Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

Rate this topic


RationalEgoistSG

Recommended Posts

Indeed, the only language Miss Rand did use on this topic is that homosexuality is disgusting and immoral. I'd have to agree.

She said it disgusted her, which is irrelevant. One might be disgusted by sushi. In an impromptu Q&A, she also said it was psychologically immoral. Can you rectify the seeming contradiction in those two words and explain to me what they mean? To my knowledge, she never did.

edit:spelling/grammar

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know, I'm still trying to figure out whether there's any value in reading 53 pages of petty assertments.

How have you come to the conclusion that they are "petty assessments" without having read them? :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really sorry to hear your father is a dumbass who doesn't understand what love is. You could always get loans and scholarships.

I don't think love is what the man doesn't understand - I think psychology is what he doesn't understand: as in, there is no magic way to snap one's fingers and not be gay. (the failed Stan Marsh method if you will)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is somewhat redundant, but I think this post needs to be in this thread as much as in the "Brokeback Mountain" thread. So here it is again...

I am just going to respond quickly and generally once, to all who are calling my position on homosexuality "irrational". Either, men are born tabula rasa or they or not. So if one claims to be an Objectivist and except that fact, they can NOT also except a strange form of genetic determinism that states that one's innate sexual desires can be in contradiction with one's gender. It is not "irrational" to state the fact that for an entity to volitionally act opposed to one's identity, in this case a man (and all that implies--including an attraction to the opposite sex) is a deep contradiction. Could it be true that one's early development lead to one's "feelings" of homosexuality. Absolutely. But this does NOT negate the fact that he is still acting contrary to his identity as a man. This is NOT "homophobia"-- an irrational fear or "hate" of homosexuals-- but a statement of fact.

Do I know that there are many gays who claim to be Objectivists? Yes. Does this mean that they are truly one? No, at least not in terms of acting in a fully consistent and rational way. One CAN'T be fully rational--and therefore moral if one of the essential characteristics of one's character and soul rests on a contradiction. And it is a contradiction to act opposite of one's natural/i] identity.

Was I wrong when I said that all homosexuals are fully immoral? Yes. I would now just say that it is impossible for a homosexual to be fully moral. This doesn't mean that they can not be mostly moral or rational in most situations--just that they can NOT be fully moral or rational people because their essential character rests on a contradiction. I actually have some friends-- female-- who now claim to be gay, and for the most part I have no problem with them, and actually kind of like bisexual females wink.gif but this doesn't mean I think they are fully rational or moral. Unfortunately, most people are not. sad.gif

Now this is NOT part of MY argument--but it is a FACT, and one most other O'ist's either don't like or they try and disqualify it in some way-- "It was an off the cuff remark, etc.", but Miss Rand did say that she personally found homosexuality to be disgusting and immoral. So contrary to "popular opinion" which to me is unimportant and often incorrect anyway what I am saying while NOT an "official" part of Objectivism is NOT without precedent, including with its creator's personal opinion.

This is all I have to say on this subject and represents my current convictions in its regard. I don't wish to pointlessly argue with people that I will never agree with because I think that there premises are fundamentally flawed when it come to the origin of homosexual behaviours... so please refrain from trying to draw me into another pointless debate.

One last thing, I respectfully ask that members refrain from quoting several years old postings of mine on this subject that don't fully and accurately represent my current views on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is somewhat redundant, but I think this post needs to be in this thread as much as in the "Brokeback Mountain" thread. So here it is again...
It might be good to split the Brokeback thread into this one or another, since the recent discussion isn't really about the movie, anyway. Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being gay is not inherited but heritable, the same way that being a basketball player is heritable.

I have a friend that happens to be a girl who has always been a "tomboy". She says that she is NOT gay but she KNOWS that she is not a FULL female, either. That has always been intriguing to me

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I know that there are many gays who claim to be Objectivists? Yes. Does this mean that they are truly one? No, at least not in terms of acting in a fully consistent and rational way.

That's probably true. But I'll take a gay Objectivist over a gay socialist any day of the week and twice on sundays.

But by that same reasoning, I don't consider fat Objectivists to truly be one either. We can play that game all day long.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being gay is not inherited but heritable, the same way that being a basketball player is heritable.

From merriam-webster.com:

her·i·ta·ble : capable of being inherited or of passing by inheritance.

So the qualities needed to play basketball are capable of being inherited but not inherited? Do they exist only as potentiality, never as actuality, like some medieval view of matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either, men are born tabula rasa or they or not. So if one claims to be an Objectivist and except that fact, they can NOT also except a strange form of genetic determinism that states that one's innate sexual desires can be in contradiction with one's gender. It is not "irrational" to state the fact that for an entity to volitionally act opposed to one's identity, in this case a man (and all that implies--including an attraction to the opposite sex) is a deep contradiction. Could it be true that one's early development lead to one's "feelings" of homosexuality. Absolutely. But this does NOT negate the fact that he is still acting contrary to his identity as a man.

How is Mr. A's acting in response to his sexual attraction to Mr. B "contrary to his identity as a man"? Rather, if A's behavior evaded or repressed his attraction to B, it would be contrary to his identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend that happens to be a girl who has always been a "tomboy". She says that she is NOT gay but she KNOWS that she is not a FULL female, either. That has always been intriguing to me

That is a strange, albeit intriguing, way of looking at it. I too have always been a "tomboy". When I was little I thought there was a mistake and I was supposed to be a boy, not a girl. Since then I've realized that the error lay not in that I should have been a boy, but that I accepted assumptions about what came with being a boy vs. being a girl that I should have rejected. I would never say I am not "fully" female, whatever that means. All my bits are in order, and I'd like to keep it that way. Although it might be interesting to have a schlong for a day or two, just to see what it does (I would probably think pissing for distance was the greatest thing ever), I'm quite pleased with my anatomy just as it is over the long haul.

So female isn't the issue, but it's this "woman" business I have a problem with. Or perhaps "lady" is a more accurate way to describe that which I don't feel I could ever/would want to be. Society's conception of a woman's role has never fit me, and to be perfectly honest I chafe at many people on this board's conception of what a woman should be or is, especially in areas of romance. Hero-worship has never come anywhere near the way I experience romance. I don't need to search out some great hero in my life - all I need to do is look in the mirror and I'm in good shape. I don't want a protector/provider either. In fact, I seem to fall more naturally into those roles myself. From the start I've wanted a life-partner (when I've wanted anyone at all), someone who shares my interests and passions and can stand on equal footing with me and look me straight in the eye. I want a person who respects me and who I can respect and who I can devote myself to who I know will absolutely, 100%, have my back. Fortunately for me I have such a person. :)

And for the record, "ah ain't a queer". I likes me some menfolk, and have ever since I can remember being interested in anyone at all, around 12 or 13. And the menfolk have always displayed a fondness for me as well, when they weren't terrified of me. As my guy always says, "Man, do you know how great it is to have a girlfriend who not only loves football, but understands it too?"

These issues of biological sex, gender (whatever the hell that really means anyway), and sexuality (orientation) need to be disentangled from one another as they are only somewhat related, as far as I can see. Some people seem to want to lump them all together into one discussion and that seems to me a recipe for missing the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's probably true. But I'll take a gay Objectivist over a gay socialist any day of the week and twice on sundays.

But by that same reasoning, I don't consider fat Objectivists to truly be one either. We can play that game all day long.

Trying to find out who are the "real Objectivists" always struck me as something of a "no true Scotsman" fallacy anyway. Do what you do and be who you are. Live a joyful life where you work towards your values. Be committed to living by reason and trusting your own judgment first. Never betray your principles. Got all that? Super. Then what does it matter whether you qualify for a label?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I'm moving this quote from Brokeback Mountain)

The fact which you are evading is that you are not a slave to your anatomical evolution. In lower animals, which od not have free will, mere considerations of genital structure and hormones suffice to determine how the animal will act. Man operates differently; the mind plays a highly significant role in determining man's nature.

Finally! Man is not just another animal, we have volition, we don't act by instinct, and we very much act against "nature" (or should I say pre-human nature since we do act accodingly to reality). We make art, in the Aristotelian sense, artificiallity is a ket to human identity.

Individuals don't have a duty to the species to breed.

I still don't know, nor did Ayn Rand who openly admitted it, the scientific specifics of homosexuality. I don't think anyone does. Ayn Rand chose to not have children, but something greater: characters, heroes, and a consistent philosophy. And in the spirit of a broad, far fetched, observation: Who was the strongest character of the O'Connor family?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't know, nor did Ayn Rand who openly admitted it, the scientific specifics of homosexuality. I don't think anyone does.

Well, at least there are statistics and a theory (at least concerning males) explaining the (biological) reason of why some people are homosexual. Biologically / Genetically it makes perfect sense for *some* children to be homosexual because the (female) relatives of homosexual men have a higher fertility.

Male Homosexuality Can Be Explained Through A Specific Model Of Darwinian Evolution, Study Shows

Edited by Clawg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least there are statistics and a theory (at least concerning males) explaining the (biological) reason of why some people are homosexual. Biologically / Genetically it makes perfect sense for *some* children to be homosexual because the (female) relatives of homosexual men have a higher fertility.

Male Homosexuality Can Be Explained Through A Specific Model Of Darwinian Evolution, Study Shows

This seems very speculative. Homosexuality exists so there must be some evolutionary explanation for it, but theres a difference between proposing some possible mechanism and showing that its what actually happens. A paper like that would be a first tentative step towards a theory, rather than a final answer.

Homosexual behaviour plays a different role in different cultures (the widespread pederasty in Greece/Rome being a classic example) so any explanation which is based around statistics on how homosexuals interact inside modern Western culture seems dubious. Its not obvious that facts about homosexuals today would have held true 10000 years ago in prehistoric society, let alone when it comes to penguins.

(disclaimer: I havent read the actual paper yet, only the media report).

Edited by eriatarka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either, men are born tabula rasa or they or not. So if one claims to be an Objectivist and except that fact, they can NOT also except a strange form of genetic determinism that states that one's innate sexual desires can be in contradiction with one's gender.

I think the problem here lies in the assumption that having male gentalia automatically makes a sexual desire for other men a contradiction. This implies that a person's psychology should be determined SOLELY by their genitalia rather than their own ability to use reason to determine what they factually prefer, men or women. The line of reasoning is, I have a penis therefore I should act a particular way. I don't see it.

It is not "irrational" to state the fact that for an entity to volitionally act opposed to one's identity

It's not a fact that a homosexual human being is acting against their identity since homosexuality is part of their identity. I don't think one's identity is determined solely by their sex organ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least there are statistics and a theory (at least concerning males) explaining the (biological) reason of why some people are homosexual. Biologically / Genetically it makes perfect sense for *some* children to be homosexual because the (female) relatives of homosexual men have a higher fertility.

Male Homosexuality Can Be Explained Through A Specific Model Of Darwinian Evolution, Study Shows

Broadly speaking I consider Psychology in general the equivalent of Alchemy. Chemistry (scientific psychology) is still to be discovered.

The brain is the last remaining organ to be fully scanned and analysed, so this is in fact extremely especulative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I think the problem here lies in the assumption that having male gentalia automatically makes a sexual desire for other men a contradiction. This implies that a person's psychology should be determined SOLELY by their genitalia rather than their own ability to use reason to determine what they factually prefer, men or women. The line of reasoning is, I have a penis therefore I should act a particular way. I don't see it.

It's not a fact that a homosexual human being is acting against their identity since homosexuality is part of their identity. I don't think one's identity is determined solely by their sex organ.

I'm glad I read through the replies before I posted--this is along the lines of what I was going to get at.

I was going to ask if EC could take his premises and conclusion and line them up in formal logic style. I figure one of his premises would have to be "one's sexual organ determines one's sexual nature."

I would ask: how would a grown man who was still tabula rasa with regards to sexual desire, but with full rational capability, reason out that he ought to be attracted to women, without reference to reproduction?

[edited for clarity]

Edited by musenji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad I read through the replies before I posted--this is along the lines of what I was going to get at.

I was going to ask if EC could take his premises and conclusion and line them up in formal logic style. I figure one of his premises would have to be "one's sexual organ determines one's sexual nature."

Okay, so the post I quote from myself at the bottom should obviously be here as well as in the "Automatic values" thread since his premise that he "figured" I would "have to" have is incomplete and inaccurate.

I would ask: how would a grown man who was still tabula rasa with regards to sexual desire, but with full rational capability, reason out that he ought to be attracted to women, without reference to reproduction?

[edited for clarity]

See my response to Sofia in the "Automatic values" thread Post # 81 for my answer to this question.

Has everyone here who shares this line of reasoning really thought through what it implies? It implies that in one area of man's existence he is acting essentially on an instinctual level. That one of the most important parts of a man's life is non-volitional. When it comes to this one issue it seems most here want to have their cake and eat it too. But man is a volitional being, the only time volition isn't involved in a man's life is when it comes to reflexes--such as gagging or breathing, etc. But sexual attraction is not a reflex, although ones sexual reactions may seem that way because they happen so quick and are highly automatized. The mind is the most important part of a man when it comes to his sexual identity, and anything involving the mind not just the brain involves choice. That doesn't mean that one's physical form, and things such as his hormones, ect. aren't also important, because they are--man is an integration of body and soul. But denying choice to man in even this one area implies that not everything man does is by choice. It invalidates the whole concept of volition by allowing an exception to volition in a key area of man's life. It is a direct attack on free-will.

Is sexual orientation more complicated than most choices made by man because it is directly tied to his physical being as well as his mental being? Yes. Is it more complicated than most choices because most were made implicitly at a young age and slowly automatized in combination with hormonal "feelings"? Yes. But no matter how "complicated" and implicit the choices were, they still must have been choices at some point or else the whole concept of free-will in man folds on itself like a deck of cards. But we know volition exists, and therefore it must exist in regards to man's sexual preferences too.

All human choice is open to moral evaluation, and every is implies an ought. Man is a specific entity of a specific nature. Part of that nature includes there being two different and complementary sexes. This is self-evident on a perceptual basis, even by infants. Note that they can quickly differentiate between "Ma-ma" and "Da-da". What is self-evident to them is that these two entities are different and yet alike in many ways. To say that two beings of the same species can create another similar being togetherproves that they are complementary by nature.

But, as has been pointed out, since man does possess volition he does not necessarily have to only have sex to reproduce, nor is this usually even the reason why he does. But, because the mind is the most important part of a man's sexual being choice must have been involved at some level of consciousness, otherwise choice doesn't exist. Since choice must have been involved at some point, and all human choice is open to moral evaluation, and it is perceptually self-evident that man and woman are beings of a complementary nature, then it follows that it is in man's nature for men and women to have sexual relations for any reason, either for purely reproductive reasons, for pleasure, or for bonding on the highest of intimacy levels. This is man's nature and it must be adhered to by choice. When one makes the choice to live as one's nature prescribes, one is making a moral decision and it is good, because it enhances his life and happiness in a positive way that conforms with his nature as a man. When one chooses homosexuality, he is choosing to live in contradiction with his self-evident nature, even if this choice was formed implicitly during childhood. Maintaining a contradiction is always immoral, albeit it is an extremely minor one immorality in this case since the incorrect sexual orientation was established and automatized implicitly during childhood.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm posting a follow-up here, rather than in the "Automatic Values" thread, because I haven't been following the latter, and I only want to respond to EC's last post.

EC: I agree completely with everything in your post up to your use of the word 'complimentary.' Could you explain what you mean by that word? Because when I read the word, it suggests to me that male and female are parts of a whole, rather than whole in themselves, and I don't think that's what you mean.

~Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question, as well, is over the following passage:

Man is a specific entity of a specific nature. Part of that nature includes there being two different and complementary sexes. This is self-evident on a perceptual basis, even by infants. Note that they can quickly differentiate between "Ma-ma" and "Da-da". What is self-evident to them is that these two entities are different and yet alike in many ways. To say that two beings of the same species can create another similar being togetherproves that they are complementary by nature.

But, as has been pointed out, since man does possess volition he does not necessarily have to only have sex to reproduce, nor is this usually even the reason why he does. But, because the mind is the most important part of a man's sexual being choice must have been involved at some level of consciousness, otherwise choice doesn't exist. Since choice must have been involved at some point, and all human choice is open to moral evaluation, and it is perceptually self-evident that man and woman are beings of a complementary nature, then it follows that it is in man's nature for men and women to have sexual relations for any reason, either for purely reproductive reasons, for pleasure, or for bonding on the highest of intimacy levels.

The question is not whether a man has a choice over his sexual preference. I'll assume that he does. The question is why should a man choose women? Your answer seems to be "because that's who he would naturally mate with if he wanted to reproduce." Since you grant that as a volitional being a man does not have to desire reproduction in order to properly enjoy sex, it is irrelevant that women are whom he would reproduce with. As a volitional being a man also does not have to desire the use of a vagina for intercourse.

I think you're equivocating on the word complementary. You derive it from sexual reproduction, so it in the context of its derivation it means "naturally complementary with regards to producing a child", but you switch the meaning to "naturally complementary with regards to all intimacy". What you have to prove is that all sexual intimacy is properly a function of reproductive capacity. It's not self-evident.

[edited for concision]

Edited by musenji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When one chooses homosexuality, he is choosing to live in contradiction with his self-evident nature, even if this choice was formed implicitly during childhood.

I'm still not seeing how you have proven this. I see no moral dictate that states all sex should be had with what you have deemed as 'self evidently complimentary' as determined by sex organs UNLESS one's goal is primarily reproduction. What a man (or woman) SHOULD do is love and mate with the INDIVIDUAL that makes them happy, whether or not that individual is of the same sex.

A person choosing homosexuality is factually acting according to their individual nature in such a way as to enhance their life. It would more likely be immoral if they in fact chose homosexuality but engaged in heterosexual sex.

I disagree that you have established that homosexuals are inherently acting in contradiction to anything. The mind is far more important in determining who one should have sex (and/or live with) than the sex organ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

complementary

I don't want to speak for EC, but since I have used that word myself on this thread, let me clarify that what I mean by it is that the sexual organs of men and women complement each other, as well as many of their qualities related to personality, appearance, strength, skills, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is self-evident on a perceptual basis, even by infants. Note that they can quickly differentiate between "Ma-ma" and "Da-da".

I don't think this is accurate. You are using it to say as if infants would refer to all females as "Ma-ma" and all males as "Da-da" they can differentiate because they can recognize identity. This says nothing about gender or the nature of their genders.

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...