Homosexuality- Does choice matter?


Recommended Posts

(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).

Deanna, I think that's a sensible caution not to focus too much on irrational equality. Granted, the efforts of women, blacks and gays to gain equality under the law, could not be anything but rational, admirable causes.

Except, now that those goals are accomplished - now what?

I can't agree with Sandberg that equality becomes a numbers game, with representative quotas. (Sometimes to redress past injustices and even guilt). I've seen too much of social engineering.

When previous stigmas and prejudices slowly disappear, those professions, or conformist notions of 'womanly duties' will evaporate too. In more instances there will simply be an individual making his/her choice to employ, marry or otherwise deal with another without fear or favor, irrespective of gender (etc). It's what I think of as the rough n tumble of reality and it must happen organically, without 'A Plan', and not obedient to any other factors. This would be further collectivism, ultimately more force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael writes:

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

Yes.

While our reactions to the objective reality of the consequences of our actions are subjective...

...it is up to our own reason to determine for ourselves how much our subjective actions are in harmony with objective reality.

For that is the only way we can properly adjust our behavior to be in better accord with what is...

...for our own good. :smile:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No, I am not suggesting no-one should try at all, I am merely saying that I am fearful of what "equality" gone too far leads to. And they are not just making irrational demands as if that is where it stops, they are actually getting their irrational demands passed into irrational laws.

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).

I don't think there should be any goal for what percentage of companies is run by women, or what percentage of houses is run by men. This should be left completely to "free market" to decide, which means to individuals themselves. Any government enforcement or even encouragement is about the worst kind of government intervention I can think of.

Men and women should compete for a job on equal grounds, may be the best person win. That is not what the feminists are advocating though, they want preferential treatment. They are saying they should get a leadership job because they are women, not because they are good at the job. That's what gender quotas are. Would you personally like to be hired into a leadership position in a company because of your objective skill and qualifications, or because the company had to hire a woman? Would you feel proud if you got that board seat due to gender quota? I sure wouldn't.

Also, did you consider that men may be objectively better at certain things, while women may be objectively better at others? Or did you consider that half of women may not want to lead companies, or that half of men may not want to be stay-at-home-dads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...it is up to our own reason to determine for ourselves how much our subjective actions are in harmony with objective reality.

But... but.. but...

According to you, we can only know objective reality subjectively.

There is no way to know whether we are in true harmony with objective reality because there is no way to know anything objectively. (What does objective harmony sound like anyway? :) )

Thus, there is only faith as our ultimate standard.

And faith, by definition, is not objective. Nor is it reason.

:)

Michael

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).

Deanna, I think that's a sensible caution not to focus too much on irrational equality. Granted, the efforts of women, blacks and gays to gain equality under the law, could not be anything but rational, admirable causes.

Except, now that those goals are accomplished - now what?

I can't agree with Sandberg that equality becomes a numbers game, with representative quotas. (Sometimes to redress past injustices and even guilt). I've seen too much of social engineering.

When previous stigmas and prejudices slowly disappear, those professions, or conformist notions of 'womanly duties' will evaporate too. In more instances there will simply be an individual making his/her choice to employ, marry or otherwise deal with another without fear or favor, irrespective of gender (etc). It's what I think of as the rough n tumble of reality and it must happen organically, without 'A Plan', and not obedient to any other factors. This would be further collectivism, ultimately more force.

That's the danger in not having a lot of context around a paraphrase. Sandberg's book is not a call for quotas. Her book (Lean In) is a call for the kind of organic growth that you describe. She doesn't address systemic issues, she addresses individual thought processes. She acknowledges the differences between men and women while at the same time challenges some of the traditional ways in which most people believe men and women are different. I don't agree with her on everything, but I think she's on the right track overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No, I am not suggesting no-one should try at all, I am merely saying that I am fearful of what "equality" gone too far leads to. And they are not just making irrational demands as if that is where it stops, they are actually getting their irrational demands passed into irrational laws.

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).

I don't think there should be any goal for what percentage of companies is run by women, or what percentage of houses is run by men. This should be left completely to "free market" to decide, which means to individuals themselves. Any government enforcement or even encouragement is about the worst kind of government intervention I can think of.

Men and women should compete for a job on equal grounds, may be the best person win. That is not what the feminists are advocating though, they want preferential treatment. They are saying they should get a leadership job because they are women, not because they are good at the job. That's what gender quotas are. Would you personally like to be hired into a leadership position in a company because of your objective skill and qualifications, or because the company had to hire a woman? Would you feel proud if you got that board seat due to gender quota? I sure wouldn't.

Also, did you consider that men may be objectively better at certain things, while women may be objectively better at others? Or did you consider that half of women may not want to lead companies, or that half of men may not want to be stay-at-home-dads?

See my prior comment in response to whYONT as well as....

Yes, there are some people who argue for preferential treatment. I am not one of them. The opposite of those people are the ones I'm suggesting you seek out. We exist.

I acknowledge that men are objectively better at certain things, but it is also true that women are objectively better at certain things. For instance, women have been shown to make less risky decisions under stress than men. They have also been shown a tendency to be better at collaboration. Both of these qualities are good ones to have on project teams and in leadership roles. Further it is also true that some individual men are objectively better at certain things that most people consider to be female roles. For instance, men tend to make very good emergency room nurses. The reverse of that is true with the first women ever to graduate US Army Ranger school as prime examples.

I can't speak for how things are in Finland, but I know that in the US south, it is not deemed culturally acceptable for a man to be a stay-at-home parent, even if that's exactly what he wants and that he and his family have chosen. Interestingly, it isn't even mostly other men who would condemn him for it, but women. Then there are the men who would really really like to have some extended time off with a newborn child and not be frowned upon for it. That's the kind of equality that I and others would like to see, and I am totally in favor of whYONT's proposed organic growth in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, did you consider that men may be objectively better at certain things, while women may be objectively better at others?

Believe me Deanna thought those through, she was giving you a gentle nudge about your "overreacting."

I definitely know that women are better at "birthing babies" than men are.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to you, we can only know objective reality subjectively.
We experience the objective reality of the just and deserved consequences of our actions. It's our reactions to that objective reality which are totally subjective. For we are completely free to choose either to acknowledge the truth of them or to deny they have any causal relationship to our actions.
There is no way to know whether we are in true harmony with objective reality because there is no way to know anything objectively.
(shrug...)That's fine. You're totally free to choose to deny the objective reality of the consequences of your own actions. In fact this very conversation is a demonstration of your exercise of that freedom. There is absolutely NO coercion in our moral choices. This is evidence of an Ultimate Love. Because if there were anything to tip us either way, we would not be free to choose.Heck, we're even totally free to deny the existence of that Love. :laugh:Greg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael writes:

For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, none is possible.

I did explain... but of course you're free to deny it was one! :laugh:

The bottom line is that each of us is free to choose to affirm or deny the existence of the objective reality of the laws which govern the causal relation of action to consequence...

...and no matter what the choice, each of us gets the results of our choice.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are some people who argue for preferential treatment. I am not one of them. The opposite of those people are the ones I'm suggesting you seek out. We exist.

I am glad to hear it. Still, I find the following statement very troubling.

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 appears that you believe that women have this collective goal that they should work towards? Individualists set goals for themselves, collectivists set goals for others.

For me, true equality in a free society means that every woman has the opportunity to be anything that a man has the opportunity to be. This the difference between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome". I support the first, and I will fight for "women's rights" in the sense that they have the opportunity to be CEOs and whatever else, if they are good enough. But I will set no preference towards how many women actually should be CEOs.

Sandberg on the other hand, at least judging by that quote, cares about equality of outcome. She is concerned with the fact that equal number of women actually end up as leaders as men, regardless of their competence.

Further it is also true that some individual men are objectively better at certain things that most people consider to be female roles. For instance, men tend to make very good emergency room nurses. The reverse of that is true with the first women ever to graduate US Army Ranger school as prime examples.

You chose an example of exceptional women to argue where average women are good at?

I can't speak for how things are in Finland, but I know that in the US south, it is not deemed culturally acceptable for a man to be a stay-at-home parent, even if that's exactly what he wants and that he and his family have chosen. Interestingly, it isn't even mostly other men who would condemn him for it, but women. Then there are the men who would really really like to have some extended time off with a newborn child and not be frowned upon for it. That's the kind of equality that I and others would like to see, and I am totally in favor of whYONT's proposed organic growth in that direction.

I have no problem with this idea of organic growth, but that is not what is happening (at least over here). The government (and media) is actively trying to encourage, promote, and even enforce (via laws) these "ideals" that more women should be leaders, and that more men should be stay-at-home-dads. So what is your stance on this kind of government interference?

Sorry for derailing the "gay thread" into other issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deanna writes:

There are those of us who believe in a true equality.

You're Utopian dream is coming true, Deanna... because the European liberal socialist collectivist model has been embraced by the political majority in the US.

The only problem with your goal of government enforced equality is that you have to sacrifice American liberty to get it, because they are mutually exclusive. But that's the trade off that the majority of people in America are more than willing to make, so that's what they get.

I thought I'd never see the day when the majority of people in the US would be so willing to give up their liberty of being independent productive self reliant Americans for the equality of becoming weak government benefits dependent Europeans...

...but they have.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI...

http://www.forbes.com/profile/sheryl-sandberg/

Facebook COO and author of bestseller "Lean In," Sheryl Sandberg is now asking men and women to "Lean In Together" to further gender equality at home and work. In March 2015, her LeanIn.org launched a public service campaign with the NBA and WNBA, promoting equality. The former Google executive joined Facebook in 2008 and became the first woman on its board four years later. Sandberg helped the social network scale globally, go public and expand digital revenue.

http://leanin.org/

This link is from her Lean-In website.

Impressive lady.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pekka,

Before we leave this, I think it's important to point out that "equality of opportunity" is perhaps as much a misconception as "equality of outcome". The questions are: who has to supply the "opportunity" - and why should he-she have to be "equal" (in his-her selection)? And as much as no two individuals are equal in every way, similarly how possibly can opportunity be equalized?

I do take your meaning though.

Given a close call between one of two able individuals to employ, one woman and one man, what might swing it for the employer is her personal preference for the one, who happens to be male, by his demeanor, personality, or other factors.

(personal, not subjective, btw).

Essentially, it comes down to you not needing to know, consider or care about, whether you as a rational employer have more/less women, more/less gays, more/less blacks (etc.) in your business. It is your freedom to choose individually without external considerations.

'Freedom' is what we should switch to whenever the cry for "equality" (except for before the law, an anti-concept) comes up today. Which means man's freedom to act, which means to "be free from his brother".

(And the common touting of "Equal Opportunity Employers"-- spare me the sanctimony!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a smart blond shall lead them...

 

 

I just saw this in my daily Open Culture email - yes it is lunchtime...it has applications to this discussion both the original and where it drifted too...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deanna writes:

There are those of us who believe in a true equality.

You're Utopian dream is coming true, Deanna... because the European liberal socialist collectivist model has been embraced by the political majority in the US.

The only problem with your goal of government enforced equality is that you have to sacrifice American liberty to get it, because they are mutually exclusive. But that's the trade off that the majority of people in America are more than willing to make, so that's what they get.

I thought I'd never see the day when the majority of people in the US would be so willing to give up their liberty of being independent productive self reliant Americans for the equality of becoming weak government benefits dependent Europeans...

...but they have.

Greg

Where is this here from her? I got the impression Deanna was speaking to a cultural, not a legal, point, much less a socialist one.

Equality under the law is not biological equality between the sexes. There is no justification for female rangers. It's PC crap delux visited upon the armed forces. You can make them naval fighter pilots, not ground combatants lugging around all that gear. Even I as a young man today would have to go to the gym and bulk up. That would likely not be enough for years of such in the field effort. My body would degrade, maybe seriously. All the contemporary photos I've seen of Special Forces in the field are not of my natural body type.

You tend not to really read those whom you react to. You just look for something to half latch onto then it's off to your races. Same old, same old. Sometimes you're 100% on and sometimes 100% off. Then there's that inevitable inbetweeness so beloved by the squeamish.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant writes:

I got the impression Deanna was speaking to a cultural, not a legal, point, much less a socialist one.

So am I.

The feminized liberal egalitarian lie of gender sameness is being ground into American culture.

Men and women are objectively different.

The Utopian dream of forcing what is not equal to be equal requires a rejection of truth in order to promote a lie.

To do that requires a large liberal government bureaucracy, because it's the only entity with the power to lie enough to create its own fake politically correct "reality". The government gets its power to do this from millions of immoral failures who love to believe in lies more than they love truth.

Liberal government was created as a default substitute male for irresponsible husbandless females unsuitable for a marriage relationship, as well as for their fatherless delinquent offspring spawned from failed relationships. So they look to it to grant them the "social justice" of equality to which they feel entitled...

...but failed to earn through moral strength of character.

Greg

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