|
|
General Discussion
Started by Mr Squiggle at 04-10-2007 12:06 PM. Topic has 91 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 04-10-2007, 12:06 PM
|
Mr Squiggle
Joined on 04-04-2007
Posts 35
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
Putting the previous arguments aside, I think that this is an interesting issue that has been neglected in the objectivist materials I have come across. It would probably make a good thesis or first publication topic for someone.
I have often thought about this topic when reading Rand's work. I am not that familiar with the ins and outs of what Rand said as I have not read the Virtue of Selfishness for some time now, and I have not actually "studied" it as such, but I think there is a good case to argue that objectivism should not see homosexuality as immoral given what modern science knows about human behaviour.
This post is a bit rambling and i don't have the time to devote to it that it deserves, but bear with me...
There are two obvious approaches to analysing homosexual behaviour from an objectivist point of view. The first would be starting from the premise that biological factors (i.e. genetic, or other physical factors over which an individual has no control) have a small or large influence in determining whether or not a particular person is disposed/compelled/likely to act in a homosexual manner. The second would be starting from the premise that biological factors have no part in such a determination, and that the behaviour is purely determined by social or psychological factors (there may be others).
My own view is that biological factors have at least a small part to play in determining whether or not a person will be homosexual. Actually, I would go as far as saying that biological factors have a significant contribution. I don't think that this is total (i.e. to the exclusion of social/psychological factors) simply due to the fact the sexuality, whether for gay or straight people, is a psychological phenomenon as much as it is a physical one, and it is impossible to separate the two.
Having said that, I'm not sure that it is actually relevant to a moral analysis of homosexuality to distinguish between homosexuality caused by biological factors or by non-biological factors. For example, certain people are genetically pre-disposed to alcohol abuse - that is not in itself a justification for alcoholism. It is certainly relevant to what should be done about it if in fact it is immoral. For example, it is unlikely that a gay person that is genetically predisposed to being gay and who otherwise lives a responsible, fulfilling life would be happier by trying to deny being gay and living a straight lifestyle. But in analysing whether or not homosexuality is moral or immoral, there must be something intrinsic about the act.
So, how does objectivism judge a person actions and behaviour? Again, I need to brush up on my theory, so please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that objectivism looks to whether or not the action or behaviour in question is self promoting for the individual. A number of factors are taken into consideration here. Does the action diminish the self respect of the individual (i.e. Ego)? Is the action productive and consistent with nature of a human organism (to be considered in light of what will makes an individual happy)? Does the action interfere with the rights of others?
Argument from Ego
I can't see how homosexual behaviour is detrimental to a person's ego or self respect. Between two consenting, loving adults that value each other homosexual behaviour is not dishonest and it does not need to be degrading to a person's ego (although some people find degradation erotic or an expression of trust in and surrender to one's partner, or have other very complicated emotional reactions or motives for it - i.e. Dominic Francon). It can be just as much an affirmation of the value two people see in each other as heterosexual sex can be.
In fact, it could be suggested that for homosexual couples, sex can be a greater act of trust and respect than it can be for heterosexual couples - with a man and a woman, only the woman can be submissive and the man dominant. A woman is required to show more trust to be at a man's mercy than the man has to show. With homosexual couples both partners can be in equal positions. I would suggest this actually puts them on more equal footing, which implies greater respect and trust.
Interference of the rights of others
Homosexual behaviour obviously does not interfere with the rights of others, so there can be no argument against it in that respect.
Misuse of the body and reproduction
The strongest arguments against it from an objectivist perspective seems to me to be that it is not consistent with the nature of a human being or that it is not productive for the individual because it is a misuse of the function of the human body and it prevents an individual from having offspring.
Both of these arguments seem flawed to me. Clearly homosexual behaviour uses the body in a way that evolution has not designed it for, but people do many things with their bodies that evolution has not intended them to do that are clearly not immoral - piercing, excessive fitness, oral sex, waxing body hair, wearing makeup etc. The list is almost endless. Many of the things that other people do to their bodies disgust me, but I do not think those acts are morally relevant provided they do not hinder the function of their bodies. Clearly homosexuality does hinder the function of a person's body provided individuals take precautions not to become infected with STDs. Accordingly, provided that homosexuality does not prevent an individual from pursuing happiness then the argument that it is a misuse of the body is irrelevant.
I also can't see how it is relevant whether or not homosexuality prevents a person from having children. A necessary corollary of that argument would be that contraceptives are immoral. (In fact any sexual act lowering the chances of becoming pregnant would be immoral.) It also presumes that having offspring is necessary to the happiness of an individual or should be the aim of each individual. I also disagree with this - many people choose not to have children for various reasons, including the desire to preserve freedom and lifestyle in order to pursue other self centred goals. Those goals may be just as fulfilling and important to an individual as having children, and often an individual is not able to do both. Accordingly, if pursuing a homosexual relationship is equally or more important and fulfilling to an individual as having children, then pursuing that relationship to the exclusion of having children would be a moral course of action.
Why Rand said what she said
I think that when Rand made her negative statement about homosexuality she was thinking about it from a very paternalistic, macho view of the different roles of men and women. For example, she also thought that women should not be leaders (as Nick has shown above regarding her views on whether or not a woman should be the President). Undoubtedly this also influenced her views on the role of men in relationships and in life generally. She probably saw the role of men to be strong and dominating over women, both in society and in the bedroom. Obviously two guys can't both be dominating in the bedroom at the same time - one of them has to be submissive. I think it is this aspect of being gay that Rand did not like - for her, a man should never be submissive sexually (whether to a man or a woman!), and a woman would not be complete without a strong man.
But is this really an accurate portrayal of the proper roles of men and women in society and in the bedroom in modern society? Times have changed since Rand developed her theories. Women have a much more active and equal position in society now, and the role of men is not as narrow as it was in Rand's time. I suspect she would also be disgusted by househusbands and men that undertake the traditional female role in a family, and she did not support women having as strong a position in society as men.
Unless Rand had a logical, rational basis for saying the homosexuality is disgusting, her comments were nothing but prejudice, pure and simple. Rand was a great thinker but her works are heavily stamped by the limitations of the time in which she lived - both in social thought and science (for example she thought smoking was an act that reflected the brilliance of man. I wonder of she would have thought that if she knew it caused cancer?).
I'd be interested if anyone has ever written or seen any work on this topic from an objectivist point of view. It is a topic that deserves the attention of someone that can think and write much better than I.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2007, 7:41 AM
|
Josh
Joined on 10-29-2006
Posts 56
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-25-2007, 12:22 AM
|
Ciuma
Joined on 04-25-2007
Posts 3
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting post, Mr Squiggle. I just have a few microscopic comments.
"In fact, it could be suggested that for homosexual couples, sex can be a greater act of trust and respect than it can be for heterosexual couples - with a man and a woman, only the woman can be submissive and the man dominant."
I get what you're saying. A man is stronger, so you mean physically. But in reality, the man may be the submissive one. The woman may even be physically superior—for example, if she knows martial arts. :)
"Obviously two guys can't both be dominating in the bedroom at the same time - one of them has to be submissive."
Actually, I think they could be equals, but I suppose Ayn Rand didn't think of that. :P
Okay, upon actually writing, I realize I actually have nothing to say against anything you wrote. Poor Rand... In The Fountainhead, the woman is plenty flawed. Only a man is perfect, the ideal.
I do not understand why she was so taken by this societal concept of man dominating woman when in her book she is apparently at great odds with society. She didn't believe in any sort of equality, it seems.
Rand was such a freak. Clearly, to me, she began with a prejudice and ended by justifying it without ever stepping beyond. Perhaps she was just basing this all on herself. She felt perfectly submissive, so it must be right. I remember a line in The Fountainhead where Dominique thought that her submission to man wasn't even hormonal! I found that to be absurd, and it immediately made me think she was homophobic. One thing I have learned in discovering my sexuality is that it's ALL about hormones. There's no going beyond them into some spiritual realm. When I was trying to figure out if I was straight or not, I said I didn't have crushes and didn't believe in dating, thought sex was almost irrelevant, and most of all, I said that my feelings for my friends were, oh, maybe hormonal, but not THOSE kind of hormones.
But as Mr Squiggles pointed out, Rand lived in another era when not so much was known about this stuff, so it can be forgiven. Earlier writers did the same thing... I remember I wanted to read more female authors because all I was reading was classic male authors who wrote about this inexplicable feminine beauty... some of them tried to explain it as well by saying that women were created to give men pleasure or something like that. Okay, I admit they were on the right track... Women really have evolved to be wanted by men. But why assume that these productive functions should restrict humankind, that this is the RIGHT way? Of course, because it's right for them.
That's the thing with love, it feels so right. Because of hormones. For me, too. But not heterosexual love.
[This isn't that important... I just care because I'm very interested in sexuality.]
"i have met quite a few straight people with the same tendencies. but even if physical attraction to the same sex is genetic and uncontrollable, i think it would cause some very serious problems mentally for someone."
Yes, you have met straight people with these tendencies, and yes, society's shadow causes serious problems for "someone". It has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with suppression and ostracism. How did you think that homosexuality could be the direct cause of depression? If you think that it's because gays wish they were heterosexual, I'm going to laugh. Before I realized I was sexually attracted to girls, I wanted to be heterosexual, but here's why: I thought being gay meant being suppressed and that I would be in hiding forever. And I thought being gay meant being a freak of nature, O Mighty Nature. Truth is, I knew nothing on the subject.
"spending so much effort to have the mind refuse the body's desire, the pleasure starts coming from succeeding in denying the body."
Oh. Boy. That's the kind of crap I might have thought up before realizing I was gay... if I weren't gay. I hadn't done my research; neither have you. There's no need to insist that gay people are freaks of this sort. Explain to me why anyone would "spend so much effort to have one's own mind refuse the body's pleasure" (and how the body has pleasure without the brain) and how denying the body creates an entirely irrelevant pleasure. And why do I need my body for pleasure? Did you need your body to admire the opposite sex's physical characteristics? I shan't speak for you, but as for me, sexual attraction takes place in the mind. By the way, I have never had a partner of either gender, but I am 100% sure that I prefer girls.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-29-2007, 9:30 AM
|
humptydumpty
Joined on 04-03-2007
Posts 15
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CIUMA WROTE:
There's no going beyond them into some spiritual realm. When I was trying to figure out if I was straight or not, I said I didn't have crushes and didn't believe in dating, thought sex was almost irrelevant, and most of all, I said that my feelings for my friends were, oh, maybe hormonal, but not THOSE kind of hormones.
HUMPTYDUMPTY REPLIES:
You describe in your words above the very baseline defects in the mind of a person that engages in homosexuality. It may "feel" good for me to rob a bank and have the money, or get revenge by hurting someone physically, or overeating, or gambling, or getting high......but I know they are wrong to do. The justification for all these behaviors are immoral and faulty. You see, the gay community are like a bunch of jail house criminals talking to each other and trying to justify their crimes. IT IS THE ACT - NOT THE PERSON!! Do you people have brains or just operate on "what feels good"?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-29-2007, 10:30 AM
|
Ciuma
Joined on 04-25-2007
Posts 3
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
It may "feel good" for you to have heterosexual sex, but it is immoral for you to reproduce with your embodiment of all that is wrong in this world. You are exactly what Ayn Rand despised: someone who does not exist as an individual. You showed this when you treated her opinion as some religious dogma.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-30-2007, 11:33 AM
|
MattJ
Joined on 02-12-2007
Posts 16
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
 humptydumpty wrote: | |
Do you people have brains or just operate on "what feels good"?
|
|
This individual is a wind up Ciuma, I urge you not to inflame him as he enjoys touting rubbish from his soapbox. Note he has already be warned by a moderator for frothing at the mouth.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-30-2007, 11:49 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt it will be necessary to censor you, Hump. Seems to me you're heading full speed for the cobblestones already, all by yourself. And while my persona-character is given to vain quests, I'll pass on trying to put you together.....
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-01-2007, 2:18 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah come on, Hump! I don't want to see you get banned. If you agree with everything Rand said, just because she said it, you may be the only one on this board who thinks this way. We need your imput on some of the other issues. Perhaps you can side with the prosecution against Alice and her friends in the Alice in Objectivist Land series. Why are you only focused on this one issue of homosexuality? Do you have views on anything else?
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-01-2007, 7:39 PM
|
dumptyhumpty
Joined on 05-02-2007
Posts 2
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with everthing humptydumpty wrote. It seems this board is made up of largely gay perverted people.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-01-2007, 8:23 PM
|
liberalandgay
Joined on 05-02-2007
Posts 23
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look a-hole, this board is the sole property of elite homosexual liberals. We censure all views that do not fall into a category worthy for the "air america" agenda. We are intellectual superior than conservative bigots. We control the public schools, universities, and are in favor of communism. We hate America and the military. I am so glad your views are banned from this board!!
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-01-2007, 8:38 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
Omigod, we're in a horror movie! HumptyDumpty fell--and all the pieces . . . LIVED!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2007, 4:48 AM
|
Mr Squiggle
Joined on 04-04-2007
Posts 35
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumably humptydumpty is just creating new personalities to stir up the pot.
I'm not interested in wasting my time in trying to make a prejudiced person see reason.
If anyone else has something rational to add to this thread, please do.
humptydumpty can you please respect the fact that this is discussion board is intended for the sharing of ideas in an open, non-threatening and non-discriominatory environment and cease posting? I am sure there are plenty of other boards on the internet where your ideas and way of sharing them will be more welcome than here.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2007, 9:59 AM
|
MattJ
Joined on 02-12-2007
Posts 16
|
Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
liberalandgay aka wobblingshatteredegg....
What are elite homosexual liberals? What the hell is air america? Only a completely blinkered fool would think that all people who post here are a) American b) liberal and c) gay and d) a COMMIE....REDS UNDER THE BED EEEK!!!!
What are you scared of? Are you a failed ex military officer?
The military play a very important role.
I agree with Nick...you started the homosexual thread and because people responded you accuse everyone of being perverted homos...if they didn't respond what would you have done then?
If the liberal homosexauls run the public schools etc it could be because they are good at it and passed a rigorous selection criteria based on merit.
What do you do for a living? Apart from drink beers in your trailer?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: homosexuality and rand's objectivism
|
|
|
|