Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Mavorpen]

And this proves homosexuality is immoral how, exactly?

Because ""The essence of femininity is hero worship" (Ayn Rand, "About a Woman President," in The Voice of Reason, ed. Leonard Peikoff [New York: Penguin, 1989], 268) meaning attraction to men as producers. Therefore a woman of self esteem wants to be ruled (sexually) by a man worthy of ruling her and a man of self esteem wants to rule (sexually) a woman worthy of being ruled. Therefore if ones nature is to be homosexual these feeling will manifest in a homosexual relationship and be moral. If one is not homosexual and acts on a homosexual fetish it would be immoral.

So homosexuality is moral?

Because ancient Rome had this ideal somewhat. If you were in the penetrating, dominant position, it was considered manly. Yet, it was perfectly normal. Nice job not knowing history Ayn Rand!

[The Emerald Dawn]

Your Honor, he said "My views". Therefore, it's his views, logically. And since they're are his views, the views of a single subject, his views are subjective.

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=6262083

Objection sustained.

[Mavorpen]

Your Honor, he said "My views". Therefore, it's his views, logically. And since they're are his views, the views of a single subject, his views are subjective.

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=6262083

*grumble grumble* He doesn't know what objective means! *grumble grumble.

[Samuraikoku]

Your Honor, he said "My views". Therefore, it's his views, logically. And since they're are his views, the views of a single subject, his views are subjective.

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=6262083

*grumble grumble* He doesn't know what objective means! *grumble grumble.

[Objectiveland]

sex is morally important because it promotes ones life and happiness. Rational self interest.

But sex can also lead to heartbreak and obsession. How can you say it's objectively good or bad? I would understand saying it is subjectively good or bad, though, and people often do.

Not if sex is between one worthy of receiving and one worthy of providing sex. "Sex, to a rational man…is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence and for this man (or woman) sex is properly a physical expression of romantic love. Celebration of one's own life and of existence is essential to promoting one's happiness; thus, it is moral to make choices that allow oneself this celebration and immoral to deny or negate it."Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968,

[CVT Temp]

"The essence of femininity is hero worship"

I don't really buy into essentialism at all. Rand was far too caught up in primitive Aristotelian metaphysics. The idea that there is some proper "essence" to things divorced from the properties of the thing is self-refuting. There is no essence. There is only structure.

[Mavorpen]

*grumble grumble* He doesn't know what objective means! *grumble grumble.

I expected this as a reply.

[Mavorpen]

But sex can also lead to heartbreak and obsession. How can you say it's objectively good or bad? I would understand saying it is subjectively good or bad, though, and people often do.

Not if sex is between one worthy of receiving and one worthy of providing sex. "Sex, to a rational man…is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence and for this man (or woman) sex is properly a physical expression of romantic love. Celebration of one's own life and of existence is essential to promoting one's happiness; thus, it is moral to make choices that allow oneself this celebration and immoral to deny or negate it."Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968,

So what you're saying is, rape is moral.

[CVT Temp]

Not if sex is between one worthy of receiving and one worthy of providing sex. "Sex, to a rational man…is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence and for this man (or woman) sex is properly a physical expression of romantic love. Celebration of one's own life and of existence is essential to promoting one's happiness; thus, it is moral to make choices that allow oneself this celebration and immoral to deny or negate it."Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968,

Again, you're creating this strange world where sex involves borderline rape. Ayn Rand was herself into extremely violent and kinky sex. She cannot simply take this fetish of hers and impose it onto the universe as ZOMG objective!

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Not if sex is between one worthy of receiving and one worthy of providing sex. "Sex, to a rational man…is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence and for this man (or woman) sex is properly a physical expression of romantic love. Celebration of one's own life and of existence is essential to promoting one's happiness; thus, it is moral to make choices that allow oneself this celebration and immoral to deny or negate it."Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968,

So what you're saying is, rape is moral.

I see you're familiar with her novels.

[Objectiveland]

Because ""The essence of femininity is hero worship" (Ayn Rand, "About a Woman President," in The Voice of Reason, ed. Leonard Peikoff [New York: Penguin, 1989], 268) meaning attraction to men as producers. Therefore a woman of self esteem wants to be ruled (sexually) by a man worthy of ruling her and a man of self esteem wants to rule (sexually) a woman worthy of being ruled. Therefore if ones nature is to be homosexual these feeling will manifest in a homosexual relationship and be moral. If one is not homosexual and acts on a homosexual fetish it would be immoral.

So homosexuality is moral?

Because ancient Rome had this ideal somewhat. If you were in the penetrating, dominant position, it was considered manly. Yet, it was perfectly normal. Nice job not knowing history Ayn Rand!

Homosexuality isn't immoral if it is your nature to be so. Has nothing to do with history. The morality of homosexuality is not philosophical but one can use Objectivist principles to evaluate the morality of homosexuality.

[CVT Temp]

I see you're familiar with her novels.

I've read The Fountainhead.

[Samuraikoku]

Homosexuality isn't immoral if it is your nature to be so. Has nothing to do with history. The morality of homosexuality is not philosophical but one can use Objectivist principles to evaluate the morality of homosexuality.

Another objection!

[CVT Temp]

Homosexuality isn't immoral if it is your nature to be so.

So it's wrong to have gay sex if you don't want to have gay sex? Okay.

[Condunum]

So homosexuality is moral?

Because ancient Rome had this ideal somewhat. If you were in the penetrating, dominant position, it was considered manly. Yet, it was perfectly normal. Nice job not knowing history Ayn Rand!

Homosexuality isn't immoral if it is your nature to be so. Has nothing to do with history. The morality of homosexuality is not philosophical but one can use Objectivist principles to evaluate the morality of homosexuality.

And yet, since it isn't their choice, homosexuality is in their nature. Glad we could work this out.

[Mavorpen]

Homosexuality isn't immoral if it is your nature to be so. Has nothing to do with history. The morality of homosexuality is not philosophical but one can use Objectivist principles to evaluate the morality of homosexuality.

Do you EVER reply to a post properly? It has everything to do with history in this case. Ayn Rand makes a philosophical claim, and then comes to the conclusion of morality based off of that claim. The problem is, Ancient Rome ALSO made the SAME philosophical claims, and yet came to a conclusion that homosexuality was moral. You've in essence PROVEN that Ayn Rand 1) doesn't know history 2) doesn't know what objectivity is and 3) is an idiot that actually thinks that morality is objective in the first place.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I see you're familiar with her novels.

I've read The Fountainhead.

In that case, you've essentially read all of her works with less repetition involved.

[Objectiveland]

So what you're saying is, rape is moral.

I see you're familiar with her novels.

Oh yes.

[Raeyh]

*grumble grumble* He doesn't know what objective means! *grumble grumble.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to apply a penalty.

!!!

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I see you're familiar with her novels.

Oh yes.

So do you think that rape is moral?

[Samuraikoku]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to apply a penalty.

!!!

[Sociobiology]

But sex can also lead to heartbreak and obsession. How can you say it's objectively good or bad? I would understand saying it is subjectively good or bad, though, and people often do.

Not if sex is between one worthy of receiving and one worthy of providing sex.

Worthy?
then you are no longer talking about the act of sex but the act of ascribing worth, so you are doubly wrong.
Sex is no longer the moral variable

"Sex, to a rational man…is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence and for this man (or woman) sex is properly a physical expression of romantic love. Celebration of one's own life and of existence is essential to promoting one's happiness; thus, it is moral to make choices that allow oneself this celebration and immoral to deny or negate it."Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968

And we should care about the opinion of a fiction writer when discussing neuroscience, why?
although I do love the claim that physical expression of irrationality is somehow rational. zenny bullshit.

[Objectiveland]

Homosexuality isn't immoral if it is your nature to be so. Has nothing to do with history. The morality of homosexuality is not philosophical but one can use Objectivist principles to evaluate the morality of homosexuality.

Do you EVER reply to a post properly? It has everything to do with history in this case. Ayn Rand makes a philosophical claim, and then comes to the conclusion of morality based off of that claim. The problem is, Ancient Rome ALSO made the SAME philosophical claims, and yet came to a conclusion that homosexuality was moral. You've in essence PROVEN that Ayn Rand 1) doesn't know history 2) doesn't know what objectivity is and 3) is an idiot that actually thinks that morality is objective in the first place.

Philosophical claims are different. I am using an objectivist philosophy. I would suggest you check your premiss.

[Samuraikoku]

Philosophical claims are different. I am using an objectivist philosophy. I would suggest you check your premiss.

I would suggest you learn the definition of objective.

[Condunum]

Do you EVER reply to a post properly? It has everything to do with history in this case. Ayn Rand makes a philosophical claim, and then comes to the conclusion of morality based off of that claim. The problem is, Ancient Rome ALSO made the SAME philosophical claims, and yet came to a conclusion that homosexuality was moral. You've in essence PROVEN that Ayn Rand 1) doesn't know history 2) doesn't know what objectivity is and 3) is an idiot that actually thinks that morality is objective in the first place.

Philosophical claims are different. I am using an objectivist philosophy. I would suggest you check your premiss.

Your views are not objective. No one's are.