Homosexuality- Does choice matter?


Recommended Posts

The argument comes down to: Is homosexuality bad for the individual?

Here's an interesting interview that is relevant:

Calvin,

I didn't think I would like this discussion, but I did.

There were many interesting points, highly intelligent ones, but the most fascinating to me is the need people feel to proclaim that their group is superior to others.

Regardless of the group or demographic, there seems to be an innate craving for this position in the human psyche.

Maybe the start of wisdom is to recognize this need in one's own soul, but gradually renounce in a quest for greater understanding about the meaning of life.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

However, the bottom line is, if two or more people are on a desert island and have a family-like union, does it matter what one calls it? And what outside government law could possibly govern that?

:smile:

Michael

The Conestoga Wagon family, or, Frontier family...

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I am not gay, I do not have a particular interest in supporting or opposing "gay rights". An objectivist would support or oppose something based on what selfish value it brings to them. I gain very little either way.

What I am against however, is the promotion and glorification of gays in media and culture.

In general, I view marriage as something which does not require special intervention and regulation from government. To me, it is a business contract, and should be treated as such. And more importantly, it is a contract which mostly involves only the two persons entering it. If two adults want to enter into a contract, whether it is marriage or something else, I think the government has no business stopping it.

And "promotion and glorification" of straights too?

I suspect not.

Put them in and leave them in and keep them in the ghetto.

--Brant

slice up the human pie and I'm more human than thy so don't slice my slice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am long-winded in reply to Pekka here. Read in chunks, stretch, take breaks.

Just kidding. I am probably arguing for a state of innocence about sexuality, to promote the notion that sex is good, all things considered, gay sex is good for those that like it, and that it is usually none of your business who fucks who in or out of marriage, be you king or neighbour, or mere passer-by voyeur. I've stretched Pekka's reasonable points to make a grander point here and there, and hope I don't come off as an insufferably sniffy old lady. Sometimes I just think as I type.

The best part is Peikoff on video about the gay, at the very end. WSS fans will do the slog first.

Peikoff takes the line that sexuality is 'set' early in life, by age five or so. But his other opinions, and the means and motive for the setting are not discussed. Neither are any notions of biochemical course of development, which makes it a Randian curiosity. For Peikoff there is a kind of mind-error taken early in life that is results in an imprinting that cannot be undone. He foresees a time when science would aid introspection enough that the cognitive formation of homosexuality could be revisited and reformed. I think that is bosh, but hey.

As I am not gay, I do not have a particular interest in supporting or opposing "gay rights". An objectivist would support or oppose something based on what selfish value it brings to them. I gain very little either way.


An Objectivish, objectivist, even Objectivist person can easily see positive personal value in 'getting the state out of people's bedrooms,' in the sense of criminal sanction of private behaviour. An objectivist gay person can easily cast so-called "sex rights" within his own individual struggle to be let alone, to not be harried or oppressed by a state or community. A gay Objectivist seeks shelter, associations, education, employment, mobility and trade and will fight for his or her own right to individual flourishing without irrational fetter of law.


Some might go farther and argue that any 'right to homosexual behaviour' without undue criminal sanction is a 'human right' won by fierce individual struggle against historical bigotry and bias in 'Law.'

Consider your own home country's history with so-called gay rights. As I consult a brief Wikipedia entry on LGBT history in Finland, I see the same course and same controversies erupting on a timeline that ends with an almost identical regime of 'rights' as presently enjoyed in the USA and Canada. Nobody from outside the 'gay community' had to lift a finger to help, nor be anything but neutral. Each historical 'gain' of sexual rights ratcheted up the scope of freedom from the point of view of a gay individual.

I see the same ratchet at work in most Nordic and other west European nations as in North America, with differing timelines, same destination. The gains made since 1900 are such now that you can bring your gay spouse to Canada or the USA on the same terms as any other spouse. Gay sexuality is a statistic, gay couplings another. It is not important to the state that you are gay. Most law that can fuck you up for being gay is gone.

So all the "gay rights" have been built up by repeated challenges to earlier legal restrictions on individuals, restrictions imposed merely on the basis of sexuality and self-expression, challenged by folks who had a selfish interest in unlocking doors to liberty, each door opening to another door on the path to equal treatment. As in Finland, as in Canada, what was once a criminal offence has now become a 'colour' of an individual in law -- a colour, flavour, attribute that may not be used in law to 'cut from the human cloth' and devalue only by function of the colour.

An objectivist/Objectivist may or may not support the full panoply of 'rights' (privileges) promoted by gay individuals. But they stand on bedrock that the state may not interfere with private adult homosexual behaviour by criminalizing it. Another objectivist may feel personally-disgusted by homosexuality, but would never want law used to single out homosexual behaviour for legal censure or reduction of free-speech rights, at least not simply on emotional grounds.

A libertarian has a laissez-faire attitude toward other folks using their rights of assembly, conscience, speech, protest to further their own individually-determined goals. A libertarian may have a loathing of homosexuals and of homosexual behaviour writ large, may wish there were no gay parades, no gay 'culture,' no in-your-face expressions of gaydom, but in the end, that libertarian accepts and tolerates individual and concerted efforts to expand freedom of action. The freedom range of the gays is what the libertarian expects of his own field of liberty.

For me, the freedom range of a person whose opinions I abhor and whose behaviour and beliefs disgust or frighten me -- his freedom range is precious to my concept of rights. I don't want to shut up the Westboro Baptists, or the anti-Islam open-carry nutjobs protesting before mosques. I don't want to foreclose on maniacal gatherings of religious freaks and hatemongers. I don't want rights in general to be restricted on one class of human freak without sustained rational scrutiny. And so I don't want someone culled out of life because he or she is gay. That would injure my sense of decency, honour, and justice.


So, all this to say I welcome hearing of the disquieting or incorrect actions of gays, rights-based or not, from Finland. I'd be interested in hearing which ratchet action was marked out as objectively wrong and unfair or felt to be unjust, dishonorable or indecent -- and of course which damages will have been done to whom, if any advance of so-called gay rights caused damage.

I return to your first line. If I rewrite it via substitutions, it can exemplify a laissez-faire attitude, and can also imply a category error:

  • As I am not black, I do not have a particular interest in supporting or opposing "black rights".
  • As I am not atheist, I do not have a particular interest in supporting or opposing "atheist rights".
  • As I am not Catholic, I do not have a particular interest in supporting or opposing "Catholic rights".
  • As I am not Jewish, I do not have a particular interest in supporting or opposing "Jewish rights".
  • As I am not Swedish, I do not have a particular interest in supporting or opposing "Swedish rights".
  • As I am not a parent, I do not have a particular interest in supporting or opposing "parent rights".
  • As I do not have capital, I do not have a particular interest in supporting or opposing "capital rights".

First they came for the Communists, then they came for the Socialists ... then they came for the ...


I'd say being neutral about so-called gay rights is a perfectly sound position to take, but at some point one will say, "of course I support the right of gay people to pursue their own happiness without the state getting in the way, criminalizing, punishing, imprisoning, putting to death."

I mean, at some point, in some place, neutrality will be challenged. See for example Uganda or Saudi Arabia or Iran. I expect nobody here is neutral on gay rights in hateful places, as an objective thinker or humanist or whatever. At some point horror and disgust kick in.

What I am against however, is the promotion and glorification of gays in media and culture.


I don't think you are against promotion. You would not be bothered whatsoever to see a gay person promote himself, or get in a bigot's face to promote his own humanity. Glorification is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. What glorification has set you against it? Can you give some particulars? Would you like to be glorified in media and culture?

In general, I view marriage as something which does not require special intervention and regulation from government. To me, it is a business contract, and should be treated as such. And more importantly, it is a contract which mostly involves only the two persons entering it. If two adults want to enter into a contract, whether it is marriage or something else, I think the government has no business stopping it.


I look at marriage historically, as a behaviour (pair-bonding) evolved into an institution -- with various religious and civil implications crusted on over time. I look more closely at how the institution -- in law -- evolved in the Anglo-Saxon and French/Roman world. I see the history of polygamy, chattel, betrothal, contract, divorce, and I see the history of ecclesiastical authority, courts, registers and ceremony.

Today in North America there is a yuge industry devoted to the ceremonial aspect of marriage. The actual legal procedure of registering the ceremonial's legal weight -- that registration industry is not attached to courts of law except by custom. The act of civil marriage is simpler than registering ownership of an automobile.

To a court's eyes, a fabulous ceremonial is in itself meaningless. It is the pair-bond that may come to its attention.

Many marriages today are gay marriages by virtue of a marriage industry staffed by gays. The stereotype of a screamingly gay wedding director goes here. Just kidding.

I am more or less with MSK. Let religiously-sanctioned partnerships and the attendant ceremonials be whatever the host and participants want it to be. Shop churches and synagogues and marriage halls the way you would for your funeral. If you want quiet, we got quiet, if you want to spend nine million dollars, we will help you.

Then, if you want the state or its court or its fiendish, medieval Registry to know you have made a partnership with a spouse, observe the local civil statutes or absence of same. Is there a privatized 'registry' where you stand in line with someone seeking a birth or death certificate? Does that meet your needs? Take a number. Do you not care to do anything but 'marry' your partner in your heart's mind? Then move in together, blend your lives together, achieve unity of purpose, lay down plans for the rest of the union. Given enough time, the need to 'register' your partnership with a court or state goes by the way. You are married by custom and so by common law. If you are Israeli and cannot get a civil marriage recognized by the state, can't help you. Buy a plane ticket.

If you want Gods to recognize your union, you are on your own, no matter what people tell you.

As for my answer to the 'choice' question, I'd say homosexual behaviour is a choice. And that the element of choice is irrelevant to civil rights, registry rights, Book Of The Dead rights. I leave it to each individual to match his sexual object choice to his rational sexual behaviour.

Here is a video I made to go along with Peikoff's podcast expostulations about De Gaey.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all fine, except for age of consent and NAMBLA

A pithy comment on Yahoo two years ago...

"Elton John plans to marry his partner David Furnish next year in a quiet ceremony. The couple have two children together."
(AFP/Yahoo News)

Who wrote this obvious and blatant lie? Homosexuals can't procreate. This writer is just a wishful liar. Homosexuals BUY children.
(Yahoo comment)


And then there's this other little problem: the Gay Mafia in Hollywood

http://www.crushable.com/2010/04/18/entertainment/meet-kevin-huvane-badass-hollywood-agent-extraordinaire/

http://www.newnownext.com/influential-gay-television-producers/10/2013/

http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/film/2015/02/20/these-producers-are-fearlessly-gaying-oscars

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls051858563/

http://defamer.gawker.com/the-sad-truths-behind-the-l-a-party-scene-that-took-do-1567145397

[had to double-check the links, all seem ok now]

Edited by Wolf DeVoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(long post)

Thank you for an excellent post with many good points.

Of course, the point that gays are promoted and glorified in media, is merely my subjective view. I believe that to be true objectively too, but it is arguable. I guess that is the case in the so called "left" media, where the "right" media still promotes so called "traditional values", e.g. family between man and woman.

My biggest fear with advocates of "gay rights" or "womens rights", is that they never stop at a point where reasonable "equality" is achieved. And the word "equality" itself is problematic, in my opinion.

Lets look at women's rights as an example, as we have a longer history in that than gay rights. First they wanted the right to vote. Ok, that seems reasonable. Next they wanted to work instead of staying at home and raising children. Ok, that's reasonable, lets do that.

Now lets look at where we are today, with so called "feminists". In Finland, they are saying that we need to re-make all traffic signs because people in them resemble males and that hurts their "equality". In Sweden, they are re-making toilets unisex, and getting rid of separate toilets for men and women. They are also trying to get rid of separate words "he" and "she", because any idea of two separate genders is apparently hurtful to them. They are teaching children in schools not to use the words "boy" or "girl" when talking of each other.

I wonder why the so called feminists don't demand that army is made mandatory for women in the name of equality, as it is for men in Finland? Wonder why they demand a gender quota in the boardrooms of companies, but not in the dirty manual labor jobs that are mostly done by men?

This is actually my strongest reason for being somewhat opposed to gay rights, as un-objectivist as that may be. They may talk about gay marriage now, but what is next? A demand that there is a gay in every boardroom of every company?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the point that gays are promoted and glorified in media, is merely my subjective view. I believe that to be true objectively too, but it is arguable. I guess that is the case in the so called "left" media, where the "right" media still promotes so called "traditional values", e.g. family between man and woman.

My biggest fear with advocates of "gay rights" or "womens rights", is that they never stop at a point where reasonable "equality" is achieved. And the word "equality" itself is problematic, in my opinion.

Lets look at women's rights as an example, as we have a longer history in that than gay rights. First they wanted the right to vote. Ok, that seems reasonable. Next they wanted to work instead of staying at home and raising children. Ok, that's reasonable, lets do that.

.

Welcome, Pekka.

"Reasonable equality" of course is subjective and mutable, when some governments are involved, like your and mine. At various points, a State will create 'over equality' and 'under equality'. In fact, they are corollaries of each other.

I'm thinking of S. Africa especially where it was and still is argued, validly, that the generations of black people denied suffrage and free movement stopped them from garnering wealth. The response? As it stands now and seemingly forever, white men have been totally locked out from most or all employment, by many black empowerment and affirmative action laws which enforce a racial priority on corporations and business hiring: black women, black men; mixed-race women, men; Asian women, men; white women, men.

Spot the moral contradiction.

"Leveling the playing field", it has been called. How long for? Nobody says. Is this some form of pay-back for apartheid (ended 21 years ago)? Heh.

Even at the cost of poor economic growth and employment figures here.

That's the trouble with "reasonable" and Statism, any irrationality/subjectivity can be justified by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolf skips past homosexuality to pedophile crimes and pedophile justification and the Lavender Mob. What to do, what to do?

Reject any association of homosexuality with sexual predation upon minors, and heavily criticize pedophile literature and individuals and groups for their specious and damaging arguments. Reject self-deluded pedophile 'leveling' to the status of a neutral 'orientation,' and treat it as a freak paraphilia that usually injures its victims. Treat a purported 'man-boy' love the same as a purported woman-boy love. Criminalize it as child sexual abuse, within reason and reasonable bounds.

About the Hollywood Gay Joo Mafia, how many have they killed or crippled? How many awful movies and TV shows have they made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

objectiveMan writes:

What I am against however, is the promotion and glorification of gays in media and culture.

That is the natural progression of leftist homosexual activists for whom perversion is a holy sacrament of their secular political religion.

1. Recognize

2. Acknowledge

3. Accept

4. Celebrate

First you were a bigot for not recognizing homosexual perversion.

Then you were a bigot for not acknowledging homosexual perversion.

Then you were a bigot for not accepting homosexual perversion.

And now you are a bigot for not celebrating homosexual perversion.

So just get used to it because the leftist activists are as relentless as nazis and will never back down. It's their holy jihad.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That progression can be used for how any collectivist treats others.

First you are a leftist for not recognizing freedom (even though I really mean freedom for me and statism for you).

Then you are a leftist for not acknowledging freedom (even though I really mean freedom for me and statism for you).

Then you are a leftist for not accepting freedom (even though I really mean freedom for me and statism for you).

Then you are a leftist for not celebrating freedom (even though I really mean freedom for me and statism for you).

or...

First you are stupid for not recognizing the good as I proclaim it.

Then you are stupid for not acknowledging the good as I proclaim it.

Then you are stupid for not accepting the good as I proclaim it.

Then you are stupid for not celebrating the good as I proclaim it.

or...

First you are lost for not recognizing my God.

Then you are lost for not acknowledging my God.

Then you are lost for not accepting my God.

Then you are lost for not celebrating my God.

The wording seems to be about an activity or morality or a characteristic, but it is really a handle to denote a collective. A big honking "us" against "you."

The problem is the idiocy of collectivism. Which collectivist propaganda strategy works best is merely a detail. And when one collectivist complains that another collectivist uses it, this is no longer a moral issue. It's a power struggle.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is the idiocy of collectivism. Which collectivist propaganda strategy works best is merely a detail. And when one collectivist complains that another collectivist uses it, this is no longer a moral issue. It's a power struggle.

Michael

Certainly a power struggle. The slightest deviation from individual rights will have one effect, to pit one group against another. It has been few people that I know of who, tasting unearned and conferred power, do not want more and more. Those who refrain are quite highly rational, self-responsible people who know that - there is an objective standard for all men - and, today it's they who are arbitrarily favored, tomorrow it will be some others in power, to their detriment. I think this is a moral, personal, issue before political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael writes:First you are a leftist for not recognizing freedom (even though I really mean freedom for me and statism for you).
Real freedom can be enjoyed even in the midst of leftist statism. I know... I live in the People's Republic of California! :laugh:
First you are stupid for not recognizing the good as I proclaim it.
There is only one objective good. Whether people freely choose to affirm or to deny it is totally up to them. Because either way they get exactly what they deserveas the consequences of their own choice.
First you are lost for not recognizing my God.
"My God" does not exist.God is not a possession. If anyone is lost they chose to be lost. It's totally self inflicted.A judgment they passed upon themselves.
A big honking "us" against "you."
There can only be one "us" against you... and that's you. :wink:Greg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My God" does not exist.

God is not a possession.

Greg,

That's fine if all you are interested in word games like puns.

But that phrase does not mean what you just said.

It means the version of God one manages to express.

In other words, the phrase "my God" does not refer to the metaphysical fact or lack thereof. It refers to the stories about God and the descriptions of God one tells others.

If fact, that's exactly what people fight over.

And all that fighting sounds fiendish to me. :smile:

You want to know why?

Because all those other stories don't accept "my God" as the one true God. If they did, there would be nothing to fight over. And it's a damned lie when they say their God is the one true God.

So might as well kill them off, or at least beat them up or rule over them or something... At the very least, grant silent approval to those who do...

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael writes:

It means the version of God one manages to express.

...and everyone's version is subjective.

Whether or not their subjective version agrees with objective reality is totally up to each individual's own free choice. For no matter what they choose, they will get the results of their choice... for better or for worse.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael writes:

And since "subjective version" means it's impossible to know "objective reality" objectively...

Not at all, Michael.

We indeed can know in no uncertain terms by experiencing the objective reality of the consequences of our own actions.

But even that knowledge we are each totally free to accept or to deny...

...both of which set into motion consequences of their own.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome, Pekka.

"Reasonable equality" of course is subjective and mutable, when some governments are involved, like your and mine. At various points, a State will create 'over equality' and 'under equality'. In fact, they are corollaries of each other.

I'm thinking of S. Africa especially where it was and still is argued, validly, that the generations of black people denied suffrage and free movement stopped them from garnering wealth. The response? As it stands now and seemingly forever, white men have been totally locked out from most or all employment, by many black empowerment and affirmative action laws which enforce a racial priority on corporations and business hiring: black women, black men; mixed-race women, men; Asian women, men; white women, men.

Spot the moral contradiction.

"Leveling the playing field", it has been called. How long for? Nobody says. Is this some form of pay-back for apartheid (ended 21 years ago)? Heh.

Even at the cost of poor economic growth and employment figures here.

That's the trouble with "reasonable" and Statism, any irrationality/subjectivity can be justified by it.

I visited South Africa about a year ago. I loved many aspects of the country. I have to confess, I do have some irrational fascination with Africa.

I didn't like the worship of Nelson Mandela everywhere, it just felt over the top. Everyone was so obsessed with him. I understood that plays into the favour of the largest political party?

Apartheid was obviously horrible, but it is sad to hear that now the "equality" has turned against the whites in some aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(long post)

Thank you for an excellent post with many good points.

Of course, the point that gays are promoted and glorified in media, is merely my subjective view. I believe that to be true objectively too, but it is arguable. I guess that is the case in the so called "left" media, where the "right" media still promotes so called "traditional values", e.g. family between man and woman.

My biggest fear with advocates of "gay rights" or "womens rights", is that they never stop at a point where reasonable "equality" is achieved. And the word "equality" itself is problematic, in my opinion.

Lets look at women's rights as an example, as we have a longer history in that than gay rights. First they wanted the right to vote. Ok, that seems reasonable. Next they wanted to work instead of staying at home and raising children. Ok, that's reasonable, lets do that.

Now lets look at where we are today, with so called "feminists". In Finland, they are saying that we need to re-make all traffic signs because people in them resemble males and that hurts their "equality". In Sweden, they are re-making toilets unisex, and getting rid of separate toilets for men and women. They are also trying to get rid of separate words "he" and "she", because any idea of two separate genders is apparently hurtful to them. They are teaching children in schools not to use the words "boy" or "girl" when talking of each other.

I wonder why the so called feminists don't demand that army is made mandatory for women in the name of equality, as it is for men in Finland? Wonder why they demand a gender quota in the boardrooms of companies, but not in the dirty manual labor jobs that are mostly done by men?

This is actually my strongest reason for being somewhat opposed to gay rights, as un-objectivist as that may be. They may talk about gay marriage now, but what is next? A demand that there is a gay in every boardroom of every company?

Your argument seems to be that because some people go too far, then no one should try at all. That because there are some women making irrational demands in the name of equality today, then no one should have worked for women's suffrage in the first place.

I might suggest that you're focused too much on the irrational arguments for equality. The "preachers" of it are the loudest, after all. Not everyone who favors equality takes it to the extreme that you describe. There are those of us who believe in a true equality. To paraphrase Sheryl Sandberg, "we will be truly equal when half of the world's companies and countries are run by women and half the world's homes are run by men." It isn't logical to argue that it's okay for women to aim for the c-suite without also arguing that it's okay for men to aim to be stay-at-home parents (or nurses or teachers or any other profession traditionally held primarily by women).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and everyone's version is subjective.

Heh...

We indeed can know in no uncertain terms by experiencing the objective reality of the consequences of our own actions.

Apparently the knowledge of those "no uncertain terms" is subjective.

In other words, according to this thinking, the ONLY way we can know anything "objective" is subjectively.

Thus, certainty is only gained by faith.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now