RoR: Forum

Jeremy: This morning I tallied up the number of postings that had been made (i.e. how many posts had been made to date on each particular subjects listed) from the last 50. Out of 205 there were 75 dealing directly with homosexuality— this is 36%.

You can make up your own mind if this is 'inordinate' or not. Or, if you want to spend more time on your own you can devise more sophisticated measures.

Sam

Post 41

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:27pm

I'm not exactly sure how you compiled your data, Sam. I'm guessing it was by adding up the responses to recent articles/topics made by particular contributors. Is this truly surprising? Out of all the subjects recently discussed, which has been explored the least within the Objectivist opus? Homosexuality, perhaps? And might this not draw out more debate and discussion than topics that have been thoroughly dealt with?

In any case, out of the 785 articles--just articles, poems and such--in the article archive, 15 directly addressed homosexuality. (One third of which was Dr. Sciabarra's five part "Objectivism and Homosexuality", which was later turned into a monograph.) Now, I haven't counted the Free Rad articles, or tracked down every last scintilla of "gay-dom" that might be lurking about, but 15 out of 785 is not, in my opinion, inordinate.

There will have been a large amount of responses to the topic of homosexuality recently, probably because of the recirculation of the debate between Firehammer and Sciabarra.

Post 42

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 11:47pm

Regi

Christ, man. You didn't have to waste so much time making sure I knew it was impossible to live without food! I'm not retarded...it only took me three tries to pass kindergarten. I think you and I would just disagree on whether a Big Mac is more important than good sex (not just feeling good, but actually good). Probably won't break that impasse, so I suggest you concede total and utter humiliating defeat! Hahah....ehhh...ayuh....

Post 43

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 4:51am

Jeremy, Jennifer

Christ, man. You didn't have to waste so much time making sure I knew it was impossible to live without food!

Don't flatter yourself (or berate yourself), it was not meant just for you. I was pretty sure you knew the difference between a Big Mac and roll in the hay. (It was really meant for Jennifer Iannolo, although I suspect she knows the difference too.)

Nevertheless I concede. I know when I've met a better mind ... or, at least a different one.

Regi

Post 44

Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 10:34pm

Hmm....I'm not quite sure how I got dragged into this discussion, but now that my name has been mentioned I am compelled to answer.

Rest assured that I know the difference between a Big Mac and a roll in the hay, and would gladly trade the former for the latter.

Food and eating are both more complex, more interesting, and in the grand scheme of things, provide infinitely more pleasure than sex.

As much as I love cuisine, I must disagree. There is no higher pleasure than the exaltation that comes from making love to the mirror image of one's soul.

We cannot live without food, but I would not want to be alive if I had to live without sex. :)

Jennifer

Post 45

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 12:14am

Regarding living without sex, I would hedge that a bit and say that I would find life most disagreeable if I had to live without good sex. In the sensual sense, and the moral. SOLO has been confused with hyper-banging hippies once already, you know. : P

But you're right. The point is, sex is a big part of being a human. Because we have rationality-capable brains, humans have extended the act of reproduction into the arena of simple pleasure. Not for the species' sake, but for our own individual enjoyment (including the cases in which the couple is actually attempting to conceive; which is quite often, I imagine). Denying what might give you enjoyment, without considering the consequences of that denial on your overall well-being, is not Mr. Spock. Analyze the decisions you might make so that they are in your true interest, but don't allow the fact that square pegs don't naturally fit into circular holes (so to speak) ruin your chances at physical and emotional contentment.

Humans are meant to change nature while acknowledging its laws; individuals that have found themselves at odds with the normal physiological understanding of human sexuality are not saying B is A. They are saying "my A is mine, I can do what I want with it, I'm not forcing anyone, why torture myself? Would self-torture be Normal?"

If a woman chooses to have her "tubes tied", or a man for that matter, are they contradicting nature? Or are they adjusting the physical world to suit their interests? Does getting breast implants contradict the nature of breasts, if the mammary glands no longer function? Don't breasts have functions other than feeding little crap-factories? (hehe, j/k, kids are cool) "Silly woman. You shouldn't go around contradicting your nature like that, even for your own happiness!"

But anywho...I'm probably way over my head in this one. I know Regi would clean my philosophical clock, even if he is so terribly wrong about so many things. : P

Post 46

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 2:41am

Jeremy - you said: "Humans are meant to change nature while acknowledging its laws."

*That* is the nub of this debate, leaving aside that you don't mean "meant" as in some God-ordained purpose, but to indicate that this is what humans should do to be true to *their* nature. But you're far too charitable towards the other side here. First, the other side most certainly doesn't have the philosophical acumen you ascribe to it - the idea that the proposition that "either man is volitional or not" means that man has volitional control over *every* aspect of his being is about as dumb as any I've seen anywhere, as is the activity of expending thousands of words elaborating on such a stupid premise. Second, the opposition is vicious and dishonest. In one guise, now thankphully departed from SOLOHQ, it's phascist; in another, which deliberately blurs the distinction between being moderated & being banned, it's Catholic; in another, it's a cheerleader for the Catholic & the fascist. In none of these guises does the opposition remotely resemble Objectivism, or common decency, or the truth.

Linz

Post 47

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 6:45am

Heya Linz.

1) Of course I meant humans are given a drive to excel by God! An entity that did His omniscient best to save those kids in Beslan will surely have concerned Himself with how, when , and with whom humans diddle themselves.

2) I don't think Regi could prove me wrong, he just uses volume and big words to support his case. My philosophical clock doesn't like being overloaded, so I pace myself.

Salut

(Edited by Jeremy on 9/16, 12:45pm)

Post 48

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:06am

Linz,

Since you, as far as I know, are the only one ever to say, (or have the idea,) "either man is volitional or not" means that man has volitional control over *every* aspect of his being, that would make your idea, if I may quote you, "about as dumb as any I've seen anywhere ...."

Volition does not mean having conscious control of every aspect of one's being; it does not even mean being in control of one's choices, it means, that everything a human being does has to be chosen. Most people, rather than being in control of their choices, make their choices based on feelings, whim, and passion, without regard to the reasons for those feelings or the consequences of their choices, but everything they do is still by their own choice.

Linz, are some of things you do not by choice? (You know of course that excludes biological functions, the autonomic nervous system, and reflex, of course; in case you were contemplating some more of your cute rhetoric.)

Regi

Post 49

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:21am

Jennifer,

Hmm....I'm not quite sure how I got dragged into this discussion, but now that my name has been mentioned I am compelled to answer.

It may be because you are the food editor on SOLO and it goes with the territory. Actually, I referred to you because you have so often made the comparison between food and sex.

Regi

Post 50

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:29am

Jeremy,

The point is, sex is a big part of being a human. Because we have rationality-capable brains, humans have extended the act of reproduction into the arena of simple pleasure. Not for the species' sake, but for our own individual enjoyment ...

Of course! Because we can control it, we can use sex for our own pleasure. Linz view is the opposite of this. In Linz' view, sex is in control and they are being used by it.

(If necessary, I can find smaller words to say this. ;>)

Regi

Post 51

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:46am

Hi Regi.

I figured as much, and am happy to be in such territory. :) I do believe both food and sex are essential, per my post above.

Jennifer

(HATE writing mistakes -- used a double "both.") :D

(Edited by Jennifer Iannolo on 9/16, 2:05pm)

Post 52

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 10:49am

Jennifer,

Thanks for being such a brick.

I am going to ask you some questions, but I want to be sure you understand it is only a matter determining the depth of you expression. Your exuberance is as praiseworthy and delightful as you are yourself, but because of it, I cannot tell if some of what you say is not simply exuberance.

For example, you said, "I would not want to be alive if I had to live without sex."

I have a friend who has diabetes. It has made him unable to have sex. He is a very happy, very successful, and very busy man with an adorable wife who loves him beyond words.

So here are my questions:

Should he kill himself. (Before he lost his ability to have sex he would say the same thing you do).

Since his wife also thought living without sex would not be worth living, should she have an affair so she can have sex.

...or, should she kill herself also, since she can no longer have sex with her husband?

Finally, do you see what I'm getting at?

Regi

Post 53

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 11:01am

Regi,

You asked Jennifer, "Should he kill himself. (Before he lost his ability to have sex he would say the same thing you do)."

For Gods sake Regi! - have'nt you ever heard the phase, 'benefit of the doubt'?

Until Jennifer prooves through a series of comments that she is suicidal at the thought of a sex-less life, why don't you just assume that she is still sane, and that her comment was made in the manner that most people intend when they say such things.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 9/16, 11:06am)

Post 54

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 11:22am

Regi,

I do see what you are getting at. If I had to live without sex, I am sure I would find a way to survive, but there would be a definite void of happiness in my life.

There is too much to value in life for me to consider suicide in such a situation, but I would most definitely feel a poignant lack of fulfillment, and I'm not sure what it would do to my "spark." I am a very sexual, sensual person, so it would take a great deal of mental and emotional strength to be completely happy in such a case.

If your friend has found a way to adapt and be happy, I applaud him. I cannot speak for him or his wife, as I don't know what hierarchy sex holds in their lives. All I am saying is that I equate sex and food as equal needs in the fulfillment of my soul.

Jennifer

Post 55

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 12:40pm

George,

Good grief! Lighten up. Nobody is accusing anyone of anything. Jennifer understood exactly what I was asking, and gave a marvelous answer.

(I suspect you may have done this tongue-in-cheeck, in which case you can have a good laugh on me.)

Regi

Post 56

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 12:47pm

Jennifer,

I think you know I was not even suggesting you would committ suicide and only using that exaggerated case to point out how exaggerated, "I would not want to live without sex," sounded.

"If I had to live without sex, I am sure I would find a way to survive, but there would be a definite void of happiness in my life.

"There is too much to value in life for me to consider suicide in such a situation, but I would most definitely feel a poignant lack of fulfillment, and I'm not sure what it would do to my "spark." I am a very sexual, sensual person, so it would take a great deal of mental and emotional strength to be completely happy in such a case."

That is exactly my attitude as well. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have to live without any of the faculties, including sex, which I have, but I know I would find a way to thoroughly enjoy all the life and capabilities I have, however many I might loose.

Regi

Post 57

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 1:15pm

"Linz, are some of things you do not by choice?"

This is precisely why I now view this writer as dishonest. He knows the argument is not about the *actions* of a gay person, but the orientation itself, which, I repeat, is *not* open to choice. A gay person *could* act as Regi would wish - live a life of abstinence or pretend-heterosexuality - & such self-denial or fraud would be entirely consistent with Regi's intrinsicist/mystic view of morality. It would also be a terrible travesty of life, & I don't care to contemplate the vileness of a *sense* of life that would advocate such a thing. I'll leave it to Diabolical to be polite to that entity from now on. I'm through with it.

Linz

Post 58

Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 8:12pm

Good post Linz.

I think the quality of the arguments on the, let's say, "pro-homo" side has been excellent. The fallacies espoused by the homophobes have been quite thoroughly dealt with. I fail to see how one cannot describe those who continue with their warped, mystical nostrums about sexuality as anything other than dishonest by this stage.

When Firehammer's article was first posted, all sorts came out of the closet to say how wonderfully well-reasoned and challenging his silliness was. I just want to say that I am not about to start "engaging" with someone who would say to me, in effect, "you're abnormal and deranged." I don't care how "civil" such people may be. Someone calls me abnormal, I'm not just going to sit there and say "gee, that's a valid, well-reasoned and challenging position you hold there. Thank you for being civil." To all gay Objectivists reading this who would wish to so engage: it's the sanction of the victim. Stop treating such types with the respect they do not deserve. They ought to be laughed at as the Victorian-era puritans that they are.

Post 59

Friday, September 17, 2004 - 2:49am