RoR: Forum

Anthony

Thank you for the nice compliment. In a sense, I think we are all in this together. So if some guy dehumanizes another by calling him names, I am first responding for everyone I know who is gay, and for the future.

Would like to engage you in a long discussion, but I am deluged with work. Unlike some people on this forum who get their info from the internet and who think gays are kink machines, I have a very responsible job and have to produce results. I do that because I am a responsible individual, enjoy productive work, and not because I am a gay women.

One other thing before I check off. Thanks for mentioning Camille Paglia. I think she is a very positive force for gay people, especially gay men. In a way, she is a little bit like Rand, in that she favors the male over the female, although for her it would be the gay male over the lesbian.

Well then, our -- what is the root of homosexuality -- discussion awaits us at some future date. Just wanted to say thanks so you don't think I am one of those domineering, nasty bitches that inhabit Myron Ford's Jon Galt brain.

Post 61

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 5:40am

Ari C:

I read your response in more detail today- and it seems I must get into the habit of writing my posts on paper and reviewing my work a few hours later, I have made an important discovery thanks to your replies.

I have identified what repulses me, which I have stated above to be sexual/gender-collectivism and it's corollary attack on masculinity;

Relating "John Galt" to "Jon Galt" is evil and offends me.

The good thing that I must thank you (Ari) for is pointing out that while I am offended by the package-dealing of gender-collectivist premises into ideas of masculinity, I was guilty of some package dealing myself:

I equated rational gays with nihilistic stereotypes who claim to speak for a "gay community" (According to Objectivism a community is merely a number of individuals and as such, no one has the right to speak for them all)

So, to everyone outside the package deal, I offer an apology.

To those inside, let me paraphrase a conversation between Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff on the subject of nihilism(FROM PEIKOFFS ART OF THINKING COURSE)

QUOTE (more or less)

At the time Peikoff was doing his research for the chapter on nihilism "Ominous Parallels" he and Rand were watching the Academy awards on television. There was still an attempt at real glamour, and some concern about producing real art at the time.

In the middle of the celebration a streaker broke out of the crowd, ran past the camera, and into the living rooms of America.

Rand asked Peikoff what the essence of the event was. He gave a few wrong answers- "he's irrational...he's an exhibitionist" etc.

"No." She stated, "This is the most glamorous event in Holywood...and here comes this creature who wants to stick his bare-ass in your face."

END QUOTE (more or less)

Here's my point: I popped into this topic expecting to find an intelligent article defining the fine line between mindless tolerance and prejudice.

Instead I found a creature who wants to stick his bare penis in my face. (He even posted a photo- not of a nude adonis, but a flashing village people reject.)

Ronin

Post 62

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 5:52am

Ed,

Your very limited view of homosexuality is not only pathetic, but since it so uninformed, it leaves me with relatively nothing to work with at all. You say so little that makes sense, and your conclusions are largely drawn from...well who knows where you get your ideas?

In the history of mankind, heterosexuals certainly have no monopoly on the "natural", unless you mean, naturally ignorant. Even Aristotle observed that this was the case for the majority of humanity. This view that you propound, that heterosexuals are more natural, is simply ridiculous. I think it might be better if you back up and define what you mean by "natural" so we can tear your definition apart. I certainly am not about to correct your antiquated knowledge of any of these categories. What you say about biology is even more ridiculous.

In the history of heterosexuality I think you will see that child abuse has a lot more chance of happening in the family. It would seem that the primary abusers would be parents. In fact they are in contact with children a lot more than anonymous homosexuals. I also know that the history of child abandonment (read John Boswell's excellent work on this subject) is primarily a heterosexual "topic" and it is "natural" to straight people. Before you start making gay people the object of your attack, why don't you go back and reform everything you have said? Apology is very much in line and it is something that happens quite often on SOLOHQ:) I think your ideas are all based on hatred and prejudice. There is not a word of truth in any of it. In fact there is no difference at all between the hatred you write and the hatred that can be read in Myron's post. They are merely opposite sides of the same coin.

You seem to conflate the biological with the moral, and then you add your own brand of barbaric hostility toward others. You don't realize how much your argument depends on the naturalistic fallacy of deriving the "ought" from the "is". How do you get from "procreation" to "morally superior"?? You've got to decide in making your arguments whether you are going to base your prejudice on "nature" or on "morality" and the proceed from there. By conflating these two issues you are only confusing yourself and your reader. Somehow you think because you are straight, and I assumed that you are, you are morally superior to ALL gay people? I'm sorry. I am not convinced of your moral superiority or your intelligence.

Post 63

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 6:32am

Ed,

BTW, if you will take the time to read the thread you will see that the inclusion of Jon Galt's picture in the article has already been talked into the ground. We have concluded that the question of Sciabarra's moral position (is Sciabarra evil or good) cannot be determined on such a minor issue. In fact it seems like dicing hairs to remain stuck on that point. We have also determined that not only is it incorrect, but it is unkind to "psychologize". What we mean by this you can read from the Olivia Hanson-Sciabarra exchange above.

As far as the use of words such as "kink", I don't know what that means. I have heard of "kinky" but kink? I looked it up, and behold, KINK 1 : a short tight twist or curl caused by a doubling or winding of something upon itself.
2 a : a mental or physical peculiarity : WHIM
3 : a clever unusual way of doing something
4 : a cramp in some part of the body
5 : an imperfection likely to cause difficulties in the operation of something

It's amazing what gays get accused of on SOLO. Back in June, Mr. Chappelle said that gays were guilty of a long list of sexual perversities which he took the time to list. Not only was everyone confused by his blind anger over the issue, but no one knew what any of his words meant. "Micturation"? I had to look the word up. Mr. Chappelle had assumed that ALL gays would know what this word meant. It followed "logically" from his argument that ALL homosexuals were morally depraved.

BTW: How does one "pose as an Objectivist"? In what way is Jon Galt evil?

Post 64

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 6:35am

Hello everyone!

I hate this 8k limit! LOL! Okay, once more into the breach to clarify! :)

Ronin replied:

So while I have to admit my comment about "let everyone practice it for a generation" is not a valid argument against Sexual Collectivism,
End quote.

That was my point.

Ronin continued:

it is nonetheless a true observation that human life would end- and the quality
of life issue would become moot because there would be no individuals to worry about.
End Quote.

I quite agree. But the important point is that it must be a choice and just as a woman has that choice (whether or not to reproduce) so too does a man.

I believe that those people who for whatever reasons don't want children, shouldn't have them and biologically speaking their 'line' will end with that choice while those who do choose to happily reproduce will, thereby continuing their 'line'.

Females aren't generally denounced for choosing not to have children, but men always seem to have this thrown in their faces by those who oppose homosexuality as a choice. Either something works both ways by virtue of the principle it is founded on or it is just subjective whim.

Ronin also wrote:

Yes, an occasional kinky indulgence might improve the quality of life for a mortal being (someones gotta get gay in a threesome) but heterosexual love has the added value of creating life.
End Quote.

Yes, heterosexual love has the added value of creating life, no argument there from me :). But many heterosexual people also choose not to have children. If heterosexual or homosexuals do not want to have children, that is their right. And that is the point. Having children is optional for everyone exactly because we are not bound by duty to create life and even have the right to destroy life before it leaves the womb.

Ronin:
As for the "Duty to spread legs and multiply." I never said anything about duty. This conclusion was a nonsequitor and did not follow from my reasoning.
End Quote.

I disagree here, and as you said yourself above, your argument concerning this was not valid, yet you continue in the same vein .. If one were to follow the reasoning of your admittedly invalid argument of 'let everyone practice that for a generation' and your 'quality of life statement above' it would lead down the path to duty to reproduce. By basing 'moral' reproductive choices on the fact that without reproduction there would be no more humans and by morally sanctioning homosexuals BECAUSE they won't/can't have children you head down the road of duty to reproduce ... eventually.

Olivia:

Unlike some people on this forum who get their info from the internet and who think gays are kink machines,

LOL! I have no idea if you were referring to me Olivia, but I will ask one question -- What is the Internet? How does it generate information?

Behind every monitor we use to converse with others on the Internet is another human being. As far as I know, humans are the only ones that currently use the Internet. When I get information from websites, some human being has produced that information. When I chat on the Internet, there is another human being at the other end, chatting back. The Internet can only function with individuals on the other end of the line. The physical Internet, the wires, routers, hubs, servers, and workstations do not produce conversations, share ideas, or share personal information about themselves.

I get my information from other individuals -- just as everyone else does. I get the added bonus of being able to speak and listen to a much wider audience that would be possible in person, one on one. I also do get information one on one, but in regards to speaking with people who are either homosexual or kinky, the number of individuals I have spoken directly with (including my best friend) numbers only 6.

Ari wrote:

Joy Bushnell alludes to homosexuality and kink repeatedly in her posts, but this is an expression of inexperience and lack of personal knowledge of the full homosexual world. In fact, as homosexuality moves out of the closet, more and more gay people appear who are living healthy and rational lives. (Kink inplies an unhealthy, non-intimate, non-romantic aspect. And yes, while homosexuality is rooted in a dark, underworld past, much of it extremely kinky, this is changing very rapidly.)

LOL! Okay, I have to ask -- why is all this kink attributed to me, when it was Ronin who lumped it all together with homosexuality and even simple 'turn ons'?

Another thing, is this thread the exclusive domain of gay people? Yes, I have no personal experience of homosexuality, but what on earth does that have to do with advocating the freedom of personal choice in regard to sexual orientation or interests as it relates to Objectivism? Especially when I'm FOR personal freedom -- free of denunciation! LOL!

Ari, just what is it that heterosexuals are supposed to know about the 'full homosexual world'?

I don't have to know anything about that 'world' to understand that Individual Rights, morality and judgment on these matters depends on using reason. If Objectivism embraces above all the rights of Individuals to do as they choose so long as it does not violate the rights of any other individual, then of what importance are the specific particulars?

And to repeat, I did not equate kink with homosexuality -- they are in fact two different forms of sexual expression, though they can appear together in some individuals. It seems that you are sensitive about appearances, wanting homosexuality to appear as distinctly different from kink. Fine.

You also believe that kink is bad, non-intimate, negative, non-romantic, whatever. Fine. I disagree, but you are free to believe what you will.

None of that alters the fact that what I am speaking of is the right for each individual to pursue his own sexual interests, whether homosexual, heterosexual or kinky -- so long as those choices do not violate the rights of anyone else.

Then there is the next level of discussion where we include judgments about the difference between sustaining life and having added value features, or what is 'healthy' and life affirming and what is not. This is where I introduced my own little continuum theory which basically said that there are extremes in the various sexual expressions of some people, whether homosexual, heterosexual, kinky, overeaters or alcoholics or otherwise. My conclusion is that people who live in these extreme areas are damaged in some way, and hopefully they are working on it. I also said that I believe healthy sexuality includes much more than man and woman in missionary style doing it twice a week. I should put the last sentence in caps! By my reasoning, the last sentence includes any number of choices and sexual practices including homosexuality and yes, *gasp* kink. These forms of sexual expression have been around as long as man has been and you know, in the 'good old days' many of these sexual expressions were revered rather than condemned. And advocates of these various sexual expressions were not dismissed and insulted for championing the cause. LOL!

I also said that no matter the level of damage, level of extremeness, we should respect the rights of those people working through their issues instead of just denouncing them. I don't know how to be any more clear.

As a writer it is quite disconcerting to me that my words, which I thought were so clear, are so easily misunderstood! Guess I had better keep my day job for a while longer. *grin*

Joy :)

Post 65

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 6:42am

Olivia,

Nice to hear from you. If you are interested, I will be posting some new articles on my blog in the near future. I would love to get your comments and feedback.

http://3.avatarreview.com:8081/WildeGuy/

Cheers,

Anthony

Post 66

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:13am

Hi Joy,

I suspect that you know that Ed's argument is a logical fallacy. To throw out the challenge to practice homosexuality for a decade and see what happens is not only irrational and says nothing because it so painfully obvious, but it is being used to back up a point: the supposed moral superiority of heterosexuality. It is just as fair as Hume's argument against the common sense view that "because the sun has risen every morning for a billion years, we have no right to infer that it will rise tomorrow."

Ed is confusing the natural with the moral. I think we all know that males and females have particular anatomies that makes procreation possible. BIG DEAL! Can we arrive at any conclusions from this information? Are heterosexuals more moral because they choose to procreate? Since when does procreation figure up there with rationality? I think that people who don't really have strong arguments to back up their irrational fear of homosexuality fall upon stupid arguments "ad natura" and give it a try. Ed doesn't seem to notice how similar his argument is to environmentalists and religious fanatics. Watch:

1 Religious: A preacher on Sunday morning pounding the pulpit with his fist: "Sodom and Gommorah, there go I but for the Grace of God. Imagine what the world will be like when it all ends and fire consumes everything. There will be gnashing of teeth and crying, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah blah."

2 Environmentalist: "For over a century now Western culture has slowly been depleting the earth of her natural resources. If we keep this up, at this rate of speed we will finish the earth off in a decade. Imagine a world with no water, no animals, with nothing but dark black stumps where natural green healthy trees used to grow, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"

3 Ed: "Homosexuals are immoral and do not follow biological principles. Imagine what would happen if we all became homosexuals. Why I challenge you to try it for a generation and you will se what happens, blah blah, blah, blah,blah,blah."

Post 67

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:23am

Joy:

I agree with your reasoning and pose the following questions for my own clarification:

1.All things being equal in terms of personal fulfillment life experiences etc., can it be said that a heterosexual relationship OFFERS A CHOICE (to create life) that a homosexual relationship does not?

2.As life is the standard of value (to objectivists) does it follow that morality can not totally disconnect from biology?

3. Does the fact that homosexuals can only make children via a heterosexual act make those who use surogates second-handers? Should they limit themselves to adopting? Can a same sex couple rationally decide they want to have children without asking "whose children?"

4. Is homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality or is it a disorder (heterophobia?) [that is of no concern to anyone]

These are complex questions, and I am interested in finding "the objectivist answer" from someone who does not think it fallacious to state "for every is there is an ought.

Thats it! For all the IS's of homosexuality, What are the Oughts?

Also, would you care to comment on Mr. Teets comment on my last post?

And Mr. Teets: Obviously we were posting simultaneously when you demanded an apopology- because I had already apologized to anyone who matters. After reading my follow-up, any further input?

Ronin

Post 68

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:44am

LOL! Hi Anthony!

Is that what it is called? Logical fallacy I mean. I often see these terms bandied about but for whatever reason, I'm generally not exactly sure of their meaning. Not even if I read a definition of them. LOL!

But yes, no matter what I may personally feel on an Objectivist issue, it is critical to at least argue rationally and that seems to be hard to do in many cases .. notably about homosexuality and issues like abortion.

The funny thing is, on the surface, I agree that procreation is a good thing -- not as in more moral or our 'destiny' or any such thing ... I just love having kids. But I also know that a lot of people don't like kids and having been a kid myself once, I'm glad there is a choice because a unwilling parent is not a good thing for kids!

But I don't need to look in Objectivism for 'justification' for wanting to have kids or not having kids. LOL! In some ways, philosophy doesn't need to answer that type of question directly, but does address the question 'higher up' on the scale by promoting the idea of Individual Rights, choice, responsibility and such.

This leads to so many other related topics but I do have work to do as well and may address other isses some other time. *grin*

Besides, this page takes so long to load now that I'm getting too impatient!

Joy :)

Post 69

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 8:22am

Hi Joy,

With that kind of an attitude about procreation "I just love having kids" we are in no danger of having the kind of world Ed has described:) I do however think that with your enthusiasm about having children we can certainly expect a little population boom in Rochester County:) I still don't see why it is more moral to have kids than not to have kids. It seems a little worthless to point out the argument that serial homosexuality leads to the "Darwin Award" for extinction. I am working on the thesis that Rand reached her conclusions about the "moral inferiority" of homosexuals not from her "biocentric ethics" but because she saw how difficult it would be to reason from biology to morality. It would not follow from her argument of the origin of morals being REASON.

ED: I was not aware that Objectivists held that morality springs from biology. I thought that was the premise of sociobiology and social Darwinism. I think that if you hold that "ought" may be directly derived from "is", then your position is considerably at odds with Objectivism. I mean, of course, in the context of biology. Ayn Rand broke with Herbert Spencer's Darwinism over this particular issue (see the Journals of Ayn Rand and TPOAR, Peikoff's assessment of Spencer). She stated that his defense of capitalism based on this line of argumentation ("nature red in tooth and claw") was dangerously incorrect. I would infer that if she found it inappropriate to use biology to defend the morality of capitalism, then she would find biology equally insufficient to prove the morality of heterosexuality (particularly in its association with procreation). In fact both of the above statements are correct observations of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, but they are not compatible with your attitude. Ayn Rand did not hold your elaborate defense of procreation (you might want to read her essay(s) on abortion) I don't think you have a philosophy, just a series of opinions.

Post 70

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 8:34am

Adoption is not an instance of "second handed" argumentation. You are arguing that 1) it is morally superior to be procreative biologically, it follows therefore that, 2) it is less moral to adopt a child because it is further away from the procreative act. In your eyes "adoption" is merely "living off" of the morally superior act of another set of human beings. I do not how you arrived at that conclusion. You seem to be confused about the Second-hander argument. There is a big difference from "living off" of the intellectual or physical property of another person. It is totally different from what you are arguing, that adoption is "second-handedness". I cannot believe that you think that adoption is morally inferior to procreation!!! That is absurd. It is a consequence that follows directly from your first acceptance of the naturalistic fallacy.

Post 71

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 8:35am

I must admit that I'm reading the forum and enjoying the exchanges. I do have to answer, however, another few innuendos that have been dropped here for all the world to see.

Ed Ronin writes: "I mentioned in an earlier post, or at least alluded, that sexual preference (pick your favorite type for this monologue) has many causes some moral, some immoral, but I will not pretend to buy into �Jon Galt's' altruistic defense (doing us a service) of his perversity [because his sex is detached from values, not because of the mechanics involved] or by the authors adoration of him. (As a reader I simply assumed he was banging this Galt guy and trying to flatter him.)" Ed adds: "Relating �John Galt' to �Jon Galt' is evil and offends me."

All I can say is: We started out with innuendo, and we've returned to it. Wow.

This one, I have to admit, has had me HOWLING with laughter, however. Thanks for the comic relief.

Since Anthony suggests taking a look at the previous Hanson-Sciabarra postings on this subject, I'll simply add: railing against "nihilists" like me (without mentioning my name), Ed seems incapable of distinguishing between reportage and evaluation. As I say above in this very thread, I ~reported~ the comments of a person who was nauseated by homosexuality... just as I ~reported~ my interview with Jon Galt. That doesn't mean that I should be identified with any of the comments. I interviewed more than 100 people for this series, and ~reported~ on the life experiences of scores of them, without needing to distance myself from them, without feeling the need to defensively Seinfeld-my-way out of it by saying "not that there's anything wrong with that." The paragraph on Galt was reportage, not evaluation.

If Ed was looking for an intelligent article, I would hope that he would have found it and that he would have read the whole 15,000+ word five-part series before passing judgment. That he and others persist on seizing on this 300-word paragraph dealing with the now (in)famous Jon Galt is context-dropping writ large.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 72

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 9:03am

Ed,

Sorry I am getting a little disorganized in my posts. This last one was for you as well. Now I have to ask you on point 4:

Are you referring to "normal" in the medical sense? Is there a current medical or biological argument that asserts categorically that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality, or that the former is "abnormal"? In biology when we speak of an abnormal gene (a mutation, or a mistake in genes) we mean something quite different from YOUR conclusions, that such a thing is good or bad. Most scientists believe that homosexuality is the result of many factors but do not attribute it to any one specific factor, neither do they conclude that questions of morality can be answered corelationally with questions of biology. That is bad science, and it makes really bad ethics. I mean, keep thinking that way and you will arrive at a justification for enforced sterilization (eugenics).

You don't seem to be very aware of what the current status of science is. In the next century we will probably see a lot of human cloning and we will learn a great deal more about how to improve the quality of human life through gene research.

The Human Genome Project is making very modest claims, but to have that kind of information (I refer to mapping the genes) is an enormous step in the right direction. In fact Ed, some of knowledge may be derived from biology, and some from ethical reasoning. But biological knowledge as the exclusive way to arrive at ethical reasoning, or ethcal reasoning being completely devoid of biological knowledge, seem equally paltry.

As far as psychological knowledge, I don't think Rand cared much for that either. I know that it was not until 1975 that the APA passed a resolution to remove homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem. Much objective scientific research over the past 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is not associated with emotional or social problems. As I said before, I don't know where you get your ideas, but they are very much in need of sound facts.

Cheers

Post 73

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 9:07am

I'm glad you asked these questions!

"1.All things being equal in terms of personal fulfillment life experiences etc., can it be said that a heterosexual relationship OFFERS A CHOICE (to create life) that a homosexual relationship does not?"

The issue of choice comes at a different point altogether -- the real question of choice is -- does an individual have the choice to either have this type of relationship or that type of relationship. The type of relationship does not matter, just the choice of being able to choose one type of relationship at all.

What is individually fulfilling to one person can be just as UNfulfilling to another.

While you or I may find the most joyous fulfillment in having a dozen kids, there are many others that would consider that to be a death sentence. The choice to create life comes with great responsibility and should not be taken lightly.

" 2.As life is the standard of value (to objectivists) does it follow that morality can not totally disconnect from biology?"

Hmmmmm. I think again, the issue is the 'point of entry' for this question. We cannot escape our biology, but our own control of our own individual biology is the key here, not the biology of mankind in general or society.

My husband could never hope to conceive and bear a child from his own body -- that is a fact of biology that he must take into consideration in his life. If for some reason he desperately wanted to bear a child, biology would make that impossible (or at least right now :), and therefore, he would be foolish to base his life on the hope of bearing a child from his body.

However, again, the choice to actually reproduce is a choice. I have that choice because biologically I am a female, other than that, biology has no bearing on whether or not I *should* have children. Biology only determines that I *CAN*.

"3. Does the fact that homosexuals can only make children via a heterosexual act make those who use surrogates second-handers? Should they limit themselves to adopting? Can a same sex couple rationally decide they want to have children without asking "whose children?" "

Second-handers? Then would infertile heterosexual couples also be second-handers? There are heterosexual couples that pay for surrogate women to bear their child, or use medical procedures to get the egg and sperm together. There are many sperm and egg donors and I don't think the people that buy these services are asked if they are homosexual or heterosexual .. whose children are they then, whether for a homosexual or heterosexual couple? I suspect more heterosexual couples use these types of services than homosexual couples, are they too to be asked 'whose children'?

" 4. Is homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality or is it a disorder (heterophobia?) [that is of no concern to anyone]"

For the purposes of philosophy in general, and Objectivism in particular, I don't think the question matters, again, a point of entry question.

Objectivism is a philosophy where the supremacy of the Individual is key. Not God, not destiny, or social whatevers. How anyone feels about homosexuality, heterosexuality, kinkosexuality or any other aspect of human behavior is really beside the point in regards to the right of an Individual to pursue his own happiness with all that entails.

Morally? What is moral exactly? Objectivism defines (in most basic of terms)morality as whatever is in one's own rational self interest. By that criteria alone, it is okay for anyone to be what they want. I know that is a terribly simplistic statement that implies a lot more .. but that's beyond the 8k limit of this post. :)

Numbers of people doing one activity or another doesn't make it more 'normal' or moral or anything. Masturbation used to be considered immoral, a sin, degenerate, and very abnormal! Today, scientists are discovering that it is harmless and perhaps even necessary activity.

Sexuality of any kind is something that the individual in question should always have complete control of. I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what is proper, correct or moral in that regard -- again, assuming that I take responsibility for my own actions, that I don't violate the rights of others, and that I'm not being self-destructive (which of course, would not be in my rational self interest).

The point is, you are free to 'feel' any way you want about anything. If you dislike homosexuals, you are entitled to that belief -- but you cannot use Objectivism as a justification for that belief .. well, actually, as originally Objectivism denounced homosexuality .. maybe you can. LOL!

However, I believe that philosophy, even Objectivism isn't the way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that homosexuality (or any other deviation from the 'norm') is 'normal' or 'better'. It depends on the individual and the individual in question is the one that takes responsibility for those choices.

Ronin:

These are complex questions, and I am interested in finding "the objectivist answer" from someone who does not think it fallacious to state "for every is there is an ought.
End Quote.

Okay, I'm not sure what that means, and I'm not sure I can claim the status of Objectivist as I do disagree with some key elements ... but these are my answers and I'm sticking with them. *grin*

Ronin:
Thats it! For all the IS's of homosexuality, What are the Oughts?
End Quote.

What is an Ought?

Ronin:
Also, would you care to comment on Mr. Teets comment on my last post?
End Quote.

Huh? Why?

*grin* Okay, I do know why you are asking, but I generally don't comment on how others react, I'm not responsible for their thoughts and actions and I often agree or disagree with lots of great people around here. It's just how it works. :)

Think of it as the 'good cop' and 'bad cop' ploy for our erstwhile audience. *grin*

I just know I'm going to regret that bit of whimsy ... LOL!
Joy :)

Post 74

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 2:01pm

Hi Chris!

I am glad to see you have not left us completely. I was thinking that your ears must be ringing a great deal over this last bit. I do still hold that you were correct in your first observations that homosexuality in Objectivism or among Objectivists is a hot topic, and the fact that so much time has been devoted to it is a significant indication of that truth. I am still very much alarmed by what I see as an accusational stance against you personally. The kind of ad hominem argumentation that takes you on personally is very discouraging to say the least. I agree with your assessment that many of the responses here begin with a voiced opinion against your work in general and somehow end up with direct assaults on you personally. This kind of nauseating and uncritical reacting is counter productive. I do not share the view that because you interviewed Jon Galt that you are being rewarded on the side. That kind of comment is undeserved and I cannot believe that others have not voiced a response against such things.

I have consistently thrown ideas out there in the hopes of getting some kind of proactive response, or an exchange of ideas. I have announced to everyone that I do not presuppose any claim to absolute knowledge. When I see anger being voiced at you personally through "innuendo", or otherwise, I reply with hints of anger. I am not angry about these issues, I am interested in locating the source of the anger, and I think that it comes out in these comment sessions. Sometimnes the best way to counter an angry voice is through anger. I really don't think any of this would occur in meatspace, your chihuahua Blondie would certainly not allow it:)

One such instance is I believe indicated in Ed's responses to homosexuality. Since Objectivists don't have anything to say about these issues, individuals are left to develop their ideas independently. Yes Rand said negative comments about homosexuality. When people are left without a reason for rejecting or accepting homosexuality they may turn to any number of rationalizations. In Ed's response I think I have uncovered a logical fallacy being used to counter homosexuality, but in previous exchanges I have seen "disgust" being advocated as a reason to form an argument. A response is not sufficient reason to adopt an attitude, and it is no substitute for an argument.

I do think that FEAR is definitely a factor underlying both of the topics that you have raised in your articles on "partisanship" and in your installment on homosexuality. I may be wrong about this, but I see that Rand's refusal to deal directly with the latter issue has left a void in the wake of social progress.

I am very interested in the precise line of demarcation between philosophy and social.biological.psychological issues. Some posters think it is evidence of postmodernism or nihilism creeping into Objectivism, but if this were the case, then I don't think that Objectivists should comment on any issue raised in society. I don't think that Rand held herself back from making all kinds of comments on societal concerns. So why is homosexuality being constantly placed on the back burner or rejected from Objectivism if it is an issue that causes so much anger/constrnation/concern?

Post 75

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 6:12pm

According to Ronin's logic, if one is repulsed by heterosexuality, one must be a latent heterosexual. Very amusing. Only, as a gay male and an admirer of Jon Galt, I must say I despise heterosexuality, and especially the brainless slut types who package their sex and doll it out to stupid guys, who fawn all over them.

Cindy Crawford is an example. A stupid, incompetent c... with a pretty face who has guys falling all over her, in order to see her naked, and get a chance to enter that horrid piece of hair pie between her legs.

Brittany Spears is another example, a shameless little whore who mindlessly packages her body, as a temptress without scrupples or morals.

Except for the noble gay women, straight women are mostly whores and flirts, without ability or brains. They are also terrible hypocrites. They talk about morality but only want to be f....d by some crazy, wild, irrational stud, who will end up beating them and abusing them.

As for me, I prefer intellectual males, who will be my brother, understand me instead of lying to me, cheating me, and abusing me like the Whore of Babylon.

Post 76

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:04pm

Hi there Myron,

You actually raise a very important point here in your otherwise quite humurous reply!

This is something I've had on the back burner for a while regarding relationships in general, no matter who the particpants are.

In speaking with many that have become disillusioned with relationships of one kind or another the one thing that is clear is that often one partner was living a kind of fantasy or illusion, literally wearing rose colored glasses as it pertained to what they expected from the relationship and in essense suspending their rational self interest in order to gain a certain sense of belonging or security from the relationship.

When that illusion is destroyed, they are often devastated and blame the entire circumstance on being cheated, lied to, or otherwise manipulated.

A healthy relationship is one where each partner has a strong sense of self, is rationally objective about expectations and is aware and conscious of what the relationship and their partner has to offer. If there is deceit, or a lack of morality, or any other negative thing, it is up to each individual to be alert for things until real trust is established, using all our tools of cognition and reason.

Yes, there are many unscrupulous people out there, but often, it is those people unwilling to face reality as such that get sucked into bad relationships and they continue the cycle because they seek security and salvation from others rather than from themselves.

Sadly, such relationships have devastating effects that forever make a healthy relationship out of reach and forms a cycle of bad relationships to the point that they are no longer able to interact with other people in general, seeing everyone of a certain type as evil, manipulating or whores of either gender.

Abuse is a terrible thing, but it does not have to define a person forever. If one choses to have a victim mentality, they will forever be a victim ... of their own negativity. There is such a lovely world out there for those that choose to be conscious, who choose to use reason, who refuse to be defined by a victim mentality.

Joy :)

Post 77

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:13pm

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:15pm

Uh, sorry guys, I don't know why my reply showed up twice. :(

Joy

Post 79

Saturday, November 2, 2002 - 2:30pm