Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[EC]

More precisely my position is...

Now all this I do agree with, and because of all these factors I also agree that it would be extremely hard to correct one's sexuality, that is why I think homosexuals should still pursue what relationships that are possible to them until the can understand and correct their divergence from the ideal. I don't think that they should remain celibate or anything like that. Still, though like all human actions that possess a volitional component, homosexuality is open to moral judgment.

[FeatherFall]

EC, from another thread:

Hey, I don't mind two females at all unless they proclaim to only want other women, i.e, dykes.

I didn't see a or a in your post. Were you joking, or do you really hold this position?

[EC]

EC, from another thread:

Hey, I don't mind two females at all unless they proclaim to only want other women, i.e, dykes.

I didn't see a or a in your post. Were you joking, or do you really hold this position?

No, I really hold this position, and it's not contradictory to what I'm saying. There is a huge difference between two females experimenting with sexual experiences while primarily liking men and then choosing to only like women.

[EC]

To illustrate my above point check out this ~~> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN13e8FTrJ8

At first glance it is a simple "fluff" pop song. But it if you actually listen to the lyrics, you'll see it is a bit more serious then at first (or second ) glance. The very ending show's my point explicitly--she wakes up next to a man and smiles realizing that is her ideal romantic relationship, while the "I kissed a girl" stuff was just a dream or more exactly--a fantasy. Whether she actually "lives" out this "fantasy" or not is irrelevant as long as she ultimately understands that it is her ideal to actually be with a man.

Logically, I have to concede that the same argument could also be applied to males. Although, since there are obvious and self-evident differences between males and females, a proper man would never desire such experimentation.

[FeatherFall]

Wow. I remain unconvinced.

[TuringAI]

To illustrate my above point check out this ~~> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN13e8FTrJ8

At first glance it is a simple "fluff" pop song. But it if you actually listen to the lyrics, you'll see it is a bit more serious then at first (or second ) glance. The very ending show's my point explicitly--she wakes up next to a man and smiles realizing that is her ideal romantic relationship, while the "I kissed a girl" stuff was just a dream or more exactly--a fantasy. Whether she actually "lives" out this "fantasy" or not is irrelevant as long as she ultimately understands that it is her ideal to actually be with a man.

Logically, I have to concede that the same argument could also be applied to males. Although, since there are obvious and self-evident differences between males and females, a proper man would never desire such experimentation.

You realize by this you've conceeded an essential point to your opponent, while exposing an essential point of your own.

I dare to say you believe masculinity and femininity are not given by biology. Why? Because biologically, the qualities of men and women change as a consequence of changes in the genes that make them up. Yet you hold that masculinity and femininity are timeless concepts, IE not subject to ANY sort of revision over time. It is then, to you, a matter of people electing to embrace these 'timeless' concepts. This is a strange kind of subjectivism clinging to intrinicism that try to, together, make an objective concept of sexuality.

Your contradictions are evident. Give up, I say, and let the REAL men (And women!) do their jobs.

[KevinDW78]

60 PAGES!

all the data I've gathered via my own senses seems to point out that quite the opposite is true.

I think you need to elaborate on this first. What data have you gathered via your all-knowing, omniscient senses? Have your senses gathered data with regards to you volitionally trying to be physically sexual with men and calculated the data that resulted? Or are your senses limited to your own personal observation, completely ignorant of any sensory input data from someone who does?

Edited August 14, 2008 by KevinDW78

[JASKN]

Have your senses gathered data with regards to you volitionally trying to be physically sexual with men and calculated the data that resulted? Or are your senses limited to your own personal observation, completely ignorant of any sensory input data from someone who does?

I think this is why gays are always so bewildered by straight people who suggest that sexuality is a choice. You cannot just forget that what turns you on has everything to do with males; it is actually impossible to be turned on by women. So if a time is to be discussed when it could have been different, when gays could have gone the other way, it can only be discussed in the abstract. No life experience can back it up.

EDIT:

Who's senses am I supposed to ultimately rely on if not my own.

I think the point might have been that your senses are going against virtually everyone else's, which may suggest that your senses are not giving you the whole picture. Edited August 14, 2008 by JASKN

[EC]

I think you need to elaborate on this first. What data have you gathered via your all-knowing, omniscient senses? Have your senses gathered data with regards to you volitionally trying to be physically sexual with men and calculated the data that resulted? Or are your senses limited to your own personal observation, completely ignorant of any sensory input data from someone who does?

That was about the most "un-Objectivist" statement that I've ever heard from someone claiming to be one. Who's senses am I supposed to ultimately rely on if not my own. You do know that sensory information is the basis of all knowledge according to Objectivist epistemology and that the validity of ones physical senses is taken as automatic and self-evident, don't you? Re-read ITOE, bro.

Edited August 14, 2008 by EC

[volco]

That was about the most "un-Objectivist" statement that I've ever heard from someone claiming to be one. Who's senses am I supposed to ultimately rely on if not my own. You do know that sensory information is the basis of all knowledge according to Objectivist epistemology and that the validity of ones physical senses is taken as automatic and self-evident, don't you? Re-read ITOE, bro.

That would be the most anti-Objectivist epistemology view if it was applied to trusting our perception on the tangible, measurable world around us - not what turns someone on. When you slice open and scan enough brains to point out the objective likeness of gays and straights and pyromaniacs and objectophilliacs, you can then say that all these orientations are a matter of choice.

Ayn Rand was very interested in the fields of cognitive sciences and was studying it in the latter years of her life, she never came up with a psychological theory. Her Philosophical theory is good, can be applied to basically everything objectively measurable or reasonably self-evident, but it's not all-encompassing. To believe in any kind of omniscience is the ultimate form of irrationality.

I don't want to be sardonic, but,

Re-read ITOE, bro!

[KevinDW78]

Who's senses am I supposed to ultimately rely on if not my own.

If you tell me that you conclude from your senses that I am a 17-foot tall pink elephant, that doesn't make your conclusion right. You are not relying on YOUR senses because you are not a homosexual. So your senses cannot give you the perceptual data of a homosexual. I will grant you the right to draw all the conlcusions you want about heterosexuals, but by your argument, you cannot draw ANY conclusions about homosexuals because you are not one. Also you can not draw any conclusions about woman because you are not one. In fact, by your argument, you cannot draw conclusions on anything that you are not. Do your senses include ESP allowing you to tap into the senses of others in order to draw these conclusions? Just playing Devil's Advocate here.

Edited August 14, 2008 by KevinDW78

[FeatherFall]

I think you guys are going about this the wrong way. EC seems to be saying that he's made a conclusion based on personal observation. We all do this every day, so I see no reason to attack the method. Of course, if you think he's made an error in using the method you could point that out.

Y'all can do what you want. I am just going to think the position is hypocritical and a little silly until he offers conclusive support. The ball still seems to be in his court.

[KevinDW78]

We all do this every day, so I see no reason to attack the method. Of course, if you think he's made an error in using the method you could point that out.

I don't think anybody is denying that. I think the concensus is just that EC seems to be asserting (not just in this thread but in general) that his use of the method is infallible, his use of his senses is omniscient, and anyone who says otherwise is automatically "wrong".

I guess we'll all just wait for this essay of his.

Edited August 14, 2008 by KevinDW78

[~Sophia~]

Now all this I do agree with, and because of all these factors I also agree that it would be extremely hard to correct one's sexuality, that is why I think homosexuals should still pursue what relationships that are possible to them until the can understand and correct their divergence from the ideal. I don't think that they should remain celibate or anything like that. Still, though like all human actions that possess a volitional component, homosexuality is open to moral judgment.

If you agree with my position (as you indicated above) then you also have to agree that homosexuality is not immoral. By the time person reaches mental maturity and thus gains the ability to make informed decisions their sexual orientation is no longer open to their choice.

[Capitalism Forever]

60 PAGES!

I think I'll take a break from the thread for a while, but I will check back in when we reach 100.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

I have just registered and have not read this whole tread but why is this in ethics instead of esthetics?

Edited August 25, 2008 by FrolicsomeQuipster

[volco]

I have just registered and have not read this whole tread but why is this in ethics instead of esthetics?

Because the question is whether it is moral (good not nice) to engage in sex same relationships instead of what nature self-evidently commands (for reproduction).

I'm beggining to believe this is the same 5000 year old discussion of whether it's good or evil to enjoy sex besides reproductory purposes, besides altruistic service to the species. Ha, it's merely for pragmatic reasons that environmentalists aren't opposed to homosexuality!

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

Because the question is whether it is moral (good not nice) to engage in sex same relationships instead of what nature self-evidently commands (for reproduction).

That's why I asked it, the act is one done for the enjoyment of it, which if I remember correctly makes it an end in itself.

The only conflict that ought to arise on the premises of Hetero VS Homo sex acts should be on aesthetic level.

I'm beggining to believe this is the same 5000 year old discussion of whether it's good or evil to enjoy sex besides reproductive purposes, besides altruistic service to the species. Ha, it's merely for pragmatic reasons that environmentalists aren't opposed to homosexuality!

And thanks to artificial insemination we can start to question the morality of heterosexuality on a altruistic level too.

The only reason some mystics allow it is because of reproduction, now that is not even necessary anymore why aren't they jumping at the chance to elevate our species to a completely new level of sexual purity?

Edited August 26, 2008 by FrolicsomeQuipster

[DavidOdden]

The only conflict that ought to arise on the premises of Hetero VS Homo sex acts should be on aesthetic level.

Well, no, if (as has been claimed) it is actually part of man's nature that they are to have hanky-panky just with members of the opposite sex and having sex with a member of the same sex is a self destructive act, then it's obviously in the bailiwick of ethics (since self-destructive acts are immoral).

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

Well, no, if (as has been claimed) it is actually part of man's nature that they are to have hanky-panky just with members of the opposite sex and having sex with a member of the same sex is a self destructive act, then it's obviously in the bailiwick of ethics (since self-destructive acts are immoral).

I smell Intrinsicism.

Doesnt O-ism claim that man doesnt have a 'nature' above reason?

Edited August 26, 2008 by FrolicsomeQuipster

[volco]

Well, no, if (as has been claimed) it is actually part of man's nature that they are to have hanky-panky just with members of the opposite sex and having sex with a member of the same sex is a self destructive act, then it's obviously in the bailiwick of ethics (since self-destructive acts are immoral).

and yet it is still to be proven that homosexual "hanky panky" is more self-destructive than heterosexual promiscuity.

I still don't know why the question should be in aesthetics though.

[DavidOdden]

Doesnt O-ism claim that man doesnt have a 'nature' above reason?

No, clearly not. For example, it is in man's nature to die if he is dropped into boiling oil. If you mean specifically, what things are uniquely in man's nature, I don't know that Objectivism has a position (that is, does Objectivism say that the only thing that is part of the identity of "man" is reason). You may be thinking of the definition of man,which is "rational animal", but that characteristic implies all other characteristics. Remember that "identity" is not the same as "definition".

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

and yet it is still to be proven that homosexual "hanky panky" is more self-destructive than heterosexual promiscuity.

Heterosexuality may jet be proven evil!

I still don't know why the question should be in aesthetics though.

Because there a counter argument can be a picture.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

No, clearly not. For example, it is in man's nature to die if he is dropped into boiling oil. If you mean specifically, what things are uniquely in man's nature, I don't know that Objectivism has a position (that is, does Objectivism say that the only thing that is part of the identity of "man" is reason). You may be thinking of the definition of man,which is "rational animal", but that characteristic implies all other characteristics. Remember that "identity" is not the same as "definition".

Don't go all postmodernism on my ass, I said and meant no nature above reason.

If we can make something somehow that would course it so we wont die when we are dropped into boiling oil that 'nature' of dieing when we are dropped in boiling oil could become as redundant as walking outside without protection (shoes) of your feet whose 'nature' is to get cut and bleed if you step on something sharp.

The 'nature' of your ass being harmed if it is penetrated by someones d*** can be taken away with lubrication another product of our highest 'nature' reason.

EDIT: By 'highest' I meant that 'nature' which could be taken away without our death becoming a certainty, you would need reason to make reason 'unnecessary' (which could even then only happen at a certain scale) a parasite for example feasting on those who are reasonable.

Edited August 26, 2008 by FrolicsomeQuipster

[volco]

Heterosexuality may jet be proven evil!

I don't think any sexual clasification can be considered either good or evil, that would be a group-minded, collectivist viewpoint.

Ayn Rand's made a good case against promiscuity (read Atlas Shrugged) and against pornography (think Capitalism TUI). I believe she never wrote about homosexuality, but her legal heir did, and you probably know what he said.

Romantic Love is the only proper, moral, form of sexuality. The issue is whether any consensual sexual relationship is either romantic or fake or promiscuous.