| | As interesting as this all is, I personally don't see the need for any great debate on this topic... An answer is available which makes objective sense, and can satisfy everybody, without making slimy and dishonest compromises of truth. In other words, it can be incorporated into the philosophy of Objectivism. (and mind you, it's not a short answer, but it's as short as I could make it...)
People are born with certain levels of overwhelm with regards to their nervous systems. Some babies are born with nervous systems which are overwhelmed easily by stressful situations and to them, certain types of situations, such as highly competitive ones, are noxious and intolerable.
Other babies are born with nervous systems which perform in an opposite manner: they need lots of drama and conflict to feel right, like a sort of craving.
Several papers from leading researchers in the field of psychobiology have been published on this topic. Harvard professor emeritus of psychology Jerome Kagan, Ph.D., is a longstanding researcher and proponent of neonatal temperaments being determinative factors in infant likes and dislikes. Other research discusses the role of inborn, non-sexual arousal (alertness) in all sorts of proclivities, including homosexuality.
As I've said before, the heterosexual world is a highly competitive, high-stakes place... It's not suited for everyone. In actuality, in any system, only those organisms which best thrive on the conditions of the system will emerge the most victorious.
In the case of the game of heterosexuality, that means those "organisms" which thrive on the conflict and constant stress involved; in other words, that second class of babies I spoke of earlier... the perpetually, insanely bored and starved for drama.
Those organisms who truly find all that noxious and painful, would naturally have no real zeal for the game, and as makes sense, opt out of playing it... perhaps in favor of a different, less savage and brutal game. In other words, homosexuality.
This is obviously an argument in defense of both hetero- and homosexuality as rational and feasible states of existence.
On the flip side, however, full homosexuality does not lead to procreation... for that, you have to incorporate elements of heterosexuality. Guess why.
In the animal world, the "goal" is to outcompete your rivals and breed, breed, breed. Yet Ayn Rand's Objectivism draws a sharp and necessary distinction between what are the goals of the animal world, and what are the necessary goals of the human world, an argument Rand herself illustrated by never bearing children.
In Rand's estimate, the goal of the human world is to develop and actualize one's own most noble values in the form of passionate work and personal relationships. No mention is made of the importance of children... indeed, children are basically nonexistent in her novels, yet she discusses the importance of raising them properly in an essay entitled The Comprachicos.
Could not all of these conditions be met by homosexuals? And does not Rand's own definition of the human purpose in life, to morally actualize and make a mark in the world, as opposed to breeding as the animals do, ultimately capture homosexuality as well as heterosexuality?
My point here is that the game of heterosexuality is what it is... if it appeals to your native temperament, jump in and have a ball. If it does not appeal to your native temperament, play another game. Heterosexuality has its own viciously ugly and nasty attributes as does homosexuality, though they be different in nature.
Those who choose either game can choose to play it for the sake of vanity, self-actualization, or procreation... or whatever. Both games are equally legitimate yet also illegitimate. It's just a matter of choosing which one suits your temperament.
And, barring even that, is anything ever really set in stone?
|
|
