RoR: Forum

To those who oppose homosexuality

lets assume, for the sake of argument, that no one is born gay. fine.
let us also assume they can become straight if they want.

next question: why bother?

by what standard is homosexuality as such (as opposed to certain specific practices within the homosexual community) immoral or defective? what's self destructive about it? and I don't wanna hear anything about STDs, unprotected sex, or promiscuity-- these are not essentials of homosexuality, and they exist in large number among heterosexuals also. and I don't wanna hear anything about "abnormality" either: this is a collectivist standard, by which everyone on this website is "abnormal". the very term "abnormal" is meaningless as a normative, unless one wishes to imply that the majority is morally superior by simple virtue of being the majority. Can you name any essential of homosexuality which rationally, egoistically, makes it wrong or self destructive in and of itself?

what makes homosexuality the type of desire such that it is more egoistic to repress it than to follow it? what essential aspect of it makes it any less "decent" than heterosexuality?

Post 41

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 3:38pm

Cameron,

I am not sure what the purpose of your post is. If it is looking for, "atta-boys," from those who already agree with you, it was apparently very effective.

If, however, it is meant to persuade those who disagree with you, while I cannot speak for the others, it sounds like a big whine to me.

And I think that is not a fair representation of you. The homosexuals that post on SOLO, are not whiners, and certainly do not act like victims. Do you really think no one is aware that some people treat homosexuals, and others as well, from ignorance and prejudice, despicably? Do you think we do not despise it?

The argument that homosexuals suffer psychological problems and behave they way the militant homosexuals do, which Lindsay himself deplores, is groundless and a slap-in-the-face at all those persecuted people who exhibit no such psychological failures.

What people have been hated, mistreated, and abused from prejudice and ignorance more than blacks. What group has ever been taught they are inferior and teated as though they were more than the blacks. Historically, suicide and psychological problems among blacks have never been significantly statistically different than the general community.

What group of people has ever suffered more at the hands of those who hate and despise them, enduring persecution homosexuals, or any of us, can only imagine than the Jews. Historically, suicide and psychological problems have never been significantly statistically different than the general community.

Recently there has been a surge in the suicide rates for young blacks. This increase is not the result of some sudden new persecution or prejudice against them, it is the result of their own practices and views, just as it is in the homosexual community.

Cameron, argue for your case, defend your views as strongly as you can, but know the moment an argument is made that blames anyone's problems or behavior on what other people do, while it may seem convincing to you, to everyone else it is just a copout.

Regi

Post 42

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 3:41pm

Chris,

You said: Look, you gents can't have it both ways ...

I must say that seems strange coming from you, defender of all variations, even those who want it "both ways."

Regi

Post 43

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 4:31pm

Chris,

I admire your intelligence and clear reasoning, but this is really a stretch:

I agree fundamentally with Cameron on the issue of culture and politics, as I expressed in my very last message: Those of you who are influenced by Ayn Rand and who would not question for a moment what she says about "The Comprachicos" stunting the development of children, do not realize how the culture itself has "Comprachicos" who use the weapon of guilt to fight things with which they do not approve. You think it's easy to break that cycle of guilt? If it were so easy, why did Rand herself have to declare war against the culture of 2,500 years? That war is still being fought by every human being on this planet who would seek a life without pain, fear, shame, or guilt.

Comprachicos? That metaphor is for those who take children before they are fully formed and, by force, distort their bodies (as the actual comprachicos did) of, metaphorically, their minds (as American school teachers do). If there are comprachicos today, (other than school teachers) it is the homosexual movement's influence within the public schools attempting to create more homosexuals out of perfectly normal children. Even you do not approve of that.

Comparing the views, opinions, speech, and propaganda, no matter how despicable, of those who cannot force them on anyone to comprachicos is totally out of court.

And what in the world does this mean: ... Rand herself have to declare war against the culture of 2,500 years?

I'm sure you'll beat me up on this one, but I had to ask, because I have no idea what culture of 2500 years you are talking about. What culture has lasted 2500 years? (I know you'll make me look stupid, but since most people already think I am, nobody will notice.)

Regi

Post 44

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 4:41pm

reg:

"If there are comprachicos today, (other than school teachers) it is the homosexual movement's influence within the public schools attempting to create more homosexuals out of perfectly normal children."

what are you talking about? no one proposes making children gay! do they want approval? yes. to be tolerated? yes. to be pitied as victims? yes. but when has anyone ever demanded that there be more homosexuals?

Post 45

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 6:42pm

Hi Robert,

Your post was not really addressed to me, because I do not "oppose" homosexuality. I do not oppose those who chose to throw their money away on gambling, or destroy their health and life with drugs, or even produce a string of kids by every woman on the block (if they would only support them), either. I do recognize that these are all self-destructive behaviors, and advise those interested to avoid them, for their own sake.

lets assume, for the sake of argument, that no one is born gay. fine.
let us also assume they can become straight if they want.

next question: why bother?

If this is really the question you mean to ask, ... assume they can become straight if they want. ...why bother? The answer is, if they want and they can, it is in their own best interest to do it.

The assumption I think you are really making is that they will not want to, and why should they change, even if they can, in that case. In that case, there is no reason. I have no advice for them.

Now this is the question you are really getting at: Can you name any essential of homosexuality which rationally, egoistically, makes it wrong or self destructive in and of itself?

Of course. In fact that is the whole point. Remember, your other premise is: for the sake of argument, ... no one is born gay.

That means, homosexuality is chosen, not imposed on those who choose homosexual practices.

I believe that human beings have a specific nature and that nature includes both the psychological and physiological. Both aspects are by nature meant to be in harmony and work together for the survival and benefit of the human as a living organism. They are all we have to work with, we better use them according to the requirements of their nature.

It is obvious that human beings are sexual beings. Not all creatures are. Some are asexual, for example. Physiologically, we are designed to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. That is what a sexual creature is. This is very difficult to be mistaken about (though some apparently are).

In my post #39 I explained that human beings are not born with either specific desires or knowledge of how to satisfy those desires. They are all learned, developed, and chosen. In the process of developing our desires and behavior, to be successful as human beings, these must conform to the requirements of our nature, both psychological and physiological.

Obviously, many people choose behavior contrary to the requirements of their nature. For example, a common problem for young women today is "cutting." They cut themselves to satisfy some perceived desire of need. The behavior is obviously contrary to the requirements of their nature, and while seldom life-threatening, nevertheless does them great harm, both physically and psychologically. Every organ has a specific nature and purpose. The skin is not made for intentional cutting.

With regard to sex, almost as soon as one understands their specific nature, as a male or female, their thinking and actions begin to develop the behavior and desires appropriate to their sex and the use of their organs with someone of the complementary sex. For any number of reasons, some people do not develop desires fitting their physiological nature, at first, and for a while are confused by conflicting feelings. At that stage, most make the explicit decision, based on what they know they are, either a male or female, realizing that desires conflicting with what is obviously their nature, are contradictory. For them, the conflicting desires quickly fade, and those desires consistent with their nature are reinforced.

Not all make that decision. Instead of making their choice of development based on their best rational judgement, they surrender to their to their irrational desires, and from that moment on, all their thinking rationalizes that choice and all their actions reinforces the irrational desires. They can never escape the fact, however, that what they have chosen is a fundamental contradiction, a disintegration expressed as desires obviously in conflict with their physiological nature. While the homosexual frequently argues that it would be wrong for them to, "suppress," his desires, their entire lifestyle suppresses what is obvious even to them, what they do is directly opposite what their body's nature is meant for them to do. (I do not mean any particular sexual practice, I mean a man with a man, or a woman with a woman, whatever it is they actually do.)

The greatest harm of homosexuality is psychological. I makes one's whole life a contradiction, and requires a compartmentalization, a disintegration of one's psychology, to keep the contradiction from intruding on other aspects of one's consciousness.

Nevertheless, there are also physiological consequences of the actual practices of homosexuals as well, because they are contrary to the physiological nature. Those consequences have nothing to do with STDs but the design of the organs used in a way that is contrary to their nature.

Regi

Post 46

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 7:04pm

Robert,

what are you talking about?

Queering the Schools

Regi

Post 47

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 10:29pm

"While the homosexual frequently argues that it would be wrong for them to, "suppress," his desires, their entire lifestyle suppresses what is obvious even to them, what they do is directly opposite what their body's nature is meant for them to do. (I do not mean any particular sexual practice, I mean a man with a man, or a woman with a woman, whatever it is they actually do.)"

this seems to be something of a naturalistic fallacy. the fact that our bodies are anatomically 'meant' to do something does not mean that it is necessarily good or conducive to human happiness that they do it. the classic example here is having children: our bodies are "meant" to produce offspring. yet many people choose to not have children, even though, by taking every action to avoid reproduction, "what they do is directly opposite what their body's nature is meant for them to do."

"human nature" arguments are usually unpersuasive. the very concept of declaring normatives on grounds of "because your nature says so" seems to run into a fallacy: if something is truly an entity's nature, it cannot but do that, so its pointless to tell something to "follow its nature."

What is needed instead of arguments about whether or not someone is properly following human nature (a meaningless question for the reasons mentioned above.) but rather, given the facts of human nature, particularly the facts of happiness and pain, we must judge which actions cause how much pleasure and how much pain over a given time scale and compared with alternatives. we must ask which desires either cause benefit or harm, over what time scale, and why. to ask about "accordance with human nature" is not the real issue: the real issue is: what do you want, and what consequences are you willing to accept as the "cost" of attaining it? unless you can point out that homosexuality in and of itself causes psychological duress, pain, or disintegration above and beyond what heterosexuality causes, or is significantly lesser in terms of the benefits it can bring, simply to say that it is an evasion of what we were meant to do does not cut it. the issue is not some intrinsic purpose, but, practically, what things cause longevity or happiness, versus what things cause pain or death.

"The greatest harm of homosexuality is psychological. I makes one's whole life a contradiction, and requires a compartmentalization, a disintegration of one's psychology, to keep the contradiction from intruding on other aspects of one's consciousness."

contradiction of what? the fact that one was "meant" to be heterosexual? again, what people were "meant" to do is irrelevant and what matters is what either gives them happiness or unhappiness over a given time scale. I don't see what compartmentalization or evasion is at necessary here: such, it seems, would only be necessary if one's values are such that one disapproves of homosexuality. if one was never taught such ideas, I do not see why this would be an issue.

Post 48

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - 11:12pm

Robert,

In your post above, you've appealed to the notion of the "naturalistic fallacy." And it seems you've done so precisely in order to remove a (real or apparent) norm of behavior and thereby place the burden of proof on Regi to show an intractable "harm" from homosexuality within the context of one's life. While earnest to hear Regi's reply, I can't help but to chime-in with a tangential retort - and a re-direct of this "onus" that you have so decisively placed on Regi's shoulders.

This "fallacy" you mention is something I have had to change my view on in the last several years of study. It is something which I now feel is to better understand as the "Natural-Law-as-interpreted-by-mediocre-minds" fallacy.

Robert, I'm personally curious to discover your view on those principles of Natural Law which led to the discovery and validation of natural, inalienable human rights. And especially on how you contrast what's essential to these principles with what's essential to those utilized in Regi's argument.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/03, 11:16pm)

Post 49

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 12:07am

Ed,

"Robert, I'm personally curious to discover your view on those principles of Natural Law which led to the discovery and validation of natural, inalienable human rights."

the key difference between discussion of human rights and the discussion of homosexuality is that, in the case of of human rights, a clear harm can be shown by their absence. societies without the concept of rights can kill you, and, above and beyond mere possibility, even a cursory analysis of the historical record can show that they not only carry within themselves the possibility of fatality, but deliver on this possibility very frequently. ultimately, I would say that one does not need the concept of "natural law", or any specified model of human nature, to realize the necessity of human rights at this point: given the historical record of our time, it can be deduced empirically, even by someone who lacks any sort of theoretical explanation as to why things would work out in such a way. clearly, some understanding human nature may help here, but it will only be relevant to the extent that it is of the very delimited sort I have allowed: facts pertaining to human survival/death or happiness/pain. A matter is only ethical to the extent that it is relevant to these four concepts. the presence or absence of rights is very, very relevant in its effect on these.

I do not mean to say that all facets of human nature are without ethical import. obviously the fact that cyanide can kill you very clearly leads to the moral fact that consuming it is a bad idea. but facts about human nature do not necessarily have ethical or normative import, nor are they the standard of ethics: the standards of ethics are human happiness and survival. a fact of biological ergon, to use the aristotelian term, or "function", is by itself irrelevant: it is only relevant to the extent that it affects one's status as living or dead, happy or unhappy.
(Edited by Robert Bisno on 6/04, 12:10am)

Post 50

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 12:12am

Ed:

also: please define and explain the "Natural-Law-as-interpreted-by-mediocre-minds fallacy" that you contrast with the "naturalistic fallacy".

Post 51

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 4:46am

Okay, Regi: if you want it both ways... be my guest. Just know: It's a choice. :)

Regi writes: "Historically, suicide and psychological problems among blacks have never been significantly statistically different than the general community."

The extent of devastation in the American black community has been well documented; it may not manifest itself in suicide problems, but it does manifest itself in substance abuse, crime, and other conditions. People in groups that have a history of oppression do create a culture around them that internalizes self-hatred. Not every person in that group internalizes such self-hatred; but it is a sociological phenomenon whether we choose to deal with it or not. (I don't want to "play out" a debate about "psychobabble" here---because Regi and I have a go-at-it in the upcoming Free Radical. Suffice it to say, however, there is plenty of discussion of repression in Objectivist periodicals that clarify the meaning and importance of that concept, and its implications for psychology and culture.)

We can talk all we want about the condition of homosexuals in America today: But there is a history of oppression here that cannot be denied: Religious oppression (priests, rabbis, imams, etc. telling their flock that they are immoral for even thinking same-sex thoughts); political oppression (whether we're talking about state-sanctioned priests, i.e., psychiatrists, using all sorts of therapeutic techniques---drugs, electro-shock therapy, and aversion therapy---to "treat" their homosexual clients; or, until recently, selective enforcement of sodomy statutes); social repression (which includes being bullied in a school-yard, being taunted by classmates, being beaten by thugs, or being crucified on a fence). And we're lucky we live in a culture where you don't lose your limbs or life if you get caught performing a homosexual act. Yes, things are better today for gay men and women than they were, say, 40 years ago. But that's because gay men and women have taken to defending themselves and standing up for their right to exist.

BTW, as an aside, when she wrote Atlas Shrugged, Rand declared: "I know that I am challenging the cultural tradition of two and a half thousand years." By this, of course, she meant that she was challenging the altruism and mysticism of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. (The quote comes from Who is Ayn Rand?)

Finally: I have to ask those heterosexuals who think homosexuality is "chosen": Do you get up each day and say: "Today, I think, I'll choose to have sex with my girlfriend or my wife. Whew! Thank goodness! I could have chosen to have sex with my best male friend... but, I chose correctly... tomorrow, I'm not so sure..."

And with all this alleged inner contradiction going on in the psyches of homosexuals: How do you explain the fact that so many great artists, philosophers, and such, have been homosexual? (Camille Paglia talks about this...) I mean: given the profound psychological deterioration that you posit, Regi, it is hard to believe that anybody who is homosexual could have possibly achieved anything other than total and complete self-destruction. Tell that to the ancient Greeks, many of whom celebrated same-sex activity, while providing Western civilization with a cradle of philosophical, artistic, and scientific ideas that are still being played out today. Tell that to the Renaissance men, like Michelangelo... and so forth.

Note: I'm not arguing that homosexuals are great because there are great men and women who are homosexuals. Indeed, there are plenty of homosexual and heterosexual demons. I just don't understand how people who are so fundamentally wrong about one of the most important aspects of their humanity can be so fundamentally right in other areas. Given the Objectivist view that internal corruption often spreads to other areas of one's life, one would think, by the picture you paint, that gay people are such psychological basket cases that they are incapable of even being human, let alone achieving anything worthy of human admiration.

I don't mean this flippantly... I'm honestly baffled.

Post 52

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 5:52am

Hi Robert,

First I want to say thank you, and of course everyone else, for maintaining the high level of rational discussion on this controversial subject. I do not speak for him, but I know Dr. Sciabarra shares my appreciation for the fact that the discussion has remained rational, rather than emotional. We both know, even on this subject, disagreement does constitute judgement.

I may come back to address your particular question, because it is one Ayn Rand had some very specific things to say about--not homosexuality, but the fact that our whole being has a particular nature, and identity, that determines what is good for us and what is not. What the nature is and what the requirements of it are we must discover.

For now, I will just address these comments:

... this seems to be something of a naturalistic fallacy. the fact that our bodies are anatomically 'meant' to do something does not mean that it is necessarily good or conducive to human happiness that they do it.

It is true that anatomical features do not dictate behavior, but that is not my point. If such physical aspects do, "not mean that it is necessarily good or conducive to human happiness that they do it," it certainly cannot mean it is "necessarily good or conducive to human happiness," to act in defiance of that nature. The principle works both ways.

If you want to argue that just because the obvious anatomical design of our organs ifor male/female compatibility does not mean a man ought to be with a woman, that is fine; but, it certainly cannot then be argued that same design means a man ought to be with a man. The design does not mean one has to be with anyone, sexually.

But the question is, if we are going to be with someone sexually, how do we decide which it should be if we ignore our physiological nature, and why should we ignore it? Your chosen premise was, sexual orientation is not predetermined, or, in your own words, "...that no one is born gay."

If sexuality is not determined by genetics or some pre- or post-natal influences, it must be chosen, and if chosen, that choice must be based on something. The one thing it cannot be based on is desire, because we are not given desires, we develop them, and we develop them as a result of our chosen values and purposes.

Let me make this extreme hypothetical case. Suppose our nature was different than it is, and that our sexuality was determined in this peculiar way:

At a certain age there comes a day when we must choose our "sexual orientation." We are free to choose any we like. There is up until that day no sexual desire at all. All we know are the facts about sex, our own physiology, and that of the other sex, and how it all works. The moment we make our choice, all of the desires appropriate to that choice are, "turned on," and behaving according to the chosen orientation is both fully satisfying and the only way that will satisfy us again. How, in this hypothetical situation, would one go about make that choice? What ought they to choose? Could they or should they ignore the physiological aspects of their nature in making that choice? ...and if they do, on what basis would they then make their choice.

In fact, this hypothetical case is not so different from reality. It occurs over time rather than at one particular day, and the the desires are developed concurrent with our choices and the development of our values rather than instantly, but the principle is the same. It is our choices that determine our desires, not the other way around.

It is our nature that determines what is appropriate and necessary for us to do. Our nature is our identity, what we are, and to act contrary to our nature is to act to our own detriment and destruction. It is our volitional nature that makes it necessary for us to live by conscious choice. It is our volitional nature that makes it necessary to make our choices according to knowledge, and to judge which desires may safely be fulfilled, and which must be denied. It is our nature that determines we cannot ingest poison and if, as Ayn Rand says, we want to preserve them, we must comb our hair and cut our nails. There is no aspect of our nature that can be safely ignored when choosing what we must do.

The opposite view, and the whole argument for homosexuality is that desire justifies behavior without this rational judgement--in essence, the only argument for homosexuality is that passion trumps reason. Though entirely personal, homosexuality is nevertheless a tragic and colossal mistake.

You are right, we must judge which actions cause how much pleasure and how much pain over a given time scale and compared with alternatives. we must ask which desires either cause benefit or harm, over what time scale, but you have forgotten it is our natures that determine which actions will cause us pain and pleasure and which desires fulfilled, long term, will harm us or benefit us.

Regi

Post 53

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 6:24am

Allow me to to comment briefly on Dr. Chris' assertion that:

"People in groups that have a history of oppression do create a culture around them that internalizes self-hatred."

Do Jews possess internalized self-hatred? Or have they, time and again, galvanized themselves, pulled together as a group, and made positive contributions for themselves and, incidentally, society?

BTW, I do not dispute the rest of your argument, DDD.

Post 54

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 1:44pm

Robert, you ask:

"Ed:
also: please define and explain the 'Natural-Law-as-interpreted-by-mediocre-minds fallacy' that you contrast with the 'naturalistic fallacy'."

Robert, there are 2 special forms of the naturalistic fallacy:

1) the jump from "is" (descriptive) premises to "ought" (prescriptive) conclusions; an error which was illuminated - but not originally discovered - by the late David Hume

2) and G.E. Moore's non-teleological, frustrated (and frustrating) attempt to define "the good"

Robert, it is form number 2 above that I now understand would be much better described as a "mediocre-minded" fallacy - something based on faulty first principles. This insight stems from discovering 2 errors in Moore's thought:

A) equivocation of a "definition" with an "Identity"

B) steadfast presumption (in spite of earlier Greek insights to the contrary) that "the good" may be presented to a human mind as an abstract property divorced from its originating context.

Chris, you ask:

"Finally: I have to ask those heterosexuals who think homosexuality is 'chosen': Do you get up each day and say: 'Today, I think, I'll choose to have sex with my girlfriend or my wife. Whew! Thank goodness! I could have chosen to have sex with my best male friend... but, I chose correctly... tomorrow, I'm not so sure...'

And with all this alleged inner contradiction going on in the psyches of homosexuals: How do you explain the fact that so many great artists, philosophers, and such, have been homosexual?"

Chris, I believe ("believe" implies reaching a level of understanding still insufficient to settle the issue with finality) in the continuum-theory of sexual orientation touted by recent psychologists. What is essential to the theory is that one's preference is not initially cut & dry or died-in-the-wool, per se. Instead, there are individuals that have levels of preference between 100% heterosexuality and 100% homosexuality. Assuming this is so, notice how preference is a continuous variable while actions are dichotomous (leaving out bisexuality for clear introduction of essentials). We choose behavior at the extremes (leaving out early experimentation, which is not essential to chosen life-style).

The quote from you above assumes that a choice that is made repeatedly does not form habitual thought or action, and I disagree with that assumption. Habits are that which is formed by repeated action, and in this view, the choice - once made a thousand times before - does not present itself to the individual with the same force.

As to your contrast between the "alleged inner contradiction" and the common outer instances of excellence found in homosexuals, I merely proclaim that "rationality and productiveness" will necessarily trump "sexual orientation" as they are factors which carry much more weight in the context of a human life.

Note: Regi (or even you!) may take me to task for my use of the word "rationality" here (while implicitly acknowledging an alleged inner contradiction). To this I retort that morality is like a normative "journey up a mountain" where inter-individual progress is hard to compare/measure - because it depends on our chosen paths, and not merely on our walking/climbing speed. This does not preclude the measurement of intra-individual progress, and perhaps this easier measure is all that we will need to achieve lasting peace and happiness on this planet.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/04, 1:46pm)

Post 55

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 2:21pm

Scott, I am not Jewish, but there is a lot that has been written from all over the ideological spectrum about the phenomenon of the "self-hating Jew" and the kinds of case-specific, sometimes self-destructive, actions that this provokes among individual Jews. (Indeed, there are also "self-hating Italians" who try to "distance" themselves from those in their "community" who are identified with the Mafia or who are "physical"---rather than "intellectual"---laborers.)

I am not going to step into a minefield and speculate about the validity of the construct; I only know that an even cursory google search for "self-hating Jew" will turn up thousands of links, some on the left, some on the right, some outside Judaism, some inside Judaism, some Zionists, some anti-Zionists, some who even bring up the historical example of Jews collaborating with Nazis in the death camps to win an extra day of life while they led their brethren to the slaughter. (In such a nightmare existence, of course, there are few, if any, moral choices to be made; the greatest crime of those camps is that they made choice, as such, the enemy of rationality and morality; see Sophie's Choice, for example).

It is very hard to gauge the effects of anti-Semitism and 2000-year old charges of "deicide" on individual men and women of the Jewish faith. Sometimes it leads to an even greater "cosmopolitanism" or a call for "assimilation"; sometimes it leads to even greater self-ghettoization. For example, I live in Brooklyn, where there are many closed, orthodox, Hasidic Jewish communities that have, for the most part, sealed themselves off from the outside world to preserve a culture, and, perhaps, to act as a bulwark against the vicious anti-Semitism that they have faced. There are positive and negative aspects that are entailed in this kind of sociology, but speculating on these, again, would take us well beyond the present scope.

The whole point is that hatred of a group has differential effects on individual men and women. (A Jewish friend of mine once remarked: "Anti-Semitism did one great thing: it gave birth to the Jewish comedian"--implying of course that humor has provided many Jews with terrific armour against hatred.)

On the subject of blacks and the effects of a history of slavery and racism, see Chapter 12 of my book, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, particularly pp. 343-48, where I discuss Rand's work and the work of other Objectivist writers, such as George Reisman, who traces the social disintegration in the African-American community to a history of political intervention: slavery at first, then, zoning laws, rent control, public housing, public education, urban "renewal," municipal health and sanitation services, franchise and licensing laws, and a welfare system that nourishes dependence and the psychology of victimization. Rand argued that this psychology was nourished even by some civil rights leaders, since victimization was "a precondition of the power to control a pressure group."

I think we ignore these sociological dimensions at our peril.

Post 56

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 2:37pm

Ed, thanks for your provocative thoughts here; I too "believe" there is much to recommend in the "continuum theory" of sexual orientation. Unfortunately, research into "sexual orientation" and "sexual preference" is riddled with many conflicting theories. I think we just don't know enough to judge "once and for all"; we certainly don't know enough to moralize. And, in any event, even if it could be proved that all sexual orientation is rooted in tacit and habitual "choices" made in the formative years of childhood and adolescence, it would still not mean that we could or should moralize about these choices. There are just too many complex factors at work in human sexual psychology, and these have been manifested across all cultures and all epochs.

In general, though I find the sociological dimension of interest (see my last post), I don't even like talking and generalizing about whole groups of people (which is one of the reasons I've been complaining about those who would treat "gays"---or, for that matter, blacks, Jews, or any other group---as a monolith).

(Edited by sciabarra on 6/04, 2:43pm)

Post 57

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 2:38pm

Chris,

Clarification:
In the post above, I said that "Regi (or even you!) may take me to task for my use of the word "rationality" here (while implicitly acknowledging an alleged inner contradiction)."

Then I started rambling on about climbing mountains, necessarily being presented with different paths in life, and how inter-individual moral excellence is difficult to judge/compare.

What I was getting at is that it is likely that we all harbor a contradiction. It may be an unimportant one with little existential value, or it may be a important one. And beyond importance per se, "ease of identification" (obviousness) is another continuum that contradictions will fall on. An example is the obvious contradiction of the skepticist - claiming that they've used their mind to discover and validate the fact of reality that human minds cannot be used to discovery and validate the facts of reality. Less obvious contradictions abound, and here is my point:

The "ease of identification" doesn't not imply the level of existential value (they are orthogonal). An individual's sexual preference is identified fairly easily by that individual (by introspection), but that does not necessitate that it is also fairly important. In other words, the "quantity" of existential value coming from sexual orientation remains to be measured. However, the "fact-ness" of relevant existential value is what is in question here (ie. Does sexual orientation affect an individual's ability to gain or keep values in the context of their life?).

The mountain analogy is my attempt to provide a context for the exploration of this question. It illustrates limitations inherent in judging morality between individuals and between the connected life choices we make.

The take-away message is that contradiction-free perfection (the "summit") is a noble goal and may serve as a benchmark for progress, but that our interests will be best served with somewhat asymptotic approaches toward perfection, foregoing some obvious advances because of our current "footing" on the mountain.

Perfection is where the sights are set, progress is where the joy lies (happiness is in the life-long journey toward the summit - it's in the climbing).

To be absolutely clear:
I do not know the weighted importance of sexual orientation with regard to human happiness. However, your position implies that it has no import at all. I disagree with you on this, but I admit that I do not know the relative existential import.

As to the nature-nurture aspect, do you acknowledge the continuum theory of orientation? If so, do you then acknowledge that we make the choice to live "out at the ends" of the continuum (instead of in the middle)?

Added notes: Just noticed that our "paths crossed" while posting and you already shared your views on most of the issues! Further response is welcomed but not anticipated.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/04, 2:48pm)

Post 58

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 3:02pm

Ed, I think we crossed in the mail; I would not say that sexual orientation has no importance for human happiness; I just don't think we can generalize. I think different individuals treat their orientation differently. (Taking even the example of "early experimentation" that you raise: such experimentation speaks to different kids... differently.)

As to the continuum theory: When I say that I "believe" there is much to recommend, I'm only saying that sexual orientation seems to manifest itself in many different ways and with greater fluidity than either extreme would wish to recognize. Isolated choices, habitual choices, life experiences, affectational preferences, environmental considerations, developmental conditions, even living conditions (all-boys schools, prisons, etc.), and, quite possibly a "genetic" and "biological" component as well---may all play some part in constituting any given individual's sexual orientation. And that mix seems to vary from person to person. As I said: Given the multi-causal possibilities and our general ignorance on the subject, I think it is important not to generalize and moralize about these issues. (And to anticipate one criticism: This does not mean that it is impossible to judge a specific individual's choices and actions with regard to his sexuality.)

Post 59

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 8:55pm