Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Those are excellent thoughts on the matter Gray. My next door neighbor for several years was a gay man and he was a tremendous individual. I'll never understand why anyone would care what he and another consenting adult were doing in the privacy of his home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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."

Thanks for posting this summary of Dr. Peikoff's position; I hope I'll find the time to listen to the whole thing sooner or later.

I agree about the choice being made at an early age, and I would add that this makes the cultural awareness of which choice is the right one even more important. We do our children a disservice by teaching them that homosexuality is just as good as heterosexuality, or that the choice is not theirs to make at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I see allot has been discussed since this question was posted, I'll just respond firstly to the initial question.

What do I think? Well, first let me qualify what I'd use "homosexuality" to refer to. I'd use it to refer to homosexual experiences across the board, and not just within the confines of a particular class of individuals. When you ask if it's immoral etc, I'll answer it as referring to experiences rather than just as an "orientation". Experiences include thoughts, acts and emotions. So, in short, all of it, or anything homosexual.

I don't think it's immoral and I think the matter of choice is a bit complicated. It's not immoral because there is no basis to judge it immoral on, no basis in reality. If anyone knows of one, then please come forward. Homosexuality cannot be objectively demonstrated to be, in any way, in and of itself, harmful or contrary to human nature. It’s never been demonstrated to be.

One can objectively consider any homosexual act, for instance to examine it either introspectively or by objective participation in, and discover homosexual acts are wholly innocent. What criteria I myself chose to test this is to ask myself what actual harm could I see in it. For instance compare a slap on the face with a kiss on the cheek: one is undeniably harmful while the other is not. In other words, there are some acts which violate your actual physical integrity - cause pain because of their nature - and some acts that are completely consistent with one's actual physical integrity which not only cause no harm but feed one's sense of worthiness. A homosexual act is entirely capable of the latter.

It also can cause no harm “psychologically” as long as one is aware of what one is doing. For instance if one insists on judging homosexual sex by a masculine/feminine paradigm instead of just two males sexually relating as males, then one is going to suffer for it. Why? Because you’re not being objective about it. If you are a male and you are with another male, then that is the case. It is what it is.

So all other things being equal, I'd say homosexuality is moral. Of course, as with any sexual experience or act, people can engage in them either on good terms or destructive ones. However, there is no solid reason to doubt, or be suspicious of, the value of homosexual experience qua the experience.

That quote from Any Rand, as someone mentioned, is an opinion Ayn Rand didn't trouble herself to substantiate with anything. That insubstantial revulsion is something with homosexuality to take very important note of. In every instance of someone disparaging homosexuality I've ever come across, all I've ever seen is the same baseless condemnation. If there is a valid base on which to condemn it, no one's ever come forward with it.

People don't give reasons for their objection to homosexuality. They either base their objection on the authority of their feelings, as Ayn Rand did, or on an appeal to some faith-based moral standard, like what's written in the bible.

I think it's important to take note that the most virulent attacks against homosexuality in any society are faith-based. In our society, no one is more vocal in their condemnation of it as a vice, than Christians. Their primary argument? God, via the bible, said not to. Is it any coincidence that those most opposed to homosexuality are also those most inclined to believe in the supernatural? In other words, they just tend to be the most unreasonable people. Personally, I don't think this is a coincidence. I've tried to think of some basis in reality on which to condemn it, and I always come up with nothing. So I can't see any other way to condemn it except by reference to a standard besides reality.

What I think is homosexuality, as in acts, thoughts and feelings directed at members of the same sex are wholly moral and good. There is nothing about them that conflict with morality. It's a positive experience compared to the negative experience of just rejecting those experiences. There's no demonstrative basis on which to reject it as a matter of personal principle. There's never been any good cause offered to doubt or suspect that homosexual experiences are in any way intrinsically bad.

Is it a choice? I don't think it's a choice to be confronted in life by the opportunity. That opportunity is integral to the human condition, being as how there are two sexes. So the opportunity isn't a choice; it's a part of life. So neither is it a choice that one feels something about it. One's awareness of that aspect of the human condition forces one to feel something about it, and I think the feeling is either primarily positive

or negative.

One makes the estimation. When I say "feeling" here, I mean there is a at least a subconscious estimation of the opportunity for homosexual experience which life faces each person with, as either an opportunity for something good or bad.

I think everybody invariably makes this judgment, and I think it's a part of life that one cannot escape it. Most people however don't identify what they've based their judgment on. It’s an interesting thing to note that considering homosexual acts is integral to life. It doesn’t come from anything unnecessary. It’s connected to facts necessary for human existence.

So the question is what does reality itself indicate is the right way to feel about it. That is, what does one base that estimation on? How do you substantiate either your "disgust" or your regard for homosexual experiences? If reality is to decide it, is there anything of reality that answers the question as to goodness or badness of it, in the negative? Anything of reality which answers it in the positive?

I've taken an honest look at it myself and have failed to find any fact that would indict homosexual experience as bad. Not only that, but every relevant fact I know of supports the goodness of it. So my conclusion is that homosexual experience in and of itself is a positive experience, morally, physically, intellectually.

I have to qualify this however and say I'd only engage in homosexuality within the context of a relationship with someone I actually cared enough about. That's a tall order too. When I say "homosexual experience" and list that as including acts thoughts, emotions, I'm thinking of experiences where the intellectual part and the emotional and physical are an integrated whole. I think that only comes in the form of someone you seriously care for that much.

So homosexual experiences aren't immoral, or moral because they are homosexual. There is no reason on which to morally judge these experiences on the basis of the people's gender's who engage in them. We don't make moral judgments of people based on their gender in other instances. It's sexist. I don't see why people can't see the same thing here. To say that it's immoral for man to be with a man, because that is something for a woman to do, is as bad as saying it's immoral for a woman to change a tire because that's a man's job. It's ridiculous. The gender of a person you have sex with has nothing to do with the morality or immorality of the situation. Of course the situation of having sex with someone can be judged as moral or immoral, just not on the basis of the sexes involved. For instance, are you both being honest with each other? Honesty is moral criteria, but not gender. Gender has nothing to do with the moral status of the choice. There is no more reason anyone can show to make moral judgments on the basis of gender in this instance as in any other.

I mean has anyone noticed that such a question as to whether homosexuality is moral, ties morality to something other than a person's chosen thoughts and actions? It ties it to gender. You are asking if something is morally wrong say for a male to do because he is male, that his maleness is what he has to be concerned about in sorting out moral issues. Morality is not a gender issue. It's a human issue. It has to do with the essential principle of a human being. Gender is a secondary thing. You could say gender is a "measurement" which morality has to omit. You can't make moral decisions, moral judgments on the basis of gender. Tying morality to gender is a mistake. Morality is more important. Morality comes from the essential dynamic of man as a "rational animal". That's the principle. That definition of man isn't gender-specific. So, neither should morality be. So asking if homosexuality is moral or immoral takes morality to be less than what it is, on the same level as gender, but gender doesn't define what a human being is.

It’s the same mistake people make when basing moral judgments on race, that a person is more or less worthy because of their race. Fifty years ago, you could ask if it was moral for a white man to marry a black woman. These are physiological characteristics that don’t define what a human being is. “Rational Animal”, remember? Gender is a physiological characteristic like race. It’s not what makes you human. It’s not how you define a human being. Sexual love ought to be tied to what’s most important and only conditional upon that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Does he present any evidence in support of this hypothesis? The 'cause' of homosexuality is still a fairly controversial issue within behavioral psychology and neither the nature or the nurture side has conclusively established their position. I think that the academic community would be very interested in any scientific research that Peikoff has carried out. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does he present any evidence in support of this hypothesis? The 'cause' of homosexuality is still a fairly controversial issue within behavioral psychology and neither the nature or the nurture side has conclusively established their position. I think that the academic community would be very interested in any scientific research that Peikoff has carried out.

Sorry, that sounded needlessly bitter and sarcastic. However I find it frustrating when people continually advance opinions on complex psychological issues which are fundamentally based on nothing. I doubt that Peikoff has any idea what causes homosexual behavior, and I'd be surprised if he even had more than a passing familiarity with research in that area. This is a scientific question - you dont get to make up facts based on what you want to be true. Anyone who claims to 'know' why people are homosexual without having any research/evidence to back up their opinions does not deserve to be listened to.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I ever found troubling about homosexuality was a few lesbians I know attempting to convince other women (heterosexual ones) to join them. Other than that, it has no impact whatsoever on me, so I've yet to discover any reason why I should care. I haven't seen any signs that homosexuality had any affect on any other aspect of someone's character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it not a fundemental part of human nature for a man to act as a man, and a woman to act as a woman?

Gender is NOT at all like racial identities. The two sexes are completely different and different for a reason. Procreation. That doesn't mean that people must procreate. But acting as a man or women should in conjuction with their identity is proper. It's moral. To evade that these differences exist and to puposely act against one's nature (identity) as a male or female is why homosexuality is immoral.

What if everyone made the choice to become homosexual? That would be the end of the whole human race right there. How could such a choice be pro-life qua man if the end result would be extiction of our entire species? If that decision is anti-life (and it is), then how can it moral for individuals to decide to make such an anti-life decision?

How can it be considered moral for a man to act effeminently like a female evading his identity as a man? It can't be.

Sexuality is as much a part of the identity of Man as rationality. To deny that self-evident fact is to deny reality. I.e., it's highly immoral.

Objectivists or anyone can't use "reason" in an attempt to negate a self-evident fact of reality. And the attempt to do so should not be associated with Objectivism in any way. The last thing we need is "Objectivists" stating that the choice to follow mans proper sexuality qua man is not subject to moral evaluation. The last thing we need is politically correct "Objectivists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EC, When you mention choice, you're changing the terms of the immediately preceding discussion. If homosexuality truly has a largely physiological component or largely early-psychology component, then the situation is not a question of choice. Now, I'm not saying that is so -- though the existence of rational Objectivists who claim they are homosexual (rather than that they choose to be homosexual) is something I'll accept in good faith until I have reason to think about it further, or until someone shows this cannot be true.

What if an individual man truly finds himself to be homosexual? Why should he try to be something that is not in his nature? Why should the nature of his brother men be of any importance to him?

Now, if you say that it is a choice against his own individual nature, then I'll let someone else argue that -- I do not know of any research either way. (Also, just because a hundred men make such a choice in adulthood doesn't mean that a few weren't born that way, or became that way in a psychologically difficult-to-change fashion.) People in the orient once used to stunt girls' legs, but some girls were born short -- that's how it all started. Condemn the mimics, not the true ones.

Now, if someone were born with a handicap that hindered him from pursuing his goals, he should try his best to compensate. However, homosexuality is different. This is not a situation where the man is hampered from pursuing his goals. This is one where he has a different goal. One has the happy situation that -- in modern society -- there are others like him. So, all's well that ends well.

PS: The attempt to live up to some optional behavior just because one perceives it to be part of the nature of one's species is similar to what the evolutionary psychologists would have us do. E.g. man always lived in groups and looked after his family, so family is good, and things like that.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

softwareNerd made very good points, in particular, the introduction of something sorely missing from EC's post: any mention of an individual's personal values. I'll just pick out a few other problems I see.

The two sexes are completely different and different for a reason. Procreation.
Nature does not have reasons. It just is. That a certain activity can result in procreation is something individual men can note, and then decide if it has value for them.

What if everyone made the choice to become homosexual? That would be the end of the whole human race right there.
Who cares? Is it an Objectivist moral duty to perpetuate the species? An Objectivist asks, what will happen to me if I make a particular choice?

The last thing we need is politically correct "Objectivists".
Political correctness has nothing to do with it. Where is the evidence that anyone is arguing on that basis?

Mark

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two sexes are completely different and different for a reason. Procreation. That doesn't mean that people must procreate. But acting as a man or women should in conjuction with their identity is proper. It's moral. To evade that these differences exist and to puposely act against one's nature (identity) as a male or female is why homosexuality is immoral.
If procreation is what makes heterosexuality a part of a person's proper identity, then what makes heterosexuality a part of man's proper identity when he's just having (non-procreative) sex?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the capacity to have procreative sex not that he actually uses it in that capacity that is important. Just as a man is born with a rational faculty but can use it any way he chooses.

I am not saying that saying that an individual can't choose to be gay, but that the choice is immoral because it violates his identity as a man. I'm sure there are many gay people who claim to be fully happy with their life and choice but because their "happiness" is based at its root on an evasion of their identity this "happiness" can't be anything but an illusion.

I might also add that of course I am not advocating any discrimination against gays because I think they are immoral. Although it follows that two men or two women should not be able to legally marry if marriage is defined as a legal contract between a male and a female.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the capacity to have procreative sex not that he actually uses it in that capacity that is important. Just as a man is born with a rational faculty but can use it any way he chooses.

This makes no sense. The purpose of the rational faculty is to enable a man to discover what he needs to do in order to live. Misuse of it, or failure to use it, leads to pain or death. The purpose of man's procreative ability is to have children. If he does not care to have children, it is irrelevant to his life (except for the fact that he has to take appropriate precautions). Use or non-use of it matters only in relation to his desire to have his own biological children. (The procreative function of sex is also irrelevant to why most people, most of the time, engage in it.)

Edited by mwickens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize in advance if this has already been said. There are twenty-five pages to this thread and I'm afraid I haven't time to read them all just to make sure someone hasn't covered this already.

I have encountered a great many people in my thirty-odd years on this planet, from all walks of life. I have held many jobs in all this time, from stocking supermarket shelves to DJ-ing in a "gentleman's club," to waiting tables to selling shoes.

I know several practicing homosexuals and I have yet to encounter anyone or anything who can dissuade me from the following conclusion:

Homosexuality is either a.) a symptom of mental illness or b.) a mental illness itself.

Every homosexual I have ever known has also displayed other symptoms of having some sort of imbalance. One guy I knew was even taking something like fifteen different drugs per day (all of them prescribed, mind you,) just to be able to function nominally.

If there IS an exception to my "mental illness" theory (and I know that I'm not the first to postulate such a notion,) it would be this: I DO believe that some people believe themselves to be homosexual because they exhibit certain behaviors that society deems "unusual," and that the only explanation for these behaviors is that the person MUST be "gay."

However, I also consider this a form of "mental illness" as it represents the sort of self-esteem issues that cause one to doubt their own minds and thus depend on others to think for them.

Collectivism, if you will.

Just my fifth of a dime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a psychologist, and I'm way not qualfied to discuss the psychologies of sexuality, but I disagree with the mental illness position. I have known several homosexual men who one could described as "down to earth" or "well-balanced". Sexuality is too complex a psychological subject to dismiss this form of it as "mental illness".

Sexuality - like many facets of a person's psychology - is the result of choice. But, in my opinion, it is not the classic "wake up one morning and decide to be gay" argument. Nobody wakes up and says "well, what do you know, I'm straight! How 'bout that!"

Many things can influence or inspire homosexuality, and they do not necessarily have to be negative scenarios [child molestation; rape or sexual abuse; or having an authoritarian, unaffectionate mother and a wormy, spineless father. It can be the result of a close friendship, isolation from the opposite sex in formative years (such as boarding schools), strong male influences in the absence of a father figure (for males), etc.]. It could be simply that a boy with more "sensitive" interests is accepted more by female friends, grows up viewing all women as sisters, then adopts by association their desires for men.

There are a million scenarios and conditions that can gravitationally pull someone into a homosexual lifestyle. They build up over time, and instead of being identified correctly - the professor as just a concerned mentor, the colleague as a heroic career idol, the best friend as someone "emotionally supportive" in times of tragedy, etc. Without such identification, wrong premises are formed, and wrong conclusions reached. Sadly, if this is true, then these misidentifications predate a child's understanding of sexual roles, if they're taught those roles at all.

So, imho, I think the "I've always known it" argument is an untruth. Maybe not a conscious lie, but a conclusion reached on false premises.

I also disagree with the "I can't help it" argument as well. Only an animal is a slave to its urges - a man makes everything a conscious choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First EC:

You have yet to demonstrate how having non-procreative sex with a woman is an essential part of a man's nature or how having non-procreative sex with a man is an essential part of a woman's nature. Also, homosexuality is not "the choice not to have non-procreative sex," but "the preference for sexual partners of the same gender." There is nothing about the male or female genitalia which indicates that they are exclusively for stimulation of and by a member of the opposite sex. For example, the Gräfenberg (G) spot in females, a bundle of nerves in the middle of the anterior wall of the vagina which is for most women not stimulated by their male partner's penis but can easily be stimulated digitally or otherwise, and which develops into the prostate gland in males (another area which is not stimulated by traditional, procreative sex but which may be stimulated digitally or otherwise) demonstrates that human bodies of both sexes are capable of sexual pleasure achievable by means antithetical to procreation. Male and female genitalia are neither completely nor exclusively capable of stimulation by either sex. The simplest solution is not always the only solution nor the most pleasurable solution.

Next mosespa:

I agree with you (almost) completely in that the (very) vast majority of visible homosexuals define themselves by their homosexuality and have created an irrational, flamboyant, offensive and immoral culture which they attempt through gay pride parades, drag shows, outspoken sexual promiscuity and moral relativism to define how homosexuals must act in order to be "part of the club." The reason gay bars are so dark is so you don't have to see how ugly the person you're about to take home for a one night stand is. On the few occasions on which I have had the unique displeasure of being in such establishments (and allegedly classy ones at that), I have always been overwhelmed by a fatalistic sense of life - the attitude of "we are the way we are and we can't help it" with the implication of accepted moral inferiority, which in turn leads so many participants in this socially mandated lifestyle to be proponents of moral relativism, left wing politics and flamboyantly offensive behavior. I am often heard by my friends to say that I hate gay people (at which they always do a double take). Gay people (and by that I mean those who label themselves as gay, or feel that they must label themselves as gay because they are to some degree homosexual) want to be hated so that they can use that moral judgment passed on them by their detractors to attack the detractors with the moral relativist cry of "who are you to judge me?!" But deep down inside they've all ended up as secretly self-loathing people with no moral code whatsoever. Insofar as your conclusion of mental illness is based only on the observation of this sort of visible homosexuals, and insofar as evasion of reality and moral relativism can be considered mental illnesses, I will agree with you. However, I should point out that I am homosexual, and I am not mentally ill (though EC would probably disagree).

Love is (approximately) one part lust to every three parts romance. At least, healthy romantic love is. The romance is a purely intellectual thing - shared values, sense of life and all that important stuff Rand makes such a wonderfully eloquent fuss about. But the lust is chemical and temporary. Homosexuality, at its proper root, is a biological abnormality (referencing Dr. P's paraphrased remarks via Gray) insofar as this chemical response is a vestige of the primitive ancestral urge to procreate. It is abnormal in the sense that syndactyly or heterochromia iridium are abnormal. Although the former is medically correctible so it may or may not be a good example - I don't know about the medical correctability of homosexuality. But my point being that it is that one's motivation as to whether or not to wear colored contacts or remove the excess skin to cover or correct these abnormalities is to that should be judged as moral or immoral. EC's argument that homosexuality is immoral should read "the act of homosexuality is immoral because the only moral action regarding a physical abnormality is to correct it." But one would hardly call someone with two eyes of differing coloration immoral for not covering them up. And in the case that homosexuality is not medically correctible, all that *could* happen would be a cover-up - the abnormality would remain, and wouldn't denying it with a cover-up be evasion of reality? Medicine currently provides no medical means of correcting homosexuality, and we don't even have to discuss the morality of someone who decides to leave the webbing between their toes until it does. =]

But see, love is only one part lust. It's an important part, but the reasons we love someone are far more important. I think a homosexual who closes him or herself off to the possibility of ever romantically loving a person of the opposite sex is one who must perforce give up on the entire idea of romantic love. I think the same of heterosexuals, actually - those that reject the possibility of loving a person of the same sex enough to jumpstart the biological lust simply because they find the idea abhorrent or repugnant is to admit to a certain amount of weakness on the part of romance. (This, incidentally, is what happens to the protagonists in Brokeback Mountain - they are two heterosexual men who grow so romantically sympathetic (strictest sense of the word, not 'pity') to one another that it kick starts the lust. Its what they do with it afterwards that gives rise to the dramatic content of the film. More on that after Oscar noms are out.) Tangents aside, my point is that you might miss out on the best romance of your life just because you consider yourself a slave to the physical urges of your body, which are to be slavishly followed with the unreasoning compliance of a ... slave. Most gay people I know (note that I use 'gay' to connote those who buy into the socially mandated lifestyle attached to that word) are slaves to their biology in that they reject even the possibility of their ever choosing and enjoying a heterosexual romance. This is why they display so much reason-annihilating behavior: to justify their own primacy-of-the-urge attitude.

Finally, synthlord:

Here's why I reject the nurture argument inherent in your third paragraph - I reject anyone's ability in any way to affect whom I choose to love aside from whom I choose to love. Now don't get me wrong: rape is a horrible crime and the victims of rape deserve to be treated with respect, but not if they go on to define their lives around their victim status. That's a pity ploy. It says I'm a victim first, a person second, and a strong individual capable of getting over it last. A rational person who examines the sources of his emotions and discovers that the root of his homosexual feelings is that his mother coddled him or all his friends liked boys will discover that he is letting other people determine the course of his life, in much the same way that 'gay' people let their genes determine the course of their lives. The difference of course is that extra-personal influences can be deprogrammed, while bodily functions cannot.

In conclusion, the morality of homosexuality lies in a person's actions, not in the fact itself. If the person has decided to have sex with *anyone* for any reason *other* than sympathetic value systems and senses of life, he is evading his nature as a rational being and is acting immorally, the sex of his partner notwithstanding. The fact that, as mosespa (obliquely and circuitously) pointed out, the vast bulk of visible homosexuals behave in precisely this manner should not be presumed to reflect upon all homosexuals, especially those who do use rational judgment in matters of romance.

-Q

All edits in bold or strikeout (and I thought I proofread this once already!)

Oops. Forgot a "non-"

extra "that"

"is to" should be "that should"

Edited by Qwertz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

mosespa,

That conclusion seems to be based on nothing but anecdotal evidence. Do you have anything else to back it up?

Andrew, only the findings of my own personal research. I trust that I do not have to have them "published and accepted by a collective" in order to validate them. :)

I'll cite a few specific examples:

1. The self-professed "lesbian" stripper. I've encountered a few of these...but we'll call this specific one "Jana."

I first met Jana outside of the strip club during one of my respites from that particular field. I didn't know she was a stripper until she had already spent ten minutes never missing an opportunity to remind me that she was a "lesbian."

I began to wonder who she was trying to convince...me or herself?

When I returned to working in the club, Jana became a co-worker of mine. I began to get to know her well enough to know that she was given to wholly irrational logic (bordering on solipsism,) violent episodes which indicated seriously unresolved issues in her life and frequent emotional breakdowns.

All three of which, when taken together, certainly indicate mental illness, though I'm no professional.

She is given to believe that she can "turn" any woman into a lesbian...this is not only delusional, it defies any notion of the argument as homosexuality as something one has no control over or even that of a choice one makes. It implies that she believes that she can alter the way one thinks.

If she belives that she can "turn" any woman into a lesbian, clearly she seems to think that she is capable of overriding the rationale of a heterosexual woman. This is, in my opinion, Facist.

2. John worked in the same restaurant that I do. Presumably raised by an overbearing father (I know friends of his parents,) and an overprotective mother, John is what one would call a "flamer." Although he doesn't dress in an especially feminine fashion, he is certainly very flamboyant. His speech patterns are those of the "stereotypically" gay...a feminine lilt, a hint of lisp.

John is also certain that everyone is gay, merely in the closet.

Now, if that isn't a solid case of delusion, I don't know what is.

3. Hank is agoraphobic. He doesn't like to leave his house and he won't explain why. He goes to work, he goes to the store to buy his supplies and he goes home. Now, if this were all, it wouldn't necessarily indicate an underlying neurosis...but he absolutely REFUSES to go anywhere else unless dragged kicking and screaming.

Hank is also a misogynist. He has, on more than one occasion, blatantly refused to even shake hands with a woman, choosing instead to offer the icy response "I don't TOUCH women." He only suffers the presence of a woman if there is no other alternative...and if there IS no other alternative, he creates one.

Control freak?

Other areas of his life (i.e., the compulsive orgainzation of his impressive comic, paperback, video and album collection,) seem to indicate a desire to exert control over something.

The "control freak," as I see it, is the person who feels impotent and must exert whatever amount of control they may be able to muster over whatever they can...however seemingly insignificant.

He certainly displays these controlled objects with pride to whatever visitors he may have.

4. Steve is active in the local political circles. His sexuality is open to speculation. No one has ever seen him in the company of a woman and several men have claimed he has come on to them.

He has come on to me.

Along with his political aspirations, he is also a local businessman. His thirst for power (if only on a local scale) is almost psychotic. People are only useful to him according to what they can offer him. Once used, they become disposable until they can prove of further use to the forwarding of his own goals.

I've seen him devolve to a blustering, stammering neanderthal upon any slight challenge to his perceived authority.

5. Tina decided to wait until she and her husband had been married for a few years and had a couple of kids before springing on her husband that she's a lesbian. There is a desperate intensity in her eyes as she seeks to be defined by others so long as their definition of her lines up with what she wants them to think of her. It's something of a vicious circle.

6. Roger is also agoraphobic. He is also neurotic, claustrophobic, xenophobic, this-phobic and that-phobic. He is the one who takes about 15 meds a day just so he can continue to exist without dissolving into a blubbering mound of human jello.

I have a few more examples I can pull out if need be...but I should think that the six above offer a decent cross-section of what I've encountered.

It's possible that I may have misspoken. I shall elaborate:

To me, the definition of "mental illness" goes beyond that of a person who is unable to comprehend that "A equals A;" it also encompasses those who refuse to accept that "A equals A."

Now, lest I appear homophobic (which I will address shortly,) I should perhaps point out that according to modern psychology, EVERYONE (regardless of sexual orientation,) has "issues" to some degree or another.

Fine...I'll accept that as a given. Everyone has something that needs to be addressed that they put off having to address for as long as they can, lest their self-image become endangered.

This all boils down to self-esteem issues, as I see it.

Perhaps it's oversimplification, but it seems to me that ANY neurosis comes back to an unsatisfactory self-image.

Agoraphobics feel that they're not strong enough to overcome whatever threat they perceive lies outside their door.

Misogynists fear that women MAY be more powerful (or at least stronger of will) than they are.

Homophobes fear that they may be the very homosexual that they disapprove of.

Xenophobes fear that the unknown may reveal some flaw in their own design.

Technophobes fear that technology will replace everything that currently defines who they are and their place in the world.

It all comes back to the fear that the self will cease to exist.

Those who fear that the self will cease to exist are afraid that the self might not be strong enough to overcome adversity on it's own.

Now, the argument could be made that by the very act of holding parades and social functions, homosexuals are confronting the fear that they might cease to exist. They are boldly stating what they are and anyone who has a problem with that is the person with the problem...not them.

But what they overlook is this:

By the very act of broadcasting their orientation, they reveal the fact that their identity is defined by those who observe them. They're only "truly" gay if people know about it.

Homosexuality is but one branch of this line of thinking. It's a collectivist notion that one doesn't exist without the validation of others.

To my way of thinking, the belief that one ceases to exist without the validation of others is a mental illness. It is the belief that "A is only A if B says so." This attempts to obliterate the Law Of Identity.

The very act of "announcing to the world" indicates that one is concerned with what the rest of the world thinks about one.

This is collectivism.

"Militantism" is the practice of asserting one's views to the point that it appears that one is trying to force one's views onto another.

The only proper use of force is retaliation...so let's look at that for a second.

Homosexuality HAS been a subject of forceful repression in many societies. There's no denial of that. I'm not saying that that's right, either.

But, it seems to me, the fact that homosexuals seem to feel the need to make sure that their existence is known against all odds is a desperate attempt to make others acknowledge the existence of homosexuality.

Again, the idea is that if others don't acknowledge, then it ceases to be.

The reason that altruists are the villains in the work of Ayn Rand, I feel, is because altruists assert that there is a DUTY to ensure one's fellow man's well being regardless of merit. That one should be compelled to ensure the comfort and survival of one's fellow man.

Compulsion. The assertion of power over another.

Before one can assimilate the idea of "Gay Power," one must first ask the question "power over what or whom?"

What do the gays wish to have power over?

The "status quo."

Otherwise known as "what others perceive."

Ayn Rand had Howard Roark say something to the effect of "the man who seeks ME out is my kind of man."

Howard Roark didn't feel the need to broadcast his talent. Those who would use it in a way that he would approve of would find him.

Show me a homosexual who keeps it under wraps because he realizes that it would be collectivist to broadcast it...a homosexual who doesn't feel the need to insure that all others around her know that she is gay...a homosexual who doesn't care at all if another person knows or not...

and I'll show you a figment of your imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying that saying that an individual can't choose to be gay, but that the choice is immoral because it violates his identity as a man.
The premise here is that it is a choice and a choice of a specific conscious, adult type. Also, we're speaking of an individual gay man, not gay men as a class. Therefore, while some or most of them might be making a conscious, adult choice, other may not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew, only the findings of my own personal research. I trust that I do not have to have them "published and accepted by a collective" in order to validate them. :P

No, but as Qwertz's post shows you're making a sweeping generalization based on, what I see as, casual observance. It's collectivism to interact with different individuals who share a characterisitc, and then associate said individuals mental state with a broader group. I'll grant you that your experiences may provide a substantial degree of insight, I would just hold off on a mental illness diagnosis.

To my way of thinking, the belief that one ceases to exist without the validation of others is a mental illness. It is the belief that "A is only A if B says so." This attempts to obliterate the Law Of Identity.

The very act of "announcing to the world" indicates that one is concerned with what the rest of the world thinks about one.

This is collectivism.

Let's not limit this type of behavior to only homosexuals. I don't know about yourself, but I've ran into many heterosexual men who would punch your teeth out if you called them a "queer." One may argue that this anger stems from not wanting oneself to be associated with the stereotypical flamboyant homosexual lifestyle, but isn't this another example of needing approval of one's identity by the larger group? If man A is heterosexual, then no amount of man B calling him gay will change that fact.

You mentioned homophobia, but are we to say that all heterosexual men suffer from some sort of mental illness because several straight guys feel the need to throw around the word "faggit"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a homosexual who keeps it under wraps because he realizes that it would be collectivist to broadcast it...a homosexual who doesn't feel the need to insure that all others around her know that she is gay...a homosexual who doesn't care at all if another person knows or not...

and I'll show you a figment of your imagination.

Don't be so presumptuous. I'm acquainted with dozens of homosexuals, friends with a few, and related to one, and none of them displays the characteristics you claim for all homosexuals. Sounds to me like you really need to meet a better class of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there are many gay people who claim to be fully happy with their life and choice but because their "happiness" is based at its root on an evasion of their identity this "happiness" can't be anything but an illusion.

Reminds me of the Christians who say that atheism can only lead to unhappiness. Point to a happy atheist and they'll say he's not really happy--it's only an illusion. Your argument's no better.

Edited by Adrian Hester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No, but as Qwertz's post shows you're making a sweeping generalization based on, what I see as, casual observance.

2. It's collectivism to interact with different individuals who share a characterisitc, and then associate said individuals mental state with a broader group.

3. I'll grant you that your experiences may provide a substantial degree of insight, I would just hold off on a mental illness diagnosis.

4. Let's not limit this type of behavior to only homosexuals.

5. I don't know about yourself, but I've ran into many heterosexual men who would punch your teeth out if you called them a "queer."

6. One may argue that this anger stems from not wanting oneself to be associated with the stereotypical flamboyant homosexual lifestyle, but isn't this another example of needing approval of one's identity by the larger group? If man A is heterosexual, then no amount of man B calling him gay will change that fact.

7. You mentioned homophobia, but are we to say that all heterosexual men suffer from some sort of mental illness because several straight guys feel the need to throw around the word "faggit"?

First, to Andrew:

1. That's Qwertz' opinion and they're welcome to it. If you agree, that's also your opinion and you are welcome to it. But before you assume that I'm simply making a broad categorization based upon a casual observation, keep this in mind: The six people I listed in my previous post are not the only homosexuals I know...and they are not the only one's who display some sort of neurosis. I know homosexuals who are seemingly pathological liars, homosexuals with dissociative disorder, homosexuals with kleptomania...the list goes on. My "sweeping generalization" is based upon EVERY homosexual I've ever met displaying some mental foible...not just those six.

Is it really a sweeping generalization if every specimen of a certain type that one encounters displays a specific characteristic?

I'm going to assail our patron saint, here...I'm braced for the inevitable backlash:

Ayn Rand held the belief that man is inherently good. She based that belief upon her interaction with a very small percentage of mankind. Is that a sweeping generalization?

2. This is a true enough statement, and I could completely get behind it if I were just talking about two or three homosexuals that I've encountered over the years. But I'm not talking about three or four, I'm talking about dozens...admittedly not a significant percentage of the population, but not an insignificant number either, I feel.

Where does one draw the line between a sweeping generalization and an acceptable conclusion based on a body of evidence?

3. That's you, Andrew. I'm slightly more impulsive, it would seem. I see the wisdom in your statement, but I would say it's too late for me to hold off as I've already made said diagnosis. Now, I simply have to defend it. I don't expect that to be an easy task, but that's part of why I did it...to see how and where it may be flawed.

4. I don't. I go on to say in my previous post that it's not only homosexuals that display this type of behavior. I also go on to say that it's not only homosexuals who have neuroses.

Believe me when I say that as rash as I may appear to be so far, I am not rash enough to assume that everyone with Obsessive/Compulsive disorder is a homosexual simply because I know a homosexual with OCD; nor will I assume that every homosexual has OCD.

5. This is extreme behavior, don't you think? In fact, I would even go so far as to call it homophobic behavior...which, as I've already stated, it typically based in the fear that one may be homosexual.

6. Correct.

7. Again, you are missing my point that I'm not basing my theory upon a handful of homosexuals I have encountered; I am basing it on EVERY homosexual I have encountered.

If every straight man one encountered threw around the word "faggot," and threatened to punch your teeth out for questioning their orientation, then I think one could be justified in assuming that all heterosexual men must suffer from a mental disorder...at least until they encountered only one who didn't fit the paradigm.

I have not encountered a single homosexual who doesn't fit the paradigm.

I am a straight man who isn't bothered if people think I'm homosexual. In the past year, no fewer than seven people have asked my manager at work if I am gay. I find it amusing, because to me it displays exactly how narrow minded people can be.

It doesn't anger me, it doesn't worry me, it doesn't inspire me to extreme emotion. I simply shrug it off and go on about my business.

But then, I'm not a collectivist. What others think of me is of no consequence to me. If someone considers me "unworthy" of their company, then it is obvious to me that they are unworthy of mine.

No loss, there.

And now, Adrian Hester:

1. Don't be so presumptuous.

2. I'm acquainted with dozens of homosexuals, friends with a few, and related to one, and none of them displays the characteristics you claim for all homosexuals.

3. Sounds to me like you really need to meet a better class of people.

1. Again...is it presumption to notice consistency?

2. Are you sure? Perhaps they're just very good at hiding it...which simply suggests further neurosis.

3. Sounds like a presumption to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mosespa:

Not to sound pushy, but I think you should re-read my previous post. You seem to have missed some points.

I understand your approach of using your observation of every homosexual individual with whom you have come into personal contact to draw a strong correlation between homosexuality and mental illness. I am, in fact, not challenging the correlation - I'm trying to point out that you haven't proposed a reasonable causal link. Even if every pot of water you've ever encountered boils when you heat it to 100c, it is erronious to then claim that all pots of water will boil when you heat them to 100c without describing the mechanism of causation: those things in the natures of heat and water which cause the interaction. In fact, further experimentation would show you that there are many circumstances under which water will boil at other temperatures, or will even go directly from a solid to a gas.

I am saying there is a very strong correlation between mental illness and homosexuality, but that I know of a few exceptions to it. If your assertation that homosexuality is or invariably leads to mental illness were true, no such exceptions could exist. I feel I provided a much more rational causal link between the two, one which allows for the exceptions, in my previous post.

It is not a sweeping generalization to notice consistency. It is a sweeping generalization to extend observed consistency to universal consistency without providing a causal link applicable to the nature of the subject of observation. It's the scientific method, baby!

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now, Adrian Hester:

1. Again...is it presumption to notice consistency?

You're the one dismissing all contrary anecdotal evidence a priori as flawed. It's presumptuous (among many other worse things) to attain consistency by dismissing the inconsistencies out of hand.

2. Are you sure? Perhaps they're just very good at hiding it...which simply suggests further neurosis.

How do you know all the normal, mentally healthy people around you are straight? Maybe dozens of them are gay and you just don't know it. And in any case, you've basically reduced yourself to saying that all the gays you meet are flamboyantly neurotic from the get-go, but all the gays I've met are repressing their disorders so well that after months or years of friendship or family interaction I still can't recognize it. That's no better than a Freudian therapist saying that no evidence of neurosis is a sure sign of repression of neuroses. "No true Scotsman" and all that, you know.

3. Sounds like a presumption to me.

You're the one complaining about all the dozens of crazy gay people you keep meeting.

Edited by Adrian Hester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the capacity to have procreative sex not that he actually uses it in that capacity that is important. Just as a man is born with a rational faculty but can use it any way he chooses.

I am not saying that saying that an individual can't choose to be gay, but that the choice is immoral because it violates his identity as a man. I'm sure there are many gay people who claim to be fully happy with their life and choice but because their "happiness" is based at its root on an evasion of their identity this "happiness" can't be anything but an illusion.

I still don't get your link between sexuality and man's identity. E.g. heterosexual oral sex is consistent with man's identity, but homosexual oral sex is not? Not meaning to be risque, but neither act is related to in any way to procreation (the moral standard being used for sexuality,) and yet I presume you're holding that the heterosexual variety is not immoral, but that the homosexual form is?

By the very act of broadcasting their orientation, they reveal the fact that their identity is defined by those who observe them. They're only "truly" gay if people know about it.

Homosexuality is but one branch of this line of thinking. It's a collectivist notion that one doesn't exist without the validation of others.

To my way of thinking, the belief that one ceases to exist without the validation of others is a mental illness. It is the belief that "A is only A if B says so." This attempts to obliterate the Law Of Identity.

Dood, please tell me that was a joke.

My "sweeping generalization" is based upon EVERY homosexual I've ever met displaying some mental foible...not just those six.
But without the causal link, you've still just put forward one big coincidence :P
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...