About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
heh heh heh.

pretty good.

of course i know which part will be responded to:

"Regi, how did you discover that you were heterosexual? Was it not because you began to feel certain physical desires, and a sexual attraction to particular girls?? Was it not your emotions that told you that you were heterosexual?"


from Ayn Rand, in the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

"Emotions are the automatic result of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious;....

"But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of his body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body -- the standard of value operating his emotional mechanism is not. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgements."


This, i think, goes along with the idea that homosexuality stems from ("faulty") premises.

I don't necessarily agree though.. I mean, with so many people being attracted to the opposite sex.. we must really agree on a lot of premises! (or agree often on a few premises..)

Post 1

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 7:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A truly wonderful response. I remember when I was first engaging in these discussions in the 1960's, that I used to try to frame the discussion by saying, "So what do you thing happened in your childhood that made you heterosexual?"

I believe, as I said on Regi's thread, that we don't know what causes homosexuality. A better way to put it is to say that sexual orientation is such a complex issue that we ought to be careful not to think we know more than we do.

I also remember Nathaniel Branden writing somewhere that he considered homosexuality a "problem" in development. Does anyone remember where?

Post 2

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 8:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Lindsay (stated elsewhere) that an individual's sexuality is innate. I also believe a person's personality (not to be confused with character) is innate. I've read that scientists have found differences between the brains of heterosexual & homosexual men (the size of some part of the latter's is smaller than the former's) and they may have also discovered the "shy gene".

It is knowledge that is not innate. We cannot begin to learn until birth when our senses begin to gather material to send to our minds. But our sexuality and personality are predetermined. And we cannot have emotions interacting with our sexuality and personality without knowledge (and previously formed value judgements) to stimulate them.

As far as the purpose of sexuality, it does not have a purpose unto itself. It is an existent. And the purpose of sex depends on the value being sought by the individual engaging in it. One may engage in sex for purposes of pleasure, reproduction, money, etc., but a mind is needed to choose the purpose.

Bob



Post 3

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 10:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

You said, "I hardly know where to start to specify my disagreements with you." You didn't need to specify them at all, but I cannot tell you how delighted I am that you did.

You say, "One problem you must deal with is that Ayn Rand disagreed with you." I do not regard that a problem at all. Lots of people disagree with me. My statement that Objectivism is "a specific contribution made by a single individual who gave her contribution the name Objectivism," is merely a condensation of Ayn Rand's longer statement:

"If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term 'Objectivism,' my reason is that 'Objectivism' is the name I have given to my philosophy—therefore, anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption ... of trying to pass his thinking off as mine.... What is the proper policy on this issue? If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with--and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own." [Ayn Rand, "To the Readers of The Objectivist Forum,” The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 1, No. 1.]

Of course, you may disagree with that.

The problem with your argument is a problem of identification. In the end, it is correct philosophy that matters, not the name one gives it. By your principle, all correct philosophy ought to be called Aristotelianism. Objectivism is just Aristotelianism with "extended applications and implications and additional theories by other people," in which, when "we find a mistake in a collateral theory," we correct it. But that way is folly, and the problem is just what has resulted, endless debates about "is this Objectivism," or "is that Objectivism," while the real issues of philosophy are languishing.

"You wrote that: 'Her statement, "homosexuality" is a manifestation of psychological 'flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises,' is hardly the way one expresses one's personal taste; it is the way one expresses an objective evaluation.' Yes, it is the way one should only express an objective evaluation."

Well, that is all I said. But you add:

"However, It is a fact that Rand had no basis on which to make such a statement."

Are we to suppose "reason" is no longer a sound basis?

"She had never read anything about homosexuality, she had no familiarity whatever with the scientific findings about it, she had never questioned a homosexual acquaintance about it,"

First of all, I cannot imagine how anyone could know any of these things as facts. How could you know everything Ayn Rand ever read. I have no idea everything my wife reads. (She reads at least three books a week and I could just never keep up.) But even if Ayn had read every book ever written about homosexuality, it is unlikely she would have learned much about it from them. If you go into any public library, and take out every book there is on homosexuality (leaving out all books with a religious flavor) you will only be presented with one side of the issue. If it is true she, "never read anything about homosexuality," it only means she was free to make her own objective evaluation.

After all, everything original that Ayn Rand wrote, she never read about ever, because it had never been written anywhere, ever.

As for the, "scientific findings," there aren't any. Chosen human behavior is not determined by the facts of science, else it wouldn't be chosen. I am also very curious about how you know the details of every private conversation she ever had.

As for, "she had only a feeling of repugnance (probably instilled by her rather traditional Russian background) toward the phenomenon," when I say anything like that around here, I am accused of "psychologizing." I wonder if I could get away with saying, "the reason you feel the way you do about homosexuality is because of you liberal Jewish rearing," (which, of course, I do not believe for a minute and would never seriously say.) You see what's wrong with that, though, don't you?

"Further, she agreed with Nathaniel's concept of repression, ..." Well, as Linz says, "she made some mistakes."

"Regi, I think you do not understand the meaning of the subconscious or of 'a subconscious mental process.'"

You are absolutely correct. I do not understand it. I do not understand lots of such words, like transubstantiation, transcendental meditation, reincarnation. The reason I do not understand them is because they are all, subconscious included, mystic nonsense with nothing in them to understand.

Here is classic phsychobable: "It refers, in effect, to the integrating functions of the mind." Well, what are those functions? What exactly do they do? That word, "integration," has a very specific meaning. It means to organize in a non-contradictory way. Mental integration is a <i>conscious</i> function, not some mysterious something that causes percepts in some inexplicable way.

I wondered why my article, "Perception: A Mistake at the Heart of Objectivist Epistemology," was originally rejected, and why the resistance to it was so shrill. I wondered, because SOLO seemed to want to make philosophical progress, to explore new ground, but in the face of the first really new idea in objective philosophy in fifty years, it was rejected outright, and dismissed with as little possible discussion as possible.

You have no idea how much I appreciate your making me understand the nature of that objection. It was not, as I supposed, that the wording of the title suggested a repudiation of some aspect of Objectivism. It is not that at all. It sweeps away one of the last problems of Objectivist epistemology, grounding it in just the kind of objective understanding the nature of perception required. I assumed no one read it, and that it was rejected because of a misunderstanding.

You have opened my eyes to the real reason it was rejected. It was rejected because it eliminates the last vestiges of Kantian mysticism in Objectivism, that, "mysterious subconscious integration process," which substituted for an objective explanation of perception. By providing a simple and obvious explanation of the relationship between sensation and perception, eliminating the need for that inexplicable "magic" process that turned one thing into another (sensations into percepts, like transubstantiation, or psychological transmutation) by "some" means (what means? Blankout!), the last resort of those who claim they have feelings and desires for which they cannot account was wiped away.

It is just now that I see it is all that is wrong with the idea of the, "subconscious," my article attacked. Thank you for helping me see that.

By the way, please do not bother arguing against my thesis on perception without reading it. You do not want to be accused of having a position on a subject you never read anything about.

"For example, when you were writing your article, not every word you would use was present in your consciousness, nor even every argument; the words and ideas you required, and the connections among the ideas, were fed from your subconscious as as you thought and worked," you said. But this is just another example of what is wrong with the pseudo-concept subconscious. It lumps together several different disparate, fairly well understood concepts. It is a mish-mash that can only confuse. I could not write a single word without being conscious of it. Where do those words come from. They do not come from some mysterious dark hole called the subconscious, they come from <i>memory</i>. My 89 year old father has some trouble writing, because sometime the words won't come. If writing were as "automatic" as you suggest, it would not be necessary for him to be conscious of the words in order to write them.

"Regi, how did you discover that you were heterosexual?" What an absurd question. It is like asking, "how did you discover you are not a pyromaniac." Frankly, the question never came up, but if it had, the answer is simple: I looked at me, I looked at her, and said, "well its pretty obvious how that's supposed to work."

The one to ask that question of is the pyromaniac or homosexual. "How did you discover you were a pyromaniac?" or "how did you discover you were a homosexual?" We both already know the answer. The had a feeling, a desire, some passion that told them. In other words, they grant cognition to feelings. When I was a manager in various corporations, (I have no idea why), I was often sought out for help by people, often those who did not work for me, about problems they had, frequently with certain compulsions, for example. Maybe it was because they knew I never judged anyone except on actual performance.

One question I almost always asked was similar to yours, "how do you know this feeling you have which you cannot resist is telling you to ... (have drink, have an affair, take the drug, beat someone up, etc.) The answer was always, "they just knew?" or a look of bewilderment. It was obvious they had never asked themselves that question. I usually had to explain, "how do you know that feeling 'I must have drink' does not really mean, 'I must brush my teeth?'" By helping them understand they had to provide the "interpretation" or "meaning" of a feeling themselves, they were often able to see they were being controlled by the feeling, not their own choice. I do not know why this technique so often worked, but it did. I do know, so long as people believe their feelings actually tell them something (beyond the fact that they have the feeling),  there is no hope of regaining rational control of one's life.

"Discovering that you had the desires of a heterosexual," was certainly never true of me. I discovered that sex was pleasurable, and I discovered the nature of the difference between boys and girls, and put two and two together. Once I figured that out, the desires followed. All desires are the result of what we think and are conscious of.

"You wrote: 'Sex just happens to be the means of reproduction with which human beings are endowed, just as eating is the means of nourishment with which humans beings are endowed.' Yes, and if God had intended man to fly, he would have given him wings."

Frankly, Barbara, this bit of disingenuousness is a bit surprising. You know that was not my point at all. I was merely pointing out the fact, if we happened to reproduce some other way, we would not have genitals at all. The fact that we have them, (instead of stamens, for example), is because we are the kind of beings we are. In my book I point out that we do not have to follow our natures, we can, for example, be fed through our noses (as is sometimes done under extreme medical conditions), but it is not normal.

Regi



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you Barbara for you response to Regi.
Regi wrote something about homosexuality being reproductive in purpose, so gays are going against nature. How can he justify such a statement when Ayn Rand chose not to have children, yet still upheld sexual relations?
Someone once said (I forget who or the exact quote) that God created homosexuals to do the creative work without the encumberance of children. I think Rand could apprecuiate the sentiment.
I still think Linz summed this whole discussion up nicely when he said that gays do not need to sanction this kind of unearned guilt for their orientation. This homosexual stopped sanctioning such guilt from the church, why should I accept it from Objectivism?
Because, contrary to some opinions here, it IS a gay thing; you wouldn't understand.

To those of you, such as Barbara, who have made the effort, and DO understand, thank you. To those who don't make the effort, yet continue to make your judgments...If you don't understand, or can't , fine. Maybe it's not for you to understand. But when it comes to your opinions on the subject, all I want to say is "But I don't think of you."

And if you think that's harsh, well, that's because you don't know what it's like to be gay.

Post 5

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi joe,

Regi wrote something about homosexuality being reproductive in purpose
 
I think you meant sexuality, not homosexuality, but that is not what I said. I only referred to the fact, if the means of human reproduction did not happen to be sexual, we would not have genitals. I never implied the sole proper use of our sexuality was reproduction, only that its nature is obviously meant to be used, for pleasure or reproduction, between a male and a female.

Regi


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 12:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I never implied the sole proper use of our sexuality was reproduction, only that its nature is obviously meant to be used, for pleasure or reproduction, between a male and a female."


meant by whom? it is not so obvious to me.

clearly sex between a male and a female (assuming both are fit) is A means of procreation, but how do you know that it is "meant" to be the means of sexual pleasure?

i suppose then, that test tube babies were not "meant" to be?

"Frankly, Barbara, this bit of disingenuousness is a bit surprising. You know that was not my point at all. I was merely pointing out the fact, if we happened to reproduce some other way, we would not have genitals at all. The fact that we have them, (instead of stamens, for example), is because we are the kind of beings we are. In my book I point out that we do not have to follow our natures, we can, for example, be fed through our noses (as is sometimes done under extreme medical conditions), but it is not normal."

normal, by what standard? is it normal for us to cook our food before eating it? to wear clothes and live in shelter?

""Regi, how did you discover that you were heterosexual?" What an absurd question. It is like asking, "how did you discover you are not a pyromaniac." Frankly, the question never came up, but if it had, the answer is simple: I looked at me, I looked at her, and said, "well its pretty obvious how that's supposed to work.""

supposed, by whom? why is it supposed to work that way? because it is a way of reproducing? what if reproduction is not one's end?

you sound like a remarkable person. never, in all my years, have i thought: "i want to have sex with women, because doing so is the means of reproduction, which is the normal, natural thing to do with my genitals."

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 1:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi, as Eli said: Meant by whom? God? Rand? Mother Nature?

If you answer biology, or nature, just consider this: Rand spoke highly of the artist who, when someone commented that a msucle in one the artist's paintings didn't exist, replied, "Well. it should have." And it was Rand who wrote "I love the Earth, I hate the form" (paraphrased.) Clearly Rand didn't restrict herself to the dictates of nature.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 2:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

On first glance, I agreed with Ed that Chris and Regi were using the term “normal” differently. Chris, quoting Rand, referring to normal in the sense of “average” or “unexceptional” (e.g. “a man of normal intelligence.”) Regi in the sense of “standard” or “regular,” maybe even “natural” (e.g. “it’s normal for humans to move about on two legs.”)

 

But then I realized the two uses are integrated. What nature “gives” us is unexceptional.

 

It’s man’s nature to adapt the “standard” or the “regular”, the “natural” for his own gain and happiness. He can take the unexceptional or the average and enhance it to make his life better.

 

Observe how animals mate. It’s functional and quite unexceptional. Observe how humans are capable of making love. It can be a complex, nuanced, conceptual, sublime experience, incorporating the sophisticated “ritual” of courting, romancing, flirting, ad then kissing, foreplay, etc. None of these were intended by nature, these are man’s creations, transforming a functional act of procreation into something much greater.

 

So Regi’s “normal use of sexual organs” has few if any implications. What’s the normal use of our hands? What’s the normal use of our mouths? (Was it “meant” to chew gum or savor fine wine? Forget about oral sex, what about just regular kissing? Is that the normal use of our mouths?) Why adopt a monistic, “intended-by-nature” approach, ruling out creative, new, pleasure-inducing alternatives?

 

(Edited by Glenn Lamont on 9/12, 3:08pm)


Post 9

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What a fantastic post Glen!

Glen wrote: "What’s the normal use of our hands? What’s the normal use of our mouths? (Was it “meant” to chew gum or savor fine wine? Forget about oral sex, what about just regular kissing? Is that the normal use of our mouths?) Why adopt a monistic, “intended-by-nature” approach, ruling out creative, new, pleasure-inducing alternatives?"

I have avoided this thread, one of my reasons is that love and how I make it is so intensely personal that for me there is no debate about it--hence I am not too interested in how one should or shouldn't behave.

But I thought Glen's comment here is intensely beautiful.

Michael

Note: My apologies Barbara, I mistook this thread for the other...I'll read your article now.

(Edited by Newberry on 9/12, 5:09pm)


Post 10

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ok, Barbara,

 

What a stunning job. Very thoughtful. I like the way you state broad issues of subconscious mental processes, quote others, relate personal touches, and bring up introspective questions, which were very poignant. A very good argument.

 

Michael


Post 11

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 7:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just as soon as I can, I'll answer other people who posted comments, including Regi, of course. But first I want to say something to Joe Maurone.

Joe, you wrote: "I still think Linz summed this whole discussion up nicely when he said that gays do not need to sanction this kind of unearned guilt for their orientation. This homosexual stopped sanctioning such guilt from the church, why should I accept it from Objectivism?"

That very much needed to be said. From everything I've read, from everything I've heard -- and it amounts to a good deal -- there is not a shred of evidence to justify the idea that there is some kind of psychological or moral flaw involved in homosexuality. There is no evidence in science, no evidence in religion, no evidence in Objectivism. I am very glad that you do not accept the unearned guilt that Ayn Rand (not Objectivism, which holds that convictions are worthless unless rationally justified) would have you carry. Albert Einstein was a genius; he believed in God. Ayn Rand was a genius; she believed that homosexuality resulted from psychological flaws. She had no more evidence for her belief that homosexuals were "corrupt" than Einstein had for his belief in God.

I have seen so many good people horribly and unjustly hurt by this view of homosexuality. It makes me furious to see the pain that has been caused by the careless abandon with which some people who call themselves Objectivists throw around terms like "corrupt," "immoral." "sick," about a sexual orientation they do not understand, know nothing about, and do not trouble themselves to investigate.

Some time ago, I had an acquaintance who was a was a psychiatrist. One day he told me that he would be doing group therapy that afternoon with several homosexual men. I had occasionally sat in on his groups, and I asked if I might do so that day. He agreed. I watched and listened as he spoke with a young man -- probably not more than 21 or 22 -- who obviously became miserably depressed as the therapy proceeded. When the session ended and the group had gone, I said to the psychiatrist: "Please give me your proof that homosexuality is a mental illness." What happened would have been amusing were it not the evidence of a tragedy. He opened his mouth as if to speak, said nothing, looked startled, closed his mouth, and sat silently for long moments. Then he said, very quietly, "Barbara. . . I have no proof."

To his credit, he never again tried to "cure" a homosexual.

Barbara

Post 12

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 7:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Question: Why did nature make sex pleasurable?

Answer: To ensure that humans reproduce and the species lives on. 

I've read of research which suggests that part of the reason human males (homo or hetero) have an urge to be promiscuous is because in the early days of humanity, infant mortality rates were so high that it was important to create as many children as possible.  Additionally, the desire to have sex with as many women as possible helped ensure that a man would spread his seed beyond the gene pool of his immediate family or tribe. This might explain the prevelance of polygamy in many primitive societies.  (Note that while the above theories seems plausible to me, I do not consider them an excuse for infidelity or rampant promiscuity).

I would argue that humans may have evolved socially at rate that was too fast for our deeply ingrained sexual urges to co-evolve.  For example, in our society, the appropriate age for a woman to have a baby is much older than in primitive societies.  This is because we live in a complex society which requires advanced skills to survive - these skills take a long time to hone.  Having a child prior to being emotionally, intellectually, and financially stable (which may be at age 21 to 25 at the earliest) is a tremendous hindrance to achieving personal success and happiness.  Yet nature has wired humans in a way where a female receives her reproductive capability far earlier than the point where she should even be having sex, let alone bearing a child.  Same is true for us guys.  For this reason and others, conception is avoided  far more than it is sought in sexual encounters in our society.  (And one might speculate that of the pregnancies that do occur, a substantial portion of those were not planned or intended). 

In general, I would venture to say that most people view sex as an exercise in pleasure and enjoyment rather than a means of procreation.  This would suggest a disconnect between what nature "intends" what humans actually do. 

As a heterosexual, I don't know what makes a man prefer another man over a woman for sex.  I can't comprehend it.  Yet, knowing how powerful my own heterosexual urges are, I know enough to know that sexual desires aren't arrived at through a rational process.  Though my orientation fits into nature's design of what makes the species continue to exist, there are sexual acts that I desire and enjoy which have nothing whatsoever to do with reproducing.  I suppose I could choose to act against my nature and not engage in these acts, but if these acts don't infringe on anyone else's rights, why would I want to do that?

In summary, I believe humans are in a unique position to "cheat" nature, and I don't mean that in a negative sense.  Nature made reproducing immensely pleasurable to ensure the act takes place.  Since orgasm is arguably the most intense physical pleasure we can experience, we should fully take advantage of that. 

Of course, since there can be negative consequences to having sex (unwanted pregnancy and STD's etc), it is important that we employ our sexual capacity in a rational manner.  The committed monogamous relationship remains the best avenue for one to explore his or her sexuality in our society. 

(Edited by Pete on 9/12, 8:01pm)


Post 13

Monday, September 13, 2004 - 4:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara,

Some time ago, I had an acquaintance who was a was a psychiatrist. One day he told me that he would be doing group therapy that afternoon with several homosexual men. I had occasionally sat in on his groups, and I asked if I might do so that day. He agreed. I watched and listened as he spoke with a young man -- probably not more than 21 or 22 -- who obviously became miserably depressed as the therapy proceeded. When the session ended and the group had gone, I said to the psychiatrist: "Please give me your proof that homosexuality is a mental illness." What happened would have been amusing were it not the evidence of a tragedy. He opened his mouth as if to speak, said nothing, looked startled, closed his mouth, and sat silently for long moments. Then he said, very quietly, "Barbara. . . I have no proof."
 
Barbara, do you happen to know how many of those young men are still alive?

All of my very good homosexual friends, with the exception of those I have made recently, have died. All those deaths were directly related to their homosexual practices. I would have liked to change them, if I could, but while I had long loving conversations with them, I never attempted even to persuade them to change. It was very hard not to, but doing right is sometimes hard. Since we are now using anecdote as evidence, mine seems at least as important as yours.

If I may paraphrase, "I have seen so many good people horribly and unjustly damage and destroy their lives by this practice of homosexuality. It makes me furious to see the pain that has been caused by their careless abandon which some people who call themselves Objectivists ignore, as though consequences did not matter. They do not trouble themselves to investigate."

As for this: "Objectivists throw around terms like "corrupt," "immoral." "sick," about a sexual orientation they do not understand, know nothing about ..."

From my article, Freedom of Speech means Freedom to Offend:

"Harassing, bullying, offensive, and hateful speech are reprehensible and ubiquitous because the world is full of hateful, ignorant, boorish, and careless people. It has always been so. [I quite agree it is shameful that Objectivists are among the boorish and bullying] 

"... In the past it was always assumed words, however hateful, however crude, however insulting or demeaning, were only words and whatever effect they had was determined, not by the speaker or writer, but the listener and reader. Words could be ignored. It is what every child learned, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

"But this new class of beings are sensitive, their feelings are easily hurt, and words are what they fear above all things. They are the "thin-skinned," ...

I Quote: "A theme close to my heart, Regi. Alas, I fear some of the *most* thin-skinned are among our own ranks. It must be the effect of all the touchy-feely stuff in the schools. The slightest hint of rough & tumble & grown-up kids run snivelling to Mom. Pseudo-sensitivity at the expense of sense. The Age of Umbrage. Poppycock & piffle, all of it!"
---Lindsay Perigo



Regi



Post 14

Monday, September 13, 2004 - 7:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"All of my very good homosexual friends, with the exception of those I have made recently, have died. All those deaths were directly related to their homosexual practices."

I find this argument totally repugnant. All those deaths were directly related to HIV infection, is that what you mean? If everyone infected with Mad Cow Disease has eaten meat, should we all become vegetarians? In the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, noone knew for certain how it was transmitted. To blame anyone, then, for being exposed is wrong. In the early stages of the epidemic, there was no known treatment, and most people infected died. To blame them for dying is wrong. Now that more is known about the prevention, transmission, and treatment of HIV all people should take care to protect their body against it. And they have, the rates of infection with HIV and death from AIDS are much lower than before. Yay for science.

Post 15

Monday, September 13, 2004 - 10:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ashley, I agree.  We shouldn't confuse homosexuality per se with reckless sexual behavior and promiscuity.  Regi, assuming you are referring to AIDS/HIV, your friends most likely died as a result of having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and that behavior is not a specific attribute of homosexuality in and of itself.  That a substantial portion of gay men engage in promiscuous behavior is irrelevant.

Post 16

Monday, September 13, 2004 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ashley,

To blame them for dying is wrong.

If I didn't know you said this without thinking, I would have to consider you very callous. They were my friends. I never "blamed" them for anything, much less for dying.

Maybe my friends were wrong, but they blamed their sickness on their homosexuality. And AIDS was not the killer. It never is. It is always some other desease that takes advantage of a compromised immune system. Most, however, died of hepatitis, without AIDS.

Pete,

That a substantial portion of gay men engage in promiscuous behavior is irrelevant.
 
It is? Check you premises.

Regi


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Monday, September 13, 2004 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete writes:

"Question: Why did nature make sex pleasurable?

Answer: To ensure that humans reproduce and the species lives on. "


Then why childbirth is so painful and dangerous? And child rearing so difficult? I've long since stopped believing that all nature's design must be optimal. Actually I don't really like the word "design" here. Nature selects, it does not designs.

Yes, sex between male and female is our way to reproduce, but homosexuality is also part of the nature. The phenomenon is widely spread in the animal kingdom (and not to mention the other kingdoms of life). Why, I don't know. One theory is that it may be one of nature's way for population control, but I can't give any reference on this. Yes, homosexual behavior is in the minority and thus is considered by some "abnormal", but I'd consider it part of nature's design as well.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 9/13, 2:55pm)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 9/13, 2:56pm)


Post 18

Monday, September 13, 2004 - 5:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong,

Thanks for commenting on my post, allow me to reply.

I first wrote:
"Question: Why did nature make sex pleasurable?

Answer: To ensure that humans reproduce and the species lives on. "
 
To which you replied:

Then why childbirth is so painful and dangerous? And child rearing so difficult? I've long since stopped believing that all nature's design must be optimal. Actually I don't really like the word "design" here. Nature selects, it does not designs.
Allow me to rephrase the question:

Why did natural selection make the act of sexual intercourse immensely pleasurable?

I still believe the best answer to this question is that nature attached intense pleasure to mating in order to motivate us to reproduce.  If you have a better answer, please offer it.

Regarding childbirth: it is painful for the obvious reason of the size of the opening and the size of the baby.  It can indeed be dangerous as well.  But our species would cease to exist if the event didn't take place. 

Regarding rearing a child: it is so difficult because a human is not born with automatic survival skills, and parents have to guide a child for many years before it can sustain itself effectively.  Children need to learn many lessons the hard way.

Perhaps it is precisely because of the respective challenges of child birth and child rearing that nature had to offer other incentives to engage in the act of breeding.

You go on to write:

Yes, sex between male and female is our way to reproduce, but homosexuality is also part of the nature. The phenomenon is widely spread in the animal kingdom (and not to mention the other kingdoms of life).

I don't know much about the presence of homosexuality in other species.  If you or anyone else can guide me to any resources or links on this subject, I will happilly check them out.  From the very few examples I've heard of, the behavior that takes place is in fact bisexual.  Are there any other species which contain a certain percentage of their population exclusively exercising their sexual capacity with members of the same sex? I'd be curious to know.

You go on to suggest that homosexuality might provide some sort of evolutionary advantage by saying:

One theory is that it may be one of nature's way for population control, but I can't give any reference on this. Yes, homosexual behavior is in the minority and thus is considered by some "abnormal", but I'd consider it part of nature's design as well. 

I am initially skeptical of the population control hypothesis since I believe the homosexual orientation has been around for a long time, especially during the early age of humanity when overpopulation was not a concern (if anything, fertility and baby- making were probably highly valued traits).  But someone more knowledgeable on this topic is certainly welcome to chime in.

I don't think there is anything wrong with designating homosexuality as abnormal - 'abnormal' does not imply 'immoral'.  People who are left handed could be said to be abnormal after all...

(Edited by Pete on 9/13, 5:12pm)


Post 19

Monday, September 13, 2004 - 11:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi, you ask me to check my premises.  I can honestly say I don't know exactly what you're getting at.  Allow me to backtrack in my general line of thinking:

I believe that gay people are capable of entering into sexual relations with one another in a rational manner.  This means that they have the ability to meet a potential partner, abstain from sex during the initial courtship, get tested for STD's together once they realize they want to get intimate with one another, and then engage in an exclusive relationship wherein they can then have all the sex they want in a risk-free environment.  Do you disagree with this, or am I just misreading your comments?


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.