RoR: Forum

The question "is homosexuality morally good" is invalid, for the same reason that the question "is killing morally good?" As Rand so eloquently stated, moral value is CONTEXTUAL -- a "good" can only be judged in relation to WHOM, and for WHAT, it is 'good."
For example, being immersed in water continually is "good" for fish (and other water-breather animals.) It would NOT be 'good' in relation to air-breathing life (such as humanity.)

We can see a few things from this idea:
1. "good" cannot be judged out of context, and will only be absolute WITHIN a given context. IF the individual human life is the standard of value, then the issue of "morally good" comes down to what is good FOR HUMANS?

2. Human "sexuality" (as has been amply demonstrated by psychology, and Objectivism itself), has MORE meaning than mere reproduction. In fact, "breeding" only rarely comes into the picture at all.
Sexuality (ideally) is "a physical process in the service of a SPIRITUAL NEED." It is an act of pure pleasure, by which the individuals involved reaffirm their love and valuation of their own lives, and a response to the "highest values" demonstrated by the other person.

As Objectivists, we would all (Even mister Firehammer) admit that we humans are qualitatively different from the lower animals: we are capable of rationality (or at least far MORE rationality than has ever been demonstrated by other animals.) We do not have a specific "breeding season" which restricts our sexual acts to a 'reproductive' cycle, etc.

Now, BEING as we are qualitatively different than the lower animals, we should NOT expect humans to be bound by the primitive, animalistic 'mating instincts' which dominate the lower animals sex lives.
Are you with me so far?

The defining characteristic of humans, is that we are the "thinking animal": we are beings of volitional consiousness. The Objectivist morality (unlike any other of which I am aware), concentrates NOT on arbitrary rules, but rather, is built around a series of principles, which all lead up to a fully-realized human life.

Now, one of the distinctive characteristics of Objectivist morality is that the same action can be perfectly moral (within the context of protecting or achieving one's values), or immoral (within the context of working AGAINST one's values). For example: lying. "Honesty" ('telling the truth') IS a value for Objectivists, but NOT 'in itself', without regard to WHY you're being honest.

Honesty is GOOD when it furthers your life. (Thus, it is of value to deal honestly with others). BUT -- as an example -- if (for example) the secret police in a Totalitarian regime come for you, and start asking you questions, the Objectivist morality would advocate that you lie to them, unreservedly, to protect your values (your family, for example.) Likewise, "force" is contextual: the INITIATION of force is barred (for obvious reasons), but RETALIATORY force is encouraged (self-defense, etc.)

EVEN suicide cannot be considered "evil in and of itself" via the Objectivist principles. If an individual rationally judges that his life is "no longer worth living" (say, because they have a terminal illness, and they are rendered a quadriplegic, who has no possibilities for improvement), then suicide is an appropriate choice. (As an example, I would cite an English professor I read about one time, who was faced with two alternatives -- 2 more weeks to live in agony, due to an inopperable brain tumor, or suicide. He chose suicide.)

Now, it therefore follows from these facts, that the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. human sexuality is not neccesarily "reproductive" in nature -- BY the nature of humans, ourselves. (Thus, the fact that any particular sexual practice is 'non-reproductive' does NOT -- and cannot -- imply that it is 'contrary to human nature.' Ceilbacy (lack of sexuality), or sex restricted to BREEDING purposes (the two 'ideals' held up by many religions), are THEMSELVES contrary to human nature.

2. Particular actions can never be judged out of context, but MUST be viewed in terms of the person's entire life. Thus, 'heterosexual sex" can be either 'moral' or 'immoral' according to context: rape, for example, is a decidedly IMMORAL instance of heterosexual sex. (Yes, I know homosexual rape occurs too.)

3. Thus, "homosexuality" cannot legitimately be condemmed "in and of itself", but only within specific situations: prison-rape, for example.

So why "choose" homosexuality? I assume by this, you mean "why would anybody engage in homosexual activity?"
Well a corrolary question is: why engage in heterosexual activity? Several reasons:

Is it a "one-night stand?" is it undertaken in a slutty, degraded, or otherwise life-harming way? I mean by this, DOES the particular sexual activity actively harm (work against) the rest of the individual's life-goals?

Now, many people would (mistakenly) say that AIDS and HIV is a 'gay disease", or attempt to use them as 'proof' that Homosexuality is "wrong" in and of itself. This is slipshod reasoning, and for those who would attempt it, I need only point out that Jerry Fallwell and other Fundamentalist Christians, have attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to make the same claim.

Further, many people (for various individual reasons such as brain chemistry, psychological factors, etc.) WOULD be damanged if they attempted to live out a 'heterosexual' lifestyle. (I have ample evidence for this a cousin of mine was your stereotypical 'closeted Catholic". he ended up cheating on his wife with large numbers of anonymous gay men, in porn theaters, simply because heterosexuality was psychologically untenable.
Arguably, in HIS case, attempting to engage in heterosexuality was the true "evil", for it actively disrupted (and eventually destroyed) what could have otherwise been a fully-integrated life.

Those who would attempt to state that Homosexuality is evil because it is "non-reproductive" had BEST be prepared to only have sex with their wives (or husbands) for the specific reason of "having a baby." Otherwise, they have implicitly accepted the basic premise that sex is NOT inherently 'reproductive' for humans. Thus, no blanket condemnation of 'homosexuality' is possible, given a rational appraisal of the facts.

Post 21

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 9:41am

Emrich,

I said: Homosexual behavior is chosen, as all human behavior is chosen. It also happens to be contrary to human nature, and since it is chosen, it is also morally relevant.

You responded with three long posts (one was actually to Vertigo). Most of your response was to assumptions you made about what I meant. Since those assumptions were mostly incorrect, I will explain what I mean explicitly.

Human nature includes all of man's nature, both physiological and psychological. When determining what is appropriate, in terms of values, all of human nature must be considered. To act contrary to any aspect of human nature is inappropriate, and if chosen consciously and knowingly, it is also immoral.

The organs of the human body all have a specific natural functions. Man must discover what those functions are. Children, for example, frequently put small objects in their noses or ears, which must be removed, usually to their discomfort. This is not as dangerous as it is instructive, the minor pain is evidence that child has used these organs in way contrary to their nature.

The human body and all its organs have a specific nature that determines how they are to be used, just as the human mind has a specific nature that determines how it must be used. The fact that within the scope of that nature, the varieties of ways the mind and body may be used are infinite does not mean man is free to violate the specific requirements of either the mind's or the body's nature. The scope of things human beings may put into their stomach for both nourishment and pleasure is infinite, but we cannot put poison or glass in them, for example, without violating the requirements of their nature.

The fact that human beings regularly violate the requirements of both their minds and their bodies does not make those violations consistent with human nature. The question is, why do people choose to harm themselves, mentally or physically? The obvious answer is desire. No one does anything for which they have no desire whatsoever. When people harm themselves it is because they have chosen to yield to some desire, either without bothering to determine if fulfilling the desire is harmful or not, or in defiance of what they know is harmful.

No one doubts the homosexual has a desire to engage in homosexual practices, else, why would they do it? The acts, however, are contrary to the requirements of human physiology. For example, consider the case of male homosexuals and anal sex. The lining of the rectum consists of a single layer of cells, easily damaged. Anal sex invariably leads to damage of that lining and disease. The lining of the female vagina is several cells thick naturally meant to accommodate intercourse without harm.

(I am sure you do not want me to recite an entire list of ways homosexual practices are harmful, both physiologically and psychologically; but will, if you insist.)

Homosexual practices, like all other self-harming practices, are justified on no other basis than it is what is desired. Human beings frequently have desires that are contrary to the requirements of their nature. It is failing to objectively determine which desires are consistent with one's own best rational self-interest and choosing accordingly, and turning it around, making desire the source of one's choices that leads to all irrational and self-destructive behavior.

Now you said: Homosexuality is manifestly NOT "contrary to human nature" or it would not occur in every culture, time-period, and religious/ideological segment, that has ever been studied.

I could have said homosexuality is contrary to the requirements of human nature. Nature actually has two meanings: 1. the specific characteristics and attributes of a thing, and 2. that which is, "naturally," without the interference of man or intelligence. Death and disease are, "natural," in the sense that they occur "naturally." When speaking of the nature of a thing, however, we mean a things basic attributes and qualities, we mean, "what a thing is." It is in that sense that we say homosexuality is contrary to human nature. Your argument could be used to justify as consistent with human nature, murder, theft, religion, superstition, cruelty, and insanity, which all, "occur in every culture, time-period, and religious/ideological segment, that has ever been studied."

You said: What I assume you are referencing, by your short-sighted 'contrary to human nature' idea, is the notion that human 'sexuality' is innately REPRODUCTIVE in function, or purpose.

Well, no, I was not referring to that at all. But, since you bring it up (I wonder why it occurred to you?) if human beings did not need to reproduce, it is unlikely sex would be one of our attributes, would it?

You also said: {I can tolerate many things: but sloppy argumentation is NOT one of them.}

I guess you consider, "assuming," what someone else means or is thinking, "good' argument. (Personally, I don't give a damn what you can or cannot tolerate, by the way.)

Since most of your screed said absolutely nothing about anything I said (or even think) I will allow your "good arguments," to speak for themselves.

Regi

Post 22

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:56am

Regi:
Now, that was just sad. I'll quote EXACTLY what you posted. Notice that it has absolutely NO resemblance to what supposedly 'meant' in your reply:

"Homosexual behavior is chosen, as all human behavior is chosen. It also happens to be contrary to human nature, and since it is chosen, it is also morally relevant.

When a person decides to live rationally, avoiding self-destructive behavior, choosing not to be controlled by their desires but to be in control their desires, like those for drugs, or sex, or any of the other passions men use as excuses to behave irrationally, they have a right to look down on those who do not."

Now, notice that you did not mention ANYTHING about what you meant by "homosexual behavior".
As a matter of fact, your "male anal sex" thing is pretty much one of the standard canards thrown up by Fundamentalist Christians and has NO validity whatsoever. They've done numerous studies on the effects of "anal sex" and have found NONE of this "inevitable damage" you speak of. As a matter of fact, the human rectum is MUCH more than a 'single layer of cells thick". A relatively-powerful muscle such as the anal sphincter, for example, could NOT do what it's functions require, if it WAS.
The human ear-drum (which is infinitely thinner than the rectum), is STILL several layers of cells thick. Moreover, your stance is sloppy for two more reasons:

1. It would seem to preclude only MALE homosexuality (vis a vie no "anal" contact among lesbians),
And,
2. It seeks to bar a more general concept ('homosexual behavior') by reference to ONE manifestation of such 'behavior' (male-to-male anal intercourse.) I trust, Regi ol' pal, that you DO remember Rand's concept of the "package deal?"

It WOULD only be a valid argument against 'homosexuality' IF male-to-male anal penetration was the ONLY 'homosexual behavior'.
Your argument, as I said, not only fails to address lesbians, but ALSO fails to address anything OTHER than male-to-male anal intercourse (while being physiologically innaccurate besides.)

The most you can say your argument 'proves' is that anal sex of ANY SORT (even heterosexual), is "contrary to human nature". So also, I guess, would be masturbation (because it's non-reproductive and the humand hand isn't specifically 'designed' to encompass the penis, etc. etc.)

Now, I said NOTHING about humans not "needing to reproduce", but the pivotal question is: is that WHY humans engage in sexual acts? Primarily, no. Sexual contact has A HELL of a lot more meanings than that -- or would you advocate we all go back to a 'time of mating' similar to what the lower animals indulge?

(Next, you're going to try to tell me that the only truly 'rational' course, is to eat food with NO REGARD to taste, aesthetic experiences, or what have you, because "if humans didn't NEED to eat, then we probably wouldn't have to have food."
Fine, Regi. Go back to your "autonamist" cave, and eat that raw, half-rancid lump of rabbit meat you caught with your bare hands.

To be honest, your response to this thread (like so many others) consisted of faulty argumentation, and accusing anybody who dissagreed with you of 'irrational screeds'. Fine. You did the sae thing to Joe Rowlands over in the "questioning fundamentals" board a while back. How's your ARI membership going there, Reginald?

To be honest, I've seem you do this sloppy argumentation too many times for my taste, and am becoming REALLY bored with it.

Apperently, your idea of "man's life as a standard of value" extends no further than the cave. Fine with me. If we're going to talk about "man's essential nature", then we should concentrate on the attribute of Rationality. (Oh wait, sorry. You'd have to BE rational to be able to discuss it, and you're probably not.)

Now come up with a denunciation of homosexuality which actually takes into account what homosexuality IS, and doesn't fixate on some "ass-master" video you probably rented by mistake at your local porn shop.

Post 23

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:18pm

To me it seems that the motivation for homosexual relationships is similar to the motivation to smoke, or take drugs, or drink: 'because I want to'.

Of course, heterosexual relationships are also based on desire, but here the human body is clearly designed for that. I agree with Regi that heterosexual relationships seem more in man's nature. Note I used the word 'designed'. I am not implying there is a designer. I simply mean man's nature. Let's not start a creation/evolution debate.

But Henry, you do have a point. Strictly speaking, sex as is typically performed isn't really in man's nature either. I don't want to say too much about this, but looking at man's anatomy we are typically made to have sex like dogs do, from behind and leaning over each other. Our face-to-face style is against that nature. As typically this method is better, for obvious reasons, especially in light of sex being an intimate affair, it has as much motivation as homosexual relationships do.

The difference is only a matter of degree. To what degree does it go against man's nature? Even if you view anal sex sufficiently against man's nature, what about lesbian sex? There is no implicit danger there.

For that matter, oral sex has no motivation either, other than 'because I want to'. So Henry makes sense when he says that to discriminate against homosexual relationships is to admit that sex is innately reproductive, or if the slant is that it is against our nature, it rules out oral sex and face-to-face hetero-sex aswell.

Post 24

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:43pm

Vertigo: The conflict comes (and I see where you're going with this), by mistaking just exactly what IS 'man's nature'.
Obviously, yes, there ARE some structural aspects to sexuality, but no specific 'sexual position' is structurally "mandated" for humans, as it is for dogs (for example.)
Dogs are PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of 'doing it' any other way than 'doggy style' (as are most other quadrupedal animals.
You are assuming (as it happens, mistakenly), that "human nature" is as narrow as the "natures" of other animals, when in fact, human nature is far broader: not only are the options of "the possible" FAR broader for humans (vis a vie our status as the "thinking animal", relative to others), but also, our physical needs and drives have undergone a fundamental shift -- they now (in addition to potentially serving purely biological needs), have become, to a large extent PSYCHOLOGICAL.
Too narrow a view of "human nature", leads to faulty reasoning.
I would suggest (very gently and kindly, since you are a nice person, and sincerely interested in this debate), that you rethink your definition of 'human nature'. You're dropping out key facts, and reaching a false generalization as a result.

Now, back to Regi:
You attempted (I think) to equate the 'moral status' of homosexuality with that of murder, rape, theft, etc. That's just bad reasoning.
You'll notice, first, that ALL of those actions (murder, rape, etc.) are SUBSUMED by larger conceptual groupings, to which they belong.
"Murder" is a subtype of "killing".
"Rape" is a subtype of "sexua intercourse".
"theft" is a subtype of "wealth/property transfer" (for want of a better term.)

Now, the mistake you make (and which is pretty much epidemic to 'religious morality'), is that you attempt to ban the higher-level catagory IN ITSELF, without regard to context, consequences, or any other factors. Your indictment of "homosexuality" on the grounds that "male anal penetration is harmful" is exactly equivalent to the religionist's prohibition against "killing" because "murder is harmful." it's a package-deal, which can lead only to confusion, and unintended consequences.
For example, the injunction "thou shalt not kill", leads inevitably to such grotesques as pacifism (for Christians) and the entire religion of Jainism (where the central tenet of 'cause no suffering' leads Jainist priests to starve themselves to death so as not to inflict 'suffering' on other life-forms by eating them, etc.)

Regi, catagorical prohibitions are stupid. Indicting "sexuality" on the grounds that "rape" is wrong, would be inestimably stupid, woudln't you agree? EACH particular instance or sub-type of a given phenomenon must be evaluated WITHIN the given context. Rape IS wrong -- NOT because it's a type of 'sexuality", but for other reasons.

Now, it so happens that particular instances of homosexual conduct CAN be objectively defined as reprehensible: "gerbling" for example. (It's manifestly, actually harmful IN ITSELF, without regard to degree.) "Water sports" (urine games) by contrast, have no ill-effects (urine being, conrary to popular belief, sterile). "infantilism" has no moral relevance either (by which I am referencing the "adult baby" games.)

So no, Regi, no blanket condemnation of 'homosexuality' is possible by reference to 'male anal intercourse" anymore than a blanket condemnation of HETEROSEXUALITY is possible, by means of reference to RAPE.

If you want a morality based on such catagorical prohibitions, then I would suggest Roman Catholicism, or (for a more 'american' feel) the Westboro baptist church.

Vertigo, I hope this has given you some food for thought.

Post 25

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 6:46pm

Emrich,

Now, that was just sad.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I did my best. You've really heart my feelings. But, if you really think that, why did you feel compelled to provide such a long answer?

Now, notice that you did not mention ANYTHING about what you meant by "homosexual behavior". As a matter of fact, your "male anal sex" thing is pretty much one of the standard canards ....

Well, that's probably true, since it is pretty much a standard homosexual practice, and one of the most common sources of homosexual problems.

For example:

"This practice is inherently unhealthy, for the rectum simply was not designed as a sexual organ, but as the sewage pipe of the body. It lacks the membrane elasticity and other protective features needed if it were to serve as a sexual organ. As a result, anal sex typically causes damage to the body that promotes a disproportionate level of acute rectal trauma, rectal incontinence, and anal cancer among homosexual males. Damage to the soft tissues of the rectal lining also permit entry of microbes, regardless of condom usage. Infections such as hepatitis B, shigellosis, and Giadia lamblia infection are much more common in homosexual male. These conditions together are often termed "Gay Bowel Syndrome." [R.A. Kaslow et al., "The Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study: Rationale, Organization, and Selected Characteristics of Participants," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 126, No. 2, Aug. 1987]

"But apart from AIDS, are these health consequences serious?" A paper was presented in 1993 to the Eastern Psychological Association [a regional affiliate of the American Psychological Association - see the APA Web page at http://www.apa.org/science/regionals.html] examining death statistics ... which concluded that even when AIDS was not a factor, gay men had a significantly shorter lifespan than married heterosexual men - shorter by about three decades! Those with AIDS had their lifespans reduced by an additional 7 percent.

Now you said, They've done numerous studies on the effects of "anal sex" and have found NONE of this "inevitable damage" you speak of. Since there are "numerous" such studies, you ought not have any trouble citing one.

You also said, ^{As a matter of fact, the human rectum is MUCH more than a 'single layer of cells thick,"} which is irrelevant, because what I said was, "the lining of the rectum consists of a single layer of cells," (which any good medical book will verify), as opposed to the vagina, the lining of which is several cells thick.

Now, you have suggested I have implied, "homosexual practice," pertains only to anal "sex," and I agree that is the only specific act I addressed. Most people are pretty much aware of the repertoire of homosexual practices, and I assumed even you would understand a homosexual practice is anything two (or more) individuals engage in related to sex/genitals where those engaged have the same set of genitals.

You also said: /{Next, you're going to try to tell me that the only truly 'rational' course, is to eat food with NO REGARD to taste, aesthetic experiences, or what have you}

Since I said, "The fact that within the scope of that nature, the varieties of ways the mind and body may be used are infinite does not mean man is free to violate the specific requirements of either the mind's or the body's nature. The scope of things human beings may put into their stomach for both nourishment and pleasure is infinite, but we cannot put poison or glass in them, for example, without violating the requirements of their nature," does that mean you are arguing for putting poison and glass in the stomach. I enjoy and cook food from almost every culture, from middle east, to mexican, to oriental; but that does not mean I'll eat just anything, even if I desire it.

Now, if others wish to sacrifice their lives to their irrational desires, I certainly will not prevent them from doing so, and will defend their right to engage in any practices they like.

I grew up befriending homosexuals (and I'm over 60) and was frequently castigated by others for those friendships. (Not that I cared.) My "gay" highschool friends are all dead, and have been for some time.

I'm not trying to convince you, either. But, if you're gay, I'll outlive you. Now I do not wish to discuss this any longer, so go ahead and have the last word.

Regi

Post 26

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:38pm

"which concluded that even when AIDS was not a factor, gay men had a significantly shorter lifespan than married heterosexual men - shorter by about three decades! Those with AIDS had their lifespans reduced by an additional 7 percent."

Well, for example, the MUCH higher rate of gay suicide (due, in no small part, to viewpoints such as YOURS. Factoring OUT the higher suicide rates (and HIV, which, not coincidentally, reduces HETEROSEXUAL lifespans to an equivalent degree), there is NO difference in the lifespan of the homosexual.

Now, as to the 'studies' you cited:
Please give a link to where you found them, AND give commensurate CURRENT data. (I could, for example, come up with various 1950s-era 'studies' from the NIMH citing homosexuality as a 'mental illness."
I notice you're at least TRYING to be 'scientific" about all of this now, but I should call your attention to the almost complete lack of statistical information in the quote you provided: "dispraportionate level", "typically", "much more common", etc.
Until and unless you can provide an actual statistical breakdown on this "gay bowel syndrome", your condemnation of homosexual MALES due to it, seems specious at best.

Now, additonally you said: Most people are pretty much aware of the repertoire of homosexual practices, and I assumed even you would understand a homosexual practice is anything two (or more) individuals engage in related to sex/genitals where those engaged have the same set of genitals."

Except for the fact, Regi ol' buddy, that you specifically addressed your argumentation toward ONE sexual practice. If your premise is that the condemnation of homosexuality is based on the 'wrong' people rubbing the 'wrong' sets of genitals together, then you didn't make that very clear, NOR have you provided an argument that even APPROACHES coherence, to defend such stance.

"I grew up befriending homosexuals (and I'm over 60) and was frequently castigated by others for those friendships. (Not that I cared.) My "gay" highschool friends are all dead, and have been for some time."

Which implies what, exactly? That their causes of death were inextricably linked to their homosexuality? Sorry to tell you, but quite a few of your "straight" highschool friends are probably dead as well. Until (and unless) you can come up with something better than THIS, your argument does not obtain.

"If You're gay, I'll outlive you.":
That was idiotic, Mr. Firecracker. Not that it matters, but I'm as heterosexual as you yourself CLAIM to be (or at least so my WIFE says). Let's run down your 'argumentation' again for anybody who is still actually interested:

1. Homosexuality is 'contrary to human nature' because it is 'life-harming'. However, you mysteriously neglect to provide any statistical (numerical) data regarding your claims, and "assume" that what information you DO provide (referenced specifically to MALE homosexuals) should suggest a conclusion about lesbians as well.

2. You 'assumed" I am familiar with the "repetoire of homosexual practices": thank you, regi, butI must not watch as much porno as you do. Since you admit that there is a "repetoire" of homosexual "practices", you should (I would think) at least be able to give us some information about what that "repetoire" consisted of, AND the relative degree of "against human nature" that they all exhibited?

And don't try to cop this attitude about how you weren't trying to "convince" anybody of anything, Regi, esle you wouldn't have even spoke up. Those who speak up in a discussion ARE trying to 'convince" others (or at least, defend their own viewpoint.)

So the studies (of which you only reference ONE, with no statistical breakdown whatsoever) seem to indicate a 'lesser lifespan for gay men". Okay, and? The implication is what? Gay men commit suicide more often? Gay men get mysterious ass-viruses from rectal tears?
You neglect to mention the lifespan consequences for lesbians. If your contention is that homosexuality is VERBOTEN because of it's "deleterious health effects", then you should be able to point to such effects for EACH AND EVERY SUCH SEXUAL "practice" within said "repetoire".

Again, sloppy argumentation, this time with a nonsequitur quote. Either give us the statistical breakdown, or recind your original premise.

(Suprising how you want us to take your anti-homosexual premise, on the exact same say-so as the Environmentalists want us to take THEIR stuff. Funny, but I didn't know that "much more likely" was a valid scientific term.

Face it, Regi, the GENERAL studies of anal sex (in males as well as females) have pointed up NO statistically significant health consequences. I'll rummage around -- or maybe not, because you didn't even make it worth my while.

BTW: I don't particularly care if I "heart" your feelings, because why should I? You don't give a damn what I think, so why should I give a damn about YOUR viewpoints, eh? If you'd bothered to give us anything to work with other than your "gay men's anal habits are BAAAAD" rhetoric, maybe I'd bother.

Damn, Regi, you could have at least TRIED.

Post 27

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:28pm

Ya know what's really hillarious, Regi? Not only don't you have a coherent argument for WHAT makes homosexuality "contrary to human nature", but you can't even get the 'health risks' right, either.

Then, when I call you out on it, you take what I can only describe as the cowards way out: "I don't want to discuss it anymore!" Gee, Regi, rather than maybe admit that you're mistaken, you'd rather just bow out of the argument (hoping that it makes ME look like a big, bad meanie, right?

I would assume that since you quoted that medical article, you can actually find something a little more concise than references to a "much higher occurence", and/or you can find information on anal sex risks in the GENERAL population.

"Homosexual behavior" does NOT equal "gay male anal sex", NOR does "gay male anal sex" have any relevance as to the health risks of Lesbian actions.
If you don't want your viewpoint questioned, then don't even bring it up on a DISCUSSION board. How hard is that for you to remember?

(By the way: since when did questioning somebody's prejudices amount to 'really hurting their feelings?" Go back and read over that thread where you castigated Joe Rowlands as a "subjectivist." Do I REALLY need to go grab some quotes out of it, to demonstrate what REAL rudeness is?

Regi, I'm always willing to live and let live, and to the extent you want to be unreasonably bigoted against homosexuality, on the basis of faulty information, then that's fine with me. But if you're going to go and get your 'feelings' hurt everytime anybody dares to question you, then it's probably better if people just don't talk to you.

Post 28

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 5:28am

Old Randist remnants of romantic love between a man and a woman as the only rational mode of intimate relationship. I would think we would have left this behind already.

Homosexuality exists in all kinds of animals, is perfectly healthy, and has nothing to do with anal sex. Heterosexuals also have anal sex. I daresay this Firehammer fellow is a rather ignorant chap.

Post 29

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:59am

I guess, Francois, that one COULD say that it all comes down to a 'generation gap" (in that 'our generation' seems to be willing to do better argumentation, and to actually back up our claims.)
Regi there expects to get by with a slew of recycled "kinda like Rand" arguments, and an appeal to the 'wisdom of age" (being as he's "over 60" and all -- age or IQ, nobody can say!!!) :)

Post 30

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:46am

Quote: "(being as he's "over 60" and all -- age or IQ, nobody can say!!!)"

Henry, I see you are testing Regi, to see how he responds to being called senile. Does testing this give you pleasure? I am truly interested to know.

Post 31

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:13pm

Quote: "our physical needs and drives have undergone a fundamental shift -- they now (in addition to potentially serving purely biological needs), have become, to a large extent PSYCHOLOGICAL."

Please elaborate on this. What psychological needs do humans have? I have never really thought about this. I think my problem is I am not sure about the exact distinction between animals and humans. To a degree animals are volitional, so you can't say 'only humans are volitional', etc. The one difference I can see is that humans have language. Take language away and we behave much like animals. So what really is the difference, besides language? Why is it that animals don't learn language? Bees can comminucate to each other about where the pollen is, is this a form of language? Is a bird's chirping a form of language?

You can say that humans can override their desires, but perhaps if an animal could learn language they could also override them. Maybe they have no reason to. Although the dog does spin around a few times before sleeping, and there isn't a reason for this. Perhaps they can't learn that that behaviour is futile, as is howling at the moon.

You can say that only humans collaborate and trade, but that comes after language, who can trade without language? And animals do help each other, like prides of lions or herds of elephants.

I hope you see in light of my 2nd previous post I feel this direction I am taking is important and I need to come to a decision on it. It is a big issue, quite fundamental in fact.

Post 32

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:39pm

Lower animals have languages, but those languages are simple, utilitarian and instinctual. There is no learning curve similar to humans. Monkeys can be taught simple concepts, but there is no evidence that this is anything but conditioning, since their learning curve once again does not match that of humans.

Post 33

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:56pm

Quote: "Henry, I see you are testing Regi, to see how he responds to being called senile. Does testing this give you pleasure? I am truly interested to know."

If our esteemed friend Regi is giong to hide behind his age (making the implicit claim that I am mistaken merely because I am younger than he is), then such specious claims are fair game for humor. It's really not that fun needling him anymore (even though he has earned it, in spades.)

Post 34

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:11pm

Vertigo: For detailed study on the psychological needs of humans, I would reccomd that you study the works of Aristotle. His concept of "the good life" elucidates VERY profoundly, the distinctively human needs.

Now, as to whether you can claim that animals and humans are QUALITATIVELY different: plants and animals are obviously different in very fundeamtnal ways. Animals and humans are, likewise, different in equally fundamental ways.

Animals (at least the more complex forms) DO hae a form of consiousness, yes, and may even be capable of rudimentary communication, but there are basic differences between the instinctive sounds of (say) a housecat, and language, as developed by humans:

Notice (for example) that animals do not have to LEARN their methods of communication. (A kitten isolated from all other cats will nevertheless meow and hiss and purr in response to the same situations, as a cat who has been fully taught by it's mother, etc.)

Humans (by contrast) have languages, which are NOT 'instinctive' in any meaningful manner. (For example, unless a person LEARNS to speak (say) French or english or any of the other languages humans have devised, he or she will be restricted to the 'animalistic' grunts, squeaks, and screams exhibited by pre-verbal infants.

Also, as to the issue of animals co-operating with one another: this is primarily an instinctive action, which the animals do not (and probally CANNOT) go against. In contrast, humans must THINK CONSIOUSLY in order to form into groups, and co-operate meaningfully. No analog of (for example) symbolism, art, science, tool-making, or building shelters has been found in non-human animals. (What things animals DO build -- such as birds' nests, and beehives and such) are likewise UN-LEARNED. They are hardwired structures, which the animals never improve upon.
The qualitative difference between the most complex ant colony, and a stone-age tool made of rock, is that the tool took CONSIOUS THOUGHT to devise.

There's also a book called "human universals", which was written by an anthropologist named Donald E. Brown. The book studies how 'universal themes' appear across all human cultures, but also how they are ALL DIFFERENTLY EXPRESSED, in different cultures. (This is not true with different beehives, or wolf packs. The sum total of animal 'co-operation' is confined to a single pattern, which repeats EXACTLY, in every grouping of that animal.
(For example: geese always honk, and fly in a "v" formation. They never fly in a giant cube.)

This is somewhat oversimplified, but you get the idea of where I'm going with this.
Good question, Vertigo!

Post 35

Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 10:52am

vertigo, Emrich,

vertigo said: To a degree animals are volitional, so you can't say 'only humans are volitional'

But only humans are volitional. Volition does not mean simply, "making a choice," because in its broadest sense, even a machine can be designed to make a choice.

It is the manner in which choice is made that distinguishes between the "instinctual" choices animals make and the "volitional" choices that humans make.

The difference is humans cannot behave at all without consciously choosing to. The actions of the autonomic nervous system and reflexes are not, "human behavior," because they are involuntary.

The motivator of all behavior is the feelings, the passions, and the desires. The animals respond directly to their desires, and the desires automatically produce the correct behavior for fulfilling those desires. This is the essential nature of instinct.

Desires in human beings do not tell us either what those feelings are a desire for or what actions to take to fulfill them. They must all be learned. An animal's desire for food (hunger) automatically produces the appropriate action to acquire the appropriate food to meet the requirements of that animal's nature.

Hunger in man produces no action at all (except crying, in babies). It does not tell us what we need to eat or how to acquire it, and even when we have learned these things, the desire still produces no action. We must choose to act on the knowledge (or we starve). A human being can choose to starve. An animal cannot. (Anorexia is an example.)

Only human beings have volition. It is the characteristic that distinguishes human consciousness from the consciousness of all other creatures. Volition is the faculty that makes reason, (and language, as well), both possible and necessary.

From your senile old friend,

Regi

Post 36

Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 12:19pm

Emrich,

As you requested:

Syphilis increase sparks AIDS concerns, By Steve Mitchell
United Press International

U.S. sees HIV cases rise among gay, bisexual men, By Cheryl Wetzstein, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Health Risks of Gay Sex (This is the most thoroughly researched/documented study I have found. It is a PDF file. You won't like this one. The Corporte Resource Council does have a loose religious association, but research is research.)

Health and Homosexuality (Very detailed, very well documented. Swedish Site.)

Anal Cancer and YOU, By Bob Roehr, from Pridesource, a gay WEB site. This was interesting: "The incidence of anal cancer in the US is only 0.9/100,000. But among men who have sex with men that number soared to 35/100,000 in data gathered prior to the advent of HIV. And the rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer," says Palefsky."

Now let's see some of your statistics and sources.

Regi

Post 37

Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 4:53pm

Regi:
Good deal on the "voliitonal consiousness" thing. Nice explanation.

Re: homosexuality:
You still haven't provided anything except "anal sex" related info, and no systematic indictment of Lesbians --- OR of any other specific sexual practice.
(And here I thought you were bowing out of the debate!) :)

I'll look at the information, but to be very honest, I find your idea of "research is research" to be pretty specious, in itself.
(For example, do you really want us (as Objectivists, and secularists -- if not outright Atheist), to aquiesce to the copious 'studies' on the supposed 'fact' that religious belief (christianity, of course), is supposed to be a definite health benefit? The organizations who put forward such "studies" are beholden to a particular premise (or at any rate, have a definite hypothesis in mind.)
Regi, my point is, research is most assuredly NOT all "research" -- by which I mean, of course, that not all 'research' is equivalently rigorous, or of comparable quality.
To be honest, I don't know whether I want to even bother with this debate (because you automatically, upon my dissagreeing with you, went into some form of pouty 'you hurt my feelings!"
To be honest, I have many other things to occupy my time (job, other discussion-threads, etc.) Perhaps Francois Tremblay could take this debate over?

(In addition: the incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases/paracites/etc, would in and of itself, not indicate that any given sexual practice is 'contrary to human nature' (anymore than drinking contaminated water indicates that "water consumption" is contrary to human nature.)

I MAY continue this later. (It's a pity that you decided to take the 'infectious disease' route, rather than actually addressing any of the points I raised.)

Ah well, c'est la vie! :)

Cheers, Regi! :)

Post 38

Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 5:05pm

I don't want to take Henry's side of the debate on homosexuality, I don't want to debate homosexuality. There is no debate as far as I'm concerned. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and therefore has nothing to do with ethics, politics, or any other ic. Everyone should have sex in the way they see best, as long as they don't hurt anyone without their consent. The end.

Post 39

Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 5:41pm