It’s not clear that homosexuality is the result of *any* thinking, much less bad thinking. Nevertheless, when I compared it to humor, I implicitly suggested that it is formed by each individual person, though not by any conscious choice, as in choosing to get a job. Even assuming that homosexuality is a choice, I asked: what choice? When, where, and how?
But, if you’re only making the point that condoning homosexuality is against Rand’s “views” (and Objectivism? You didn’t answer that), which views are those? That using emotions *alone* is no way to live your life? How does that clash with being homosexual? And by the way, basing very narrow, unimportant decisions on mostly your emotional response is not immoral, or against Objectivism. See: what’s for dinner.
It’s not clear that homosexuality is the result of *any* thinking, much less bad thinking. Nevertheless, when I compared it to humor, I implicitly suggested that it is formed by each individual person, though not by any conscious choice, as in choosing to get a job. Even assuming that homosexuality is a choice, I asked: what choice? When, where, and how?
But, if you’re only making the point that condoning homosexuality is against Rand’s “views” (and Objectivism? You didn’t answer that), which views are those? That using emotions *alone* is no way to live your life? How does that clash with being homosexual? And by the way, basing very narrow, unimportant decisions on mostly your emotional response is not immoral, or against Objectivism. See: what’s for dinner.
I have no idea why you are fixated on homosexuality.
I said explicitly that I had nothing to say about homosexuality. I was only interested in knowing if you thought your views agreed with Objectivism as Rand explicated it. Since you seem to want to evade a direct answer, I withdraw the question, and will draw my own conclusion.
As for, “what’s for dinner,” a person with pica is certainly making a self-destructive choice.
As for, “immoral,” if you regard morality as a way of judging others (or if you expect me to so regard it), that is definitely not an Objectivist view, nor mine. Moral or ethical principles are only for the individual to determine their own choices, not to judge others. As Rand said, moral principles are to teach us how to live and enjoy our lives, period.
This thread quotes and links to an article you wrote expressing your views on homosexuality – you have nothing to say about it? I did answer you, but I guess I must do so with literal wording: my views are not inconsistent with Objectivism.
Anyway, you didn’t answer anything, instead choosing to remain vague.
This thread quotes and links to an article you wrote expressing your views on homosexuality – you have nothing to say about it? I did answer you, but I guess I must do so with literal wording: my views are not inconsistent with Objectivism.
Anyway, you didn’t answer anything, instead choosing to remain vague.
I was not my link. The “article” was to material derived from a debate with Chris Matthew Sciabarra on the now defunct SOLO site. That was in 2004, ten years ago. It has no relevance to this thread.
I’m sorry I did not see that you answered me. It is what I concluded, however. Thank you for verifying that.
I try to be explicit and precise in all I write. If it seemed vague to you, put it down to my inability to be more concise. I certainly didn’t intend to be vague.
Is that a picture of Socrates? In light of what you have to say about homosexuality I wouldn’t expect you to use a dirty old pederast to present yourself to us.
I was not my link. The “article” was to material derived from a debate with Chris Matthew Sciabarra on the now defunct SOLO site. That was in 2004, ten years ago. It has no relevance to this thread.
Here’s your article I mentioned, here’s where Eiuol provided it in this thread, here is part of a quote of yours which Eiuol pulled: “Homosexual practices are abnormal because they violate that nature.” Here are more quotes by you in that same article, apparently from your book:
… even when AIDS was not a factor, gay men had a significantly shorter lifespan than married heterosexual men - shorter by about three decades! … anal sex typically causes damage … resulting in, "acute rectal trauma, rectal incontinence, and anal cancer… Infections such as hepatitis B, shigellosis, and Giadia lamblia infections are much more common in homosexual males.
[…]
Another study found bacterial vaginosis occurring in 33% of lesbians but only in 13% of heterosexual women, and found that: "Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians.
And then:
Of course my whole point is that homosexuality, itself, is a psychological dysfunction.
I said explicitly that I had nothing to say about homosexuality.
I took it that your reason to post is to establish 1) that sexuality is some degree a choice, which would lead to 2) homosexuality is an unfortunate choice that is nonetheless immoral. For the record, I agree with you about 1 and not 2, but 2 seems to be what you were trying to demonstrate without saying it. I take it that you would say masculinity or femininity would reflect essential traits of gender which correspond with “proper” sexuality.
“[a man’s] emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow… he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.”
Ayn Rand, “Playboy’s interview with Ayn Rand,” pamphlet, page 6.
That glove fits your rationalization of your anti-gay emotions.
Is that a picture of Socrates? In light of what you have to say about homosexuality I wouldn’t expect you to use a dirty old pederast to present yourself to us.
I have no idea who the image is supposed to be. I didn’t choose it.
I admit I’m old, but I do shower regularly. If I’m a pederast, are you judging me for that? Perhaps I am, but what would you care?
I took it that your reason to post is to establish 1) that sexuality is some degree a choice, which would lead to 2) homosexuality is an unfortunate choice that is nonetheless immoral. For the record, I agree with you about 1 and not 2, but 2 seems to be what you were trying to demonstrate without saying it. I take it that you would say masculinity or femininity would reflect essential traits of gender which correspond with “proper” sexuality.
I take it you have not read anything I wrote. My point is only about the view that everything an individual is and does is a consequence of his own choices. That every individual is self-made, and whatever he is at any moment is the sum of all his past choices, reasoning, and/or evasions and that is also the view that Rand clearly and explicitly taught.
I would never say, " masculinity or femininity would reflect essential traits of gender which correspond with ‘proper’ sexuality." I have no idea what that would mean.
That glove fits your rationalization of your anti-gay emotions.
Well, it’s not my glove, it’s Ayn Rand’s. I’m glad to wear it.
I know you believe you are a mind-reader and know all about my emotions, but my gay friends would disagree with you–that is, they would if they should meet you, which is unlikely. I’d tell you why, but since you can read minds, I don’t need to.
My point is only about the view that everything an individual is and does is a consequence of his own choices.
Using health stats to argue against homosexuality while saying homos go against man’s nature is an additional point to saying homos are immoral because their psychology is a chosen, unnatural psychological abnormality rationalized by emotions based on false, chosen premises.
I take it you have not read anything I wrote. My point is only about the view that everything an individual is and does is a consequence of his own choices. That every individual is self-made, and whatever he is at any moment is the sum of all his past choices, reasoning, and/or evasions and that is also the view that Rand clearly and explicitly taught.
I’m not gonna parse this to show that you either don’t realize how your own words relate to each other (that homosexuality being a choice is also a bad choice by your own reasoning) or that you are being straight up dishonest.
Why did you post on a thread about sexuality if you’re not ultimately arguing for some view on sexuality and masculinity/femininity?
Why did you post on a thread about sexuality if you’re not ultimately arguing for some view on sexuality and masculinity/femininity?
My interest in this thread is Amber Pawlik. I’ve known about her since her university days where she took a very unpopular stand about a woman’s sense of decency and privacy. Since then she has demonstrated a sense of independence and courage I’ve admired, even though I often disgree with her specific views. It is refreshingly rare to discover someone who truly thinks for themselves and is willing to defend their position rationally and objectively without resorting to obfuscation, name-calling, and rhetoric..
I disagree, for example, with her use of the word sexuality, but still think her views are closer to Rand’s than most of those on this thread.