factor: usually they were molested as children. I wouldn't trust any of the "data" coming out today about homosexuality, as there is an agenda at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An immoral reason is you learned to hate the opposite sex for some reason.

Why is that immoral?

For instance, a lot of radical socialist lesbians don't hate *men* but *masculinity*, which means:  a hatred of ability. 

A lot of radical socialists have a hatred of ability, whether they be women or men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that immoral?

Because if their motivation to be with a person of the same sex is not desire for the same sex but a *hatred* of the opposite sex, then this is immoral. Love should be a healthy lust. As far as why it is immoral, it's because a person isn't pursuing something that is of genuine value to them. There are a lot of immoral reasons to be homosexual, not just this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have another question on the topic of Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality that I find to be more philosophically interesting than the morality of homosexuality. If someone is able to change their sexual orientation by introducing hormones or something like that--as scientific evidence suggests _may_ be possible--what ethical standing does that get?

It seems like, if possible, this would be a way of changing one's metaphysical responses to reality. I think the reasons for trying to change this aspect of oneself would determine the ethical standing of such a change...but I am wondering what anyone else may have to say on the subject.

I can think of lots of ways people change their _ability_ to deal with reality (lifting weights, reading, getting an education, poking their eye out, etc.), and some ways people change their second-nature-type responses to reality on a subconscious level (karate, keyboarding, etc.)...but I can't think of any way people change some way their body actually reacts to the world around it to something very different than it was before. I don't include, here, things like eating food to keep one's sensory apparatuses functioning properly--I mean a distinct change from the way it was before. I also don't mean something like the introduction of a vaccine--which "trains" the body to react to external stimuli in a better way by giving the body a sort of warning and head start...I mean something that actually changes...

Is there anything more than usual that goes into judging this? If man is able to change a physical-level reaction he has to suit some consciously-chosen value, isn't that a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Free Capitalist and Inspector insofar that they are skeptical of certain conclusions drawn by modern scientists, but I disagree with them, and agree with Stephen Speicher, on the type of scientific conclusions Stephen was referencing.

But I have learned to be very suspicious of any modern conclusions of a conceptual nature, anything that attempts to provide broad, general explanations about the true nature of things.

The conclusions Stephen posted were not of a conceptual nature. They were precisely related to the "H-Y antigen effects during fetal differentiation of the brain." I am not a biologist or neurophysiologist, but I do know the difference between a scientific argument based strictly on facts and one based on the scientists faulty conceptual reasoning.

This issue is perfectly summed up at the end of Stephen's post. "Until all the scientific evidence is in, I think it is utterly foolish to write off biology in favor of choice..." The simple question of the origins of homosexuality is a biological question. Because of this, I believe it is proper to refrain from judging homosexuality, unless you are scientifically qualified to do so.

On a side note, I find it interesting and psychologically revealing to witness those who are very determined to find something wrong with homosexuality (this, is a passing reference, directed at some comments on this forum, but mostly at those I know of in my own life; who happen to largely be conservative christians). For anyone not well-educated in advanced fields of human biology, an opinion on the morality of homosexuality (in general, not individual cases) is utterly speculative and, as there is no conclusive evidence for anyone's opinion (as far as I can tell, hardly anyone has been citing scientific papers or journals, save Stephen), any opinion is also not rational.

The best any of us can say is: If homosexuality is found to be biologically determined, then... -and- if homosexuality is found to not be biologically determined, then... (though it still may be developed, or learned at a very young age), -and- if homosexuality is found to be a choice (there would have to be a huge amount of scientific evidence for this before I could foresee this argument), then...

Anything other than simple "If, then" statements, given our current context of information regarding homosexuality, is completely baseless and merely an indication of the arguer's own psychological state and already-chosen irrational beliefs on the subject; a foundationless inquisition or witch-hunt, so to speak.

If someone is able to change their sexual orientation by introducing hormones or something like that--as scientific evidence suggests _may_ be possible--what ethical standing does that get?

This is an interesting question. If there was a procedure to allow me to completely invert the way I perceive the color spectrum (e.g. each instance of red is replaced with violet), what would be the moral standing of the procedure?

I do think there is a bit more to this question though. It deals with the fundamental nature of someone's sexuality. If a baby is born with a penis, can we assume that this baby is a male? Rather, how are we determining sexuality; by physical components (sexual organs) or by mental components (psychological reactions and feelings), or both?

To conclude that every human being with a vagina ought to have feelings we would normally conclude correspond with a vagina (feelings of 'being a woman') is merely to display one's already-accepted (and most popular in modern society) opinion: the physical expressions of one's sex should reflect the psychological expressions, and vice versa.

In many cases, however, this does not happen. There are people who do not feel like the sex for which they have the corresponding organs. In those cases, I think either a psychological change or a physical change would be most beneficial, and given that it is far easier to change sexual organs than to go through therapy and convince yourself that you are of a different sex, the process highlighted by jedymastyr could be a moral one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
A human being is not a floating consciousness.  In order to benefit their lives, human beings have to act in accordance with reality, which includes, one's own biological nature.  For example, you can not choose, by whim, to stop eating.  You, as a human being, need to eat food in order to survive and you can not change that by whim. 

In the same token, it is possible, that one's sexuality is the result of biological factors.  You of course have the choice to act against that biological nature or not. 

One does not determine their biological makeup according to their own whim or choice. 

Thus, the question still remains as to whether or not homosexuality is the result of one's biological nature, one's choices, or a combination of both.  A deeper question is, is sexuality the result of one's biological nature or one's choices?

If one's sexuality is the result of one's biological nature, I hold that it would be immoral for an individual to act against the facts of reality (in this context, their own biological nature).  If this were true, it would be immoral for a homosexual to act against their homosexuality and the same for a heterosexual, and it would be moral for a homosexual to act in accordance with the facts of reality (their biological nature) and the same for a heterosexual.

Ayn Rand did say that all objects act according to their natures. So, if sexual orientation is part of someone's "biological nature", then by definition no heterosexual ever acts homosexually, and no homosexual ever acts heterosexually. This is clearly wrong; the action of entering into a physical or romantic relationship is a *volitional action*. You've got to *decide* to do it. It is not as if there were some law, like the law of gravity, that stated that homosexuals acted homosexually and heterosexuals heterosexually. Nor is there *any* moral law that says people ought to act according to their sexual orientations. (For example, an alcoholic, though he drinks to excess by nature, is neither metaphysically guaranteed to drink to excess, as he could resist the urge, nor morally obligated to drink to excess, as it shrinks the capacity of man's mind.)

The argument has nothing to do with what homosexuals tend to do, but rather with what they ought to do. There is a substantial difference. (Food allergies are an obvious retort-- do not use any analogy involving them in your argument.)

P. S. Thank you, Solomon Eagle, for having sufficient selfishness to recognize your own mistake and be willing to improve it. I hugely prefer sloppy intellectual habits to second-handers who cling to other people's ill-formed ideas, because they cannot tell what is or is not sloppy :)

Edited by ingok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
I've never quite understood transexuals. Homosexuality I see as a preference. But there are some gay men for example who prefer to dress as women while others who are quite happy being men and dress quite manly. The same goes for lesbians...some want to look butch and others are quite feminine.

I suppose if I had a son and he was gay I wouldn't want him to be transexual because to me it seems like he is trying to evade the fact that he was born male. I recently heard on the radio about some experimental procedures where the doctors put a fully functioning penis on transexual women. I just find this strange. I'm not against gays but I don't think its right to deny what sex you were born.  what do you all think?

I understand and support all of that! It's the first time I see someone else express these thoughts.

I am what people call, Bicurious. I am not bisexual because I have never engaged in any type of act with another man in order to make my decision over whether or not that is my preference or not. I have a very strong feeling though that I am probably gay. The doubt alone tells me that maybe I am just confused but the point is that if it evr came down to it, Homosexuality would be MY choice by preference. But I too cannot understand men that try to negate their own nature and gender. If I am gay, then I am one of those masculine gays, despite the fact that I am an extremely emotional person. I love being a man, and I would never do anything to go against that. I accept my body, and I accept my mind. I do understand that the biological goal of my life is to paass on genetic material and indeed I do hope to one day be married into a heterosexual relationship and have children. Once again, homosexuality is merely an interest for me that I may one day choose to indulge in by choice. It is not who I am.

Is it really ethical to be a transexual? I don't know. I'm just asking. How could it be right to go against your nature and try to turn yourself into a completely different way of being? I just don't agree with that.

There is not a one-size fits all reason for why people are homosexual.  You  have to weed out the moral from the immoral.  A moral reason to be homosexual is, for whatever reason, you were born biologically attracted to the same sex, and it *would* be of high value to pursue a relationship with him or her. An immoral reason is you learned to hate the opposite sex for some reason.  You fear them, despise them, for whatever reason.  For instance, a lot of radical socialist lesbians don't hate *men* but *masculinity*, which means:  a hatred of ability.  They don't *love* women; they hate men.

I've read somewhere that 90% of homosexuality in men is due to some external factor:  usually they were molested as children.  I wouldn't trust any of the "data" coming out today about homosexuality, as there is an agenda at work.

What on earth are you talking about?!?!? That is absolutely wrong! and I can't believe you would make such an ignorant generalization! First of all. I do not believe anyone is born a homosexual because we are all creatures of nature and by nature we are meant to be be with the opposite sex in order to pass on genetic material and preserve the specie. And the whole thing about being taught to hate the opposite sex: That is not true! I don't know any homosexual that would agree to that. It isn't hatred for the opposite sex, its merely a preference for people of the same sex. Just because someone prefers chocolate milk, that doesn't mean that white milk is evil.

Now, in regards to the 90% statistic. I can actually support that to a certain extent because it is generally true and it does tend to be a factor in a lot of the person's personal way of thinking and perception. Yet, I have learned that it isn't right to say that all homosexuals have been molested or taken advantage of at some point in their life. Some just want it.

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I know this argument has gone off to the center of the galaxy in this forum...but this is actually a personal issue. I'm quite young, and there are still a lot of things I haven't figured out about my life. Ever since I started posting here, I've had my conflicts of sometimes being "too religious" and then "not religious at all". This is one of the reasons I have that conflict. I was raised by your typical puritanical christian ideals. Therefore, it's been drilled into me that becoming a homosexual would mean to simply expect eternal damnation upon death. This has always and still, constantly, freaks the hell out of me. I tend to break away from all religion because of the fact that "God's existence" can't be proven, just as it's "possibility" can't be disproven. But then, if I really am gay... since I haven't actually committed any homosexual act to this point, would it really be of greater moral value to stick by the religious principles and resist temptation, or be more logical and accept that maybe it's just one of my physiological characteristics and I can't really do anything about something that is already a part of my way of thinking and perceiving.

My mind is basically on two possible choices: either follow logic and accept some of the natural curisosities I may have in members of my own sex and possible take the risk of "an eternity of punishment", or a life suppressing thoughts and desires in me because of somebody else's standards.

I simply don't wnat to make a stupid choice and ruin my existence... (yes I do believe in souls).

I would appreciate any comments or suggestions on how I should approach this issue...

Thank you,

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a first step, you might make a list of the various issues that seem to be swirling around in your mind. Then, with the list in front of you, decide what order you should follow in resolving the issues.

Should I do this or should I do that? That is an ethical issue.

Ethics rests on a foundation of epistemology, which here means which is better -- reason or faith?

Going even deeper in the philosophical hierarchy, you cannot decide whether to follow reason or faith until you decide about the nature of reality. Does it exist as you perceive it and do you have a consciousness capable of understanding it through reason? Or is your mind crippled, thus requiring faith in a god, the supposed cause of reality? These are metaphysical questions.

The following would be my answers, but keep in mind that I have been wrestling with some issues for 43 years. (I am 61,)

1. All that exists is this world, this reality, and that includes me, having a consciousness capable of understanding things.

2. Reason is the path to follow.

3. My ethics -- my "shoulds" -- must be based on facts. If I were in fact a homosexual, there would be no question of "becoming" one but of being one, and acting accordingly.

Now there are of course a lot of intermediate steps in the list above, but that is the outline I would follow after thinking about it clearly for a few years.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see one problem right away: you're presenting the scenario as an either-or choice.

Either you act on faith and refrain from homosexuality or you reject faith and become homosexual.

These are not the only two choices open to you. You could act on some other kind of faith that allows homosexuality, and you could also reject both faith and homosexuality.

I'd also like to comment on point three that Burgess made: "If I were in fact a homosexual..." It has not been proven that such a thing as a person who is homosexual by biological nature. There may not in fact exist such a thing. Or there may.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AmbivalentEye:

If I read your posting correctly, the fear of possible eternal misery, not the fact that you have certain sexual curiosities, seems to be the primary issue troubling you. If so, that is the issue I think you should give some thought and do some premise checking on. It is certainly a very important issue.

You wrote:

My mind is basically on two possible choices: either follow logic and accept some of the natural curisosities I may have in members of my own sex and possible take the risk of "an eternity of punishment", or a life suppressing thoughts and desires in me because of somebody else's standards.

I simply don't wnat to make a stupid choice and ruin my existence... (yes I do believe in souls).

Your premise here is that if you pursue your own happiness (be it in sex or any other area of your life) you run the risk of offending some Higher Power and being eternally damned - so perhaps you should just "play it safe just in case" and do what other people have told you this Higher Power wants of you.

Well, I can just as easily turn that premise on its end: What if everything other people have told you about this Higher Power turns out to be total poppycock and that, when you die, you simply cease to exist and return to the exact same status as before you were born? If so and had you "played it safe," wouldn't you have missed out on something wonderful? And, if so, since you won't get a chance to do it over again, doesn't it make sense to "play it safe just in case" and live your life - which you do know is a fact of realty, and a rather wonderful one at that - to its fullest instead of ruining it in the name of mere arbitrary possibilities that other people you know have asserted?

As an Objectivist, I obviously don't buy into theories based on the supernatural. In my childhood prior to my discovery of Objectivism, I was not raised to be religious or given any religious training. My attitude towards religion for a very long time was that Christianity was kind of like the stories about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny only that grown-ups believed in it as well. On the other hand, I really wasn't an atheist either. I grew up in an area where the vast majority of people subscribed to conservative religious beliefs and believed in eternal damnation. When I was in school, since it was known that my family did not go to church, I was frequently the target of efforts to "save my soul" and, as a result, was exposed to the notion of eternal damnation - which I considered to be totally bizarre from the very moment I first heard it.

My attitude was this: If there really is a god, he must be a pretty neat fella. After all, he made me and all the many neat and wonderful things around me. Why would a god who did so many wonderful things and gave me so many wonderful gifts while I was alive suddenly turn into such a mean, nasty and vindictive monster when I died? Such people's description of their god sounded to me more like what I imagined the devil to be like.

All these years later, my basic emotional attitude towards such "eternal damnation" views has still not changed. I understand why people accept the premise of a god and I can even relate to it in some respects on a certain emotional level. But the god described by the fire and brimstone types - well, it is just bizarre. If this god was so all-powerful and mighty and so kind and forgiving - why would he become angry because some insignificant (from His perspective, not mine!) peon out of the billions and billions that have existed did not just blindly accept without question what others have told me about Him? That doesn't sound like the sort of Supreme Being that would have created me and the wonderful world around me. That sounds like a bully who gained access to great power - sort of like Saddam Hussein.

Now, back to your part about "playing it safe" in order to avoid eternal misery. Here is an exercise that should give you some perspective on the issue.:

Step way back for a moment and look at religions in general from a very high altitude perspective. Whatever religion you were raised with, it is not the only one that is out there. For example, Islam is a major religion. According to Islam, you are going to suffer eternal damnation regardless of what choice you make in the decision you posted about because you are an evil infidel. What if it turns out that the Moslems are the ones who have it right? The only way to "play it safe" there is to convert to Islam. But wait. There are also Hindus. What if they are right? What if the Buddhists are right. Consider all of the countless religious beliefs and practices that have existed and prospered down through history. What if the Aztecs who practiced human sacrifices were right? What if the one true religion by which one could avoid eternal damnation was the one that was practiced by a pre-Columbian tribe that roamed the hills of Idaho? If any of these "possibilities" are true - well, you are eternally screwed in a major sort of way.

Now, ask yourself how and why that "what if" question when asked about the religion you were brought up with is any more significant than when it is asked about all the others?

I was about to say that one cannot live one's life based on "what ifs" - but that's not really correct. After all, we do buy insurance, don't we? The better thing to say is that our "what ifs" should be based on what we KNOW to be true - i.e. they should be based on reality because we do know that reality is real.

You are, more or less, asking the right questions - so I think the chances are good that, if you keep thinking about it, you will eventually come up with the right answers. But I urge you to keep thinking about it and please do not stop or give up until you know that you have reached the correct answer. You see, your question about the possibility of eternal misery is a very important one. If it turns out that you simply cease to exist after you die and you go back to the same status as before you were born, then that means that THIS life is your eternity. If so and you end up being miserable in this life in order to avoid a bunch of "what ifs" after death that turned out to be poppycock, than the very thing you feared most would have come true - your eternity would have been miserable. And by then, there would be nothing you could do about it.

So, good premises and best wishes for a happy eternity! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore, it's been drilled into me that becoming a homosexual would mean to simply expect eternal damnation upon death. This has always and still, constantly, freaks the hell out of me. But then, if I really am gay... since I haven't actually committed any homosexual act to this point, would it really be of greater moral value to stick by the religious principles and resist temptation, or be more logical and accept that maybe it's just one of my physiological characteristics and I can't really do anything about something that is already a part of my way of thinking and perceiving.

I simply don't wnat to make a stupid choice and ruin my existence... (yes I do believe in souls).

I have a simple philosophy about this: There is life before death.

If, as you say it, you are not at all sure and cannot be whatever will happen after you are dead, then you should stay with what you know: This life. And this life is yours and yours only and you do with it as you please and nobody has any right to it but you.

Besides, I always wondered why anyone believed that the being that allegedly created the universe doesn't have anything better to do with its time than punishing humans for living their lives. This doesn't stand three seconds of logical thinking. Don't fear it. You said yourself that nobody can know what happens to your soul after death, so the burden of proof is on the others and as far as you said it yourself, they just can't prove it.

So why fear it? There's no reason to.

Enjoy your life,

Felix.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to comment on point three that Burgess made: "If I were in fact a homosexual..." It has not been proven that such a thing as a person who is homosexual by biological nature. There may not in fact exist such a thing. Or there may.

Granted, but to be fair, he didn't say biological.

Whatever religion you were raised with, it is not the only one that is out there.

That sounds like a bully who gained access to great power...

:lol: That's always been my chief criticism of religion: choosing based on faith, and the validity of its morality.

How would you distinguish between a Jonestown cult and a "true" religion? Faith in one would be as valid as faith in the other. And using reason to distinguish the faiths blows the whole thing up.

But then, if I really am gay... since I haven't actually committed any homosexual act to this point, would it really be of greater moral value to stick by the religious principles and resist temptation, or be more logical and accept that maybe it's just one of my physiological characteristics and I can't really do anything about something that is already a part of my way of thinking and perceiving.

It might be easier to assume that you have a biological impulse, and "can't do anything" about it. But as Inspector says, that would seem to be an assumption for now. The fact is, whether biological or chosen, you have these urges, and (regardless of the source) the urges conflict with the teachings of your religion, correct?

If this is the case, then it really doesn't matter whether this is a biological or chosen result. You've questioned religion this far, so I'd ask myself how is homosexuality immoral in the first place. Is this a case of an objective moral principle? Is it a case of a supernatural bully making commands with no discernable reason (other than that he can?) If you can't see why it should be wrong, then the only question seems whether you go with your judgement or hope that religion knows something you can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AmbivalentEye, are you aware of the Rattigan Society? I have not recently examined their new website and so I cannot offer an endrosement. They say they are Objectivists and homosexuals. I recall the website manager for RS appearing here in OO.net. Perhaps you or someone else can do a search for his comments (which were promoting their new site).

As always -- online and elsewhere -- be cautious in who you deal with online. The usual rules of care apply especially for young people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Going even deeper in the philosophical hierarchy, you cannot decide whether to follow reason or faith until you decide about the nature of reality. Does it exist as you perceive it and do you have a consciousness capable of understanding it through reason? Or is your mind crippled, thus requiring faith in a god, the supposed cause of reality? These are metaphysical questions.

The following would be my answers, but keep in mind that I have been wrestling with some issues for 43 years. (I am 61,)

1. All that exists is this world, this reality, and that includes me, having a consciousness capable of understanding things.

2. Reason is the path to follow.

3. My ethics -- my "shoulds" -- must be based on facts. If I were in fact a homosexual, there would be no question of "becoming" one but of being one, and acting accordingly."

These awrguments make so much sense to me...that I can't believe I didn't think about these things before.

I think I'm giving up on the whole "eternal damnation" concept. It really is completely irrational to me and I refuse to continue believing the smae irrationality that's been passed on through families for generations.

In a way, I've always had my conflicts with religion because almost anything they ever said felt very wrong to me. I shall not be turned into a sacrificial being and they have no right to my life! No one does. I know I'm not making a bad choice in deciding to pursue a homosexual lifestyle. I will still be following all of my principles and morals. Well, to be honest, this is more complicated than I mentioned in the first place because I wouldn't even fathom having intercourse with a guy. I've never had a problem in my relationships with girls it's just that I also have other interests. Yet this is about control of my own life....and I plan on claiming it!

The comment I valued the most was from Dismuke. Because it really got through to me and I'm seriuously not going to continue this cycle of self-inflicted guilt when I have nothing to prove to me that these fears are really worth anything. I feel like all of christianity has been formulated to sscare the hell out of people and then make them feel guilty for a million things that never did but convince them of anyway.

"What if everything other people have told you about this Higher Power turns out to be total poppycock and that, when you die, you simply cease to exist and return to the exact same status as before you were born? If so and had you "played it safe," wouldn't you have missed out on something wonderful? And, if so, since you won't get a chance to do it over again, doesn't it make sense to "play it safe just in case" and live your life - which you do know is a fact of realty, and a rather wonderful one at that - to its fullest instead of ruining it in the name of mere arbitrary possibilities that other people you know have asserted? "

"Such people's description of their god sounded to me more like what I imagined the devil to be like."

I know....that's what I've always felt too. It really doesn't make anysense because it's always contradicting itself, and I KNOW there isn't such a thing as contradictions.

"The only way to "play it safe" there is to convert to Islam. But wait. There are also Hindus. What if they are right? What if the Buddhists are right. Consider all of the countless religious beliefs and practices that have existed and prospered down through history. What if the Aztecs who practiced human sacrifices were right? What if the one true religion by which one could avoid eternal damnation was the one that was practiced by a pre-Columbian tribe that roamed the hills of Idaho? If any of these "possibilities" are true - well, you are eternally screwed in a major sort of way.Now, ask yourself how and why that "what if" question when asked about the religion you were brought up with is any more significant than when it is asked about all the others? "

This is what impacted me the most. It's true that if the "possibility" exists for any of these religions to be true....then every single one of us is probably just screwed to begin with by being born into a different type of family.

"

"what ifs" should be based on what we KNOW to be true - i.e. they should be based on reality because we do know that reality is real.

You are, more or less, asking the right questions - so I think the chances are good that, if you keep thinking about it, you will eventually come up with the right answers. But I urge you to keep thinking about it and please do not stop or give up until you know that you have reached the correct answer. You see, your question about the possibility of eternal misery is a very important one. If it turns out that you simply cease to exist after you die and you go back to the same status as before you were born, then that means that THIS life is your eternity"

Thank you so much for this! You have no idea how much these comments meant to me. It has helped so much!

"You've questioned religion this far, so I'd ask myself how is homosexuality immoral in the first place. Is this a case of an objective moral principle? Is it a case of a supernatural bully making commands with no discernable reason (other than that he can?) If you can't see why it should be wrong, then the only question seems whether you go with your judgement or hope that religion knows something you can't."

Ok. Yes. That will be my very next analysis, because either there is really something wrong with desires towards members of the same sex, or society has created an immense taboo of biased rationalizations.

Oh yeah, and I had never heard of the Rattigan Society, but thank you for telling me about it! It's probably amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I have drug my tired eyes through the collage of talk on this subject, and have grown tired of the stereotypes and dogmatic stances of Ayn Rand quotes.

As mentioned earlier, think for yourself. Ayn Rand often spoke her opinion on subjects. She never claimed to be a psychologist, and she clearly stated that that was where the question of homosexuality lies. Her domain, philosophy, merely stated that sex was good.

Leonard Peikoff has addressed this issue on a radio program, that was taped and is available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore.

He essentially said that the choice to be gay is initiated at a very young age, reinforced over and over by a series of choices one makes through childhood and later. A snowballing effect that overlaps itself intricatley with the very core of a persons character and sense-of-life.

By the time one identifies this attraction, one has built such an tangled web of sexuality that it is next to impossible to untangle (at least for now, and possibly for the next three thousand years -- psychology is just not advanced enough).

He clearly says that it is abnormal and is a choice, BUT in most cases it is completely MORAL. His reasoning (and he believes Ayn Rand would agree with him) is that sex is just too important of a value in a person's life. And if one can't correct this uncorrectable psychological flaw within one's lifetime -- it is proper for that person to say: "I've tried to correct these desires but I can't do it. So Im going to get as much rational values as I can from the desires I do have."

Again, we're speaking about a psychological abnormailty, NOT a philosophical one. A friend of mine once said that Roark would still be Roark even if he was gay. He is so much more than his sexuality; His greatness would not be diminished -- his sexuality is incidental at best. I concur.

And before anyone mentions it -- I am speaking of a monogomous, healthy, age-appropriate, consentual relationship; i.e, the same moral definitions given to heterosexuality.

As a gay man myself, I can attest that I do not partake in the idea of man/woman role playing in my relationships. The thought is absurd. I am a man, and the person I am romantic with is a man also. My mannerisms, my taste in clothes, my music, taste in art, etc., are all influenced, first, by my nature as a reasoning man, musician, artist, philosopher -- then my sensuality, sexuality and homosexuality.

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...