Gay Parents

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

But here's the thing: yes on a very important level homosexual parents will be able to provide a lot of things that a disfunctional family will not, all the things you listed -- love, a benevolent atmosphere, learning that his ideas and views matter, etc. But is this the most fundamental 'thing' that we can learn? Isn't there a very important level beneath even that, an almost non-verbal level where all our deepest values, our inner-most nature, reside? [...]

People can consciously think and choose the ideas and opinions, which is what homosexual parents can help them with, but they don't consciously think and choose about their most inner-most personal values [...]

←

If I understood you correctly, you made similar points in an earlier discussion about the young Ayn Rand or anyone else who had a view of the world or a view on a basic issue but couldn't argue for it. Is that the same position you are describing in the quotation above?

I am confused about your topography of the mind. You recognize that an individual can choose some values, but other deeper, "almost non-verbal" values or somehow there -- somewhere.

Would you explain where? Are you talking only of the subconscious mind, or is there some other part of an individual's nature that you are identifying?

[piz 0]

But here's the thing: yes on a very important level homosexual parents will be able to provide a lot of things that a disfunctional family will not, all the things you listed -- love, a benevolent atmosphere, learning that his ideas and views matter, etc. But is this the most fundamental 'thing' that we can learn? Isn't there a very important level beneath even that, an almost non-verbal level where all our deepest values, our inner-most nature, reside? Who we are? Whom we will love? What kind of entity to be attracted to? Man? Woman? Etc.

People can consciously think and choose the ideas and opinions, which is what homosexual parents can help them with, but they don't consciously think and choose about their most inner-most personal values, which is what their homosexual parents cannot help them with. Nor can heterosexual parents for that matter; but what heterosexual parents do, by their very presence and existence, is help the children acquire proper values, and acquire proper opinions about the most fundamental aspects of their being.

←

What is your reasoning behind "[people] don't think and choose about their most inner-most personal values?"

[Free Capitalist 0]

This is somewhat different. In the other thread I was talking about different stages of belief in one's innermost ideas. Here I'm talking about ideas that are so fundamental that they exist, for most people, on a non-verbal level. Certainly every idea we hold can be verbally expressed, but some are so deeply held within us that most people will not be able to easily verbalize those ideas, or explain them. I mean most Objectivists have a higher than average level of self-awareness, from what I notice, but try an average married person -- ask them why they married that woman, why they married that woman, etc. The more fundamental a certain idea is within us, I observe, the more difficulty we encounter trying to explain it, or explicitly identify and reason about it. Our sexuality seems to be one of such principles within us, if not the principle, something so fundamental that it makes all others pale in comparison. Certainly growing up with two parents whose sexuality is broken qua human being (though not qua their particular natures), will deeply influence a young child, even if he does not become gay himself. But then again this comes back to the question, can it properly be considered broken in some sense. I thought the answer was obvious, but Stephen seems to emphatically disagree with it...

[Free Capitalist 0]

Ooops, I should clarify that my response was to Burgess.

As to piz, did my reply to Burgess answer your question, or would you like me to elaborate? To take an inductive example, did you consciously and explicitly choose to like women? It wasn't at all an explicit choice for me. Now I can sit and think about it all I want, but when it was happening there was no explicit awareness on my part.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But here's the thing: yes on a very important level homosexual parents will be able to provide a lot of things that a disfunctional family will not, all the things you listed -- love, a benevolent atmosphere, learning that his ideas and views matter, etc. But is this the most fundamental 'thing' that we can learn?

As a child, pretty much so. The best you can do is love a child a lot and often, create for him a benevolent world within which to live, teach him how to use his mind and that ideas really matter. The rest is up to him.

Isn't there a very important level beneath even that, an almost non-verbal level where all our deepest values, our inner-most nature, reside? Who we are? Whom we will love? What kind of entity to be attracted to? Man? Woman? Etc.

That's pretty much what Freud said. I sense you might be confusing the notion of a sense of life, with Freudian psychosexual development.

People can consciously think and choose the ideas and opinions, which is what homosexual parents can help them with, but they don't consciously think and choose about their most inner-most personal values, which is what their homosexual parents cannot help them with. Nor can heterosexual parents for that matter; but what heterosexual parents do, by their very presence and existence, is help the children acquire proper values, and acquire proper opinions about the most fundamental aspects of their being.

I see. So heterosexuals can help a child to "acquire proper values" and to "acquire proper opinions," something homosexuals cannot do. And these "values" and "opinions" are not just minor ones, but "values" and "opinions" about "the most fundamental aspects of their being." I am almost speechless. I can only ask you what I asked before: Where are you getting this stuff from?

I guess everything comes down to evaluation of homosexuality. If it is treated as just some irrelevant thing which really doesn't mean that much ...

That is the start of a straw man argument, since no one here, as far as I can tell, has offered such a view as this, except yourself.

But if homosexuality is classified as an unnatural phenomenon which, even if it is not immoral and up for condemnation, is a violation of the natural order and improper on some level, then having heterosexual children raised by gay parents will actively deprive them of some irreplaceable aspects of their development, even if those parents will be able to supply everything else.

You keep asserting this over and over, but have not provided a single shred of evidence in support, even though you have been repeatedly asked to do so.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

This is somewhat different. In the other thread I was talking about different stages of belief in one's innermost ideas. Here I'm talking about ideas that are so fundamental that they exist, for most people, on a non-verbal level. Certainly every idea we hold can be verbally expressed, but some are so deeply held within us that most people will not be able to easily verbalize those ideas, or explain them.

←

That might be because they have a biological base or major component. If that is the case, how a child is raised will not affect it one way or another.

Certainly growing up with two parents whose sexuality is broken qua human being (though not qua their particular natures), will deeply influence a young child

If that were the case, there would be SOME significant differences between children raised by heterosexuals vs. homosexuals. Some studies have been done and they show, for instance, that the percentages of adult homosexuals is the same in both groups. So is the stability of their marriages as indicated by divorce statistics.

What bad consequences do you have in mind and what evidence is there that they actually occur in children of homosexual parents? Without supporting evidence, I have to regard an idea as arbitrary.

[RayK 0]

Free Capitalist,

I agree with Betsy and Stephen, and maybe this can be shown through a different perspective.

My father was in the Navy for almost 22 years and deployed for around 16 of those 22. Even when he was home it was very short, because he was constantly training at sea between deployments. The only example you get when in this situation is one parent figure. But, that does not mean you have to agree with it. Without any proper examples of love and marriage by my parents, I have been married 16 1/2 years. By your theory this should never have happened, although you are using gay parents instead of missing or useless parents. I also have two brothers who have both been married and divorced. My parents are still married though, so the example of a divorce was never there, not by my parents.

By your logic Ayn Rand should never have come up with the ideas that she did, because of how she grew up, surronded by communism.

A child can still choose to agree or disagree with the examples shown by adults or other people, even if those people are their parents.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Certainly growing up with two parents whose sexuality is broken qua human being (though not qua their particular natures) , will deeply influence a young child, even if he does not become gay himself. But then again this comes back to the question, can it properly be considered broken in some sense. I thought the answer was obvious, [...]

←

I have put in bold type the ideas that continue to puzzle me. I wonder if you are assuming the following argument:

1. Homosexual individuals, acting sexually in couples, do not produce children of their own.

2. If all humans were homosexual, the species would end.

3. Anything in the nature of the members of a species that brings the species to an end is unnatural or abnormal ("broken"), because it is self-destructive for the species.

Do you agree with this argument? If so, I would suggest you reconsider. I see the possibility of a fallacy lurking here -- in particular, a form of the fallacy of composition: attributing characteristics of some individual members of a group to the whole group and then drawing inferences from that characterization of the group.

I see no reason to assume that characteristics of a few individuals in a species must be considered "broken" -- as if the characteristics were applied to every member of that group. The fact (known by observation) is that not all individual human beings are homosexual. The species is not in danger, and an assumed threat to it cannot be used to evaluate the propriety of individual behavior (homosexuals acting as parents).

If you do not agree with the argument presented in steps 1-3, would you explain what you mean by "broken" -- especially "broken qua human being"?

[Free Capitalist 0]

To everyone in this discussion, please be aware that I am trying to further understand this subject as I'm going along here, so please bear with me if my thought process throughout the entire thread is a little rambling.

RayK,

You make an interesting example of single parents. True, in your example you were not shown many examples of a happy couple, but isn't it true that you at least observed that your mother was with a man? Isn't that alone worth something, an idea that no one ever explained to you (or me), but you assumed for granted to be proper? Everything seems to come back to one's evaluation of homosexuality, and I'll explore that in my response to Burgess.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Burgess,

I have put in bold type the ideas that continue to puzzle me. I wonder if you are assuming the following argument:

[...]

Do you agree with this argument?

Not at all. I am making no kind of generational argument, and in no way trying to tie human procreation into this. And as I said before, I am making no negative moral evaluation of homosexuality either, at least the proper non-chosen kind.

If you do not agree with the argument presented in steps 1-3, would you explain what you mean by "broken" -- especially "broken qua human being"?

I think I detect this sort of implicit question from everyone discussing this issue with me, and I'm glad you've finally verbalized it. It makes me very surprised that this kind of question exists at all, and it caught me by surprise that I had to put into words what I thought was so obvious to everyone. Isn't there some way in which homosexuality may be considered unnatural? I mean: a man, qua human being, is to have sex with a woman; similarly, a woman qua human being ought to have sex with a man. You may ask yourself what does being rational have to do with one's choice of sexual partners, i.e. what it is in our nature that demands that choice. To answer that, we have to go even lower in our natures, not toward the nature of a human being but toward the nature of an animal on which our rationality is built upon. A man qua animal, of any species, is to have sex with a woman, and vice versa. This is a biological argument, that is what we were born to do, what nature 'designed' us to do as human beings, and as animals. I'd like to ask you if you agree with this so far.

Thus, by that standard, a naturally heterosexual man who chooses to deny his nature by having sex with another man will be considered immoral, etc etc as Ayn Rand said. But we're not talking about that man, we're talking about the man who is born homosexual, as there are many species of mammals other than humans which periodically produce homosexual individuals. So, if our example is that kind of man then certainly there is no negative moral evaluation due him, because he is acting in accordance with the way he was born. But in some sense he is still unnatural, still not exactly how a proper human being, a proper animal, should be like; that is what I mean when I say his act is unnatural. In much the same way that a six-fingered man is unnatural and improper in some way, a man who has sex with men is unnatural and improper in some way.

Will you agree with me on this as well? And does this answer your question?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Stephen (and Betsy),

I don't want to make it seem like I'm avoiding answering your questions, but I am trying to do my best to clarify my understanding of this issue, and to understand where you're coming from on this. So, in order to do that, I'd like to ask a question in return, so that we can go back to the essentials:

Do you think that homosexuality is improper in some way, any way at all? Or do you view it, as I said before, as trivial of a distinction as a distinction between people who eat with their left hand and those who eat with their right? Stephen, by saying that I drew up a straw man, indicated that he does not agree with the latter distinction, but I still get the feeling he will not go so far as to admit the former one. Hence my question. And if you would like to expand your answer, could you say whether you think a six-fingered man is unnatural in some way, any way? And if you give different answers for these two different kinds of people, please explain the discrepancy.

In addition I should add that, for the sake of the argument, let's put aside the sensibilities of any gay people that you may think of, or who may read the thread, regardless of how much it may hurt them. Since I am still trying to fully understand the issue and verbalize my thoughts, what I am trying to do here is cognitive identification, something in which feelings play no role. Then again you already know that, so I'm saying it for their sake, in order that they don't feel unfairly attacked. I've already expressed my lack of antipathy toward gay people in previous posts.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Do you think that homosexuality is improper in some way, any way at all?

No more so than is heterosexuality.

Or do you view it, as I said before, as trivial of a distinction as a distinction between people who eat with their left hand and those who eat with their right?

You continue to offer false alternatives. The choice is not between "improper" and a "trivial ... distinction." It can be proper and the distinction need not be trivial. This is why I said you are making a straw man argument when you attribute that false alternative to your opponents.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Isn't there some way in which homosexuality may be considered unnatural?

←

Of course, but so what? Deliberately using birth control is "unnatural" and impedes normal fertilization and gestation. So do some popular and delightful heterosexual sexual practices.

Since when is "natural" synonymous with "good" or "proper?"

I mean: a man, qua human being, is to have sex with a woman; similarly, a woman qua human being ought to have sex with a man

You may ask yourself what does being rational have to do with one's choice of sexual partners, i.e. what it is in our nature that demands that choice. To answer that, we have to go even lower in our natures, not toward the nature of a human being but toward the nature of an animal on which our rationality is built upon. A man qua animal, of any species, is to have sex with a woman, and vice versa. .

And since no animal is born with shoes we ought to go barefoot?

This is a biological argument, that is what we were born to do, what nature 'designed' us to do as human beings, and as animals.

And if men were meant to fly, they would have been born with wings?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Do you think that homosexuality is improper in some way, any way at all?

←

Improper, by what standard?

By Objectivist standards, there is nothing about being gay that keeps anyone from being rational or practicing any of the Objectivist virtues. In my own experience, I have found that someone's sexual preference correlates with his morality about as well as his eye color does.

Or do you view it, as I said before, as trivial of a distinction as a distinction between people who eat with their left hand and those who eat with their right?

It is not a trivial distinction, particularly in certain contexts like reproductive efficacy, but you could say the same thing about being infertile. There are also disadvantages to being born much shorter than the average, having a Cyrano-sized nose, etc. Sometimes the body one is born with presents problems -- and that is true of most of us in one way or another.

[Tom Rexton 0]

...

I think I detect this sort of implicit question from everyone discussing this issue with me, and I'm glad you've finally verbalized it. It makes me very surprised that this kind of question exists at all, and it caught me by surprise that I had to put into words what I thought was so obvious to everyone. Isn't there some way in which homosexuality may be considered unnatural? I mean: a man, qua human being, is to have sex with a woman; similarly, a woman qua human being ought to have sex with a man. You may ask yourself what does being rational have to do with one's choice of sexual partners, i.e. what it is in our nature that demands that choice. To answer that, we have to go even lower in our natures, not toward the nature of a human being but toward the nature of an animal on which our rationality is built upon. A man qua animal, of any species, is to have sex with a woman, and vice versa. This is a biological argument, that is what we were born to do, what nature 'designed' us to do as human beings, and as animals. I'd like to ask you if you agree with this so far.

Thus, by that standard, a naturally heterosexual man who chooses to deny his nature by having sex with another man will be considered immoral, etc etc as Ayn Rand said. But we're not talking about that man, we're talking about the man who is born homosexual, as there are many species of mammals other than humans which periodically produce homosexual individuals. So, if our example is that kind of man then certainly there is no negative moral evaluation due him, because he is acting in accordance with the way he was born. But in some sense he is still unnatural, still not exactly how a proper human being, a proper animal, should be like; that is what I mean when I say his act is unnatural. In much the same way that a six-fingered man is unnatural and improper in some way, a man who has sex with men is unnatural and improper in some way.

Will you agree with me on this as well? And does this answer your question?

←

How does the fact that it may be unnatural impair the proper psychological development of the child? Wouldn't this theory likewise apply to disabled, deformed parents? Would the child develop mental problems because he was raised by "unnatural" parents, say a pair of midgets?

Anyways, the fact that animals are sexual creatures does not necessarily preclude sexual activities with the same sex. I don't see how one can think thus:

1. Animal A is sexual (i.e., has gender).

2. Therefore, if A has sex with another of same gender, it is "improper", "unnatural" and/or "immoral".

Improper for repoduction, yes. But surely you wouldn't argue that humans should have sex solely for reproductive purposes? Many of the animals that "act gay" do so to establish or reinforce some kind of relationship with the same members, relationships that have as much to do with survival as reproduction. So it is evident that sex in higher animals are a means "designed by nature" not just for reproduction.

Betsy pointed out a similar (and funny) form of your argument:

1. Humans are bipedal animals.

2. Therefore, if humans travel by means other than bipedal motion, it is "unnatural", "improper" and/or "immoral".

[piz 0]

Ooops, I should clarify that my response was to Burgess.

As to piz, did my reply to Burgess answer your question, or would you like me to elaborate? To take an inductive example, did you consciously and explicitly choose to like women? It wasn't at all an explicit choice for me. Now I can sit and think about it all I want, but when it was happening there was no explicit awareness on my part.

←

Thanks, I see your point. Good example - I'll give it thought.

[JRoberts 0]

I agree with Free Capitalist, and would like to add something to the discussion. I will try and make my position understandable, and hopefully shed some light on Free Capitalist’s position-though please remember that I speak only for myself here. I respect the members here, and wish to offer my view-hopefully for the purpose of furthering knowledge and education; I especially respect and even admire Stephen and Betsy Speicher, and when responding to some points that Betsy made, am only showing my view on them and not attacking/degrading her in any way.

There are certain choices we make that are products of our nature. Betsy mentioned a few of these-such as shoes and flight. Though we are not born with these objects, nature provided human’s with the attributes to obtain these. Thus, as long as a person acts in accordance to his nature, and as long as the object is used to further his health, life, and happiness-the object is good. So a shoe stops us from walking on thorns. This is good and natural-because we are using our minds to improve our life. The same is true with flight-it is good because it helps human life and aids in our happiness. The main focus, then, should be on nature by the definition I gave above-on those attributes within us.

One of the attributes of a human’s nature is his sexual identity. There are only two-a dominant and a submissive. To a human qua human, these are inseparable from gender. A man is designed to be dominant and a female is designed to be submissive. A homosexual (using two men hereon out as the example) is one who’s gender does not align with his sexual identity. A man is dominant, and another man is submissive. If the person is biologically homosexual, then they are different qua human. A homosexual submissive man is different than a human because a submissive human qua human is female. This means that homosexuality is unnatural, or abnormal, or not the way that nature intended. It does not correspond with humanity. This does not, however, mean that the homosexual person acting in accordance with their nature is immoral-because they are aligning themselves with their true identity. What it does mean is that a homosexual is unnatural to the rest of humanity-thus a different branch than most other humans. Just as a female is a different branch than a male, so a homosexual is a different branch than a heterosexual.

A child, especially a young one, picks up on the attributes of his parents (as well as many other things!). The child will observe the actions of his parents and then try and understand why the parent did this. Thus the understanding of a person’s nature is discovered partially through the actions the parents take in correspondence (or disregard to) the parent’s nature. Even though the child observes many other people/couples, it is the parent who the child knows the best, is around the most, is most familiar with, and trusts the most.

A homosexual couple can achieve the same sort of state that a heterosexual couple can in terms of happiness, healthiness, etc. The only difference is the gender make-up and the correspondence to the sexual identity. By observing the interactions of the parents, the child will pick up on the attributes of their sexual identity. He will see one male parent acting dominant, and one male parent acting submissive. To a normal (heterosexual) child, the attributes he picks up about their natures are actually different than his nature. His nature is to be a dominant male. However, in a homosexual relationship, he observes a male acting submissively. Because he trusts his parents, he thinks that this is perfectly normal (even for him-ie. he begins to relate to this nature, or becomes confused about his own).

When talking about the prime conditions for raising a child, the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality must be taken into account. A heterosexual child growing up in a homosexual environment is a very unhealthy thing (The image of Mowgli from the Jungle Book comes to mind). Thus it would appear that the prime environment to rear a child is the environment which best corresponds to his nature (as a basis-and then there are many, many, many other things involved).

[Tom Rexton 0]

...A heterosexual child growing up in a homosexual environment is a very unhealthy thing (The image of Mowgli from the Jungle Book comes to mind). Thus it would appear that the prime environment to rear a child is the environment which best corresponds to his nature (as a basis-and then there are many, many, many other things involved).

←

Alright, now substantiate your theory with facts. Where's the numerous, unambiguous evidence that children raised by homosexual parents are psychologically impaired in such a way that they would not be had they been raised by heterosexual parents?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I agree with Free Capitalist, and would like to add something to the discussion....

I appreciate your openness and the care you have taken in what you wrote. However, I read your words as amplifying what Free Capitalist has already said, rather than adding anything new. (If I have missed a new fact in what you wrote, please bring it to my attention, succinctly.)

I would make just two comments, essentially the same as I have already said to Free Capitalist. First, I do not know upon exactly what you have based your assertions, but I do not think they reflect all that I have learned about human psychology in general and children's development in particular. I think you both are explicating some level of determinism, behaviorism, and/or Freudian psychosexual ideas. And second, neither one of you has provided any factual evidence to support your claims about the supposed effects on children, Mowgli from the Jungle Book notwithstanding.

[Free Capitalist 0]

There are two very important issues that I want to address here.

First, there's something Stephen said in the last post:

I think you both are explicating some level of determinism, behaviorism, and/or Freudian psychosexual ideas.

This is a very important and very serious misunderstanding of the view I am proposing here. I am not saying that gay parents necessarily will produce child with characteristics X, Y, and Z. But, for example, take an abusive father. I will say, for a fact, that he will produce an unhappier son than if the father was less abusive. You will undoubtedly agree with me. Is that any kind of determinism, behaviorism, and such? Absolutely not, parents play a vital role in the child's development, and if they are bad parents they will necessarily create some problems for the child. Can he overcome them? Probably yes. But will he be better off without them? Absolutely! This is not determinism in any way at all, and I am a bit distraught that my view is being misunderstood in this way. Therefore, If I say that a bad father will adversely affect his child, that is not behaviorism/determinism, and so if I say that a homosexual father will adversely affect his heterosexual son, that should not be accused of behaviorism either.

Furthermore, on the issue of sexuality, and my (non)adherence to some kind of Freudian psychoanalysis: I didn't say that a homosexual father would create a homosexual son, or anything like that. I said that he would create confusion for his son, and adversely impact the son's sexual development, which is a completely different point. People's sexuality develops non-verbally, subconsciously and mainly outside their influence . If anyone has influence on it, it is the parents. This is in no way any Freudian weirdo-theory. Also, I made a big point to say that the child's sexuality would not be the only thing affected. His understanding of his sexuality (and of human sexuality in general) would also be adversely affected, and thus would his self-confidence on a very deep level; other very deeply personal aspects will undoubtedly be adversely affected as well. The sexuality thing is just an example I am using for simplicity's sake. This, I hope, provides an adequate explanation for why my views here should not be classified as any kind of determinist/behaviorist, nor Freudian in any way.

Moreover, it is a common reproach, by now, that I have not shown any factual data for my view. Isn't introspection enough? I have two primary inductive factual bases for my argument -- my childhood memory which I trust is very much alike most people's, and my introspective analysis of my self and what would happen to me if growing up with gay parents, which is something everyone else has access to as well. And on the issue of studies, I do not trust them that much because, from Betsy's posts I gather that they are too narrow, and do not study the issue in any depth. Regardless of divorce rates, does the son of gay parents feel less manly, and less willing to exercise his masculinity? Does he have greater insecurity than most people? Does he go more often to therapy? Does he abuse his wife more? Does he have bitter memories about his childhood? Does he teach his son how to properly exercize his masculinity? None of these vital questions are answered, and I don't think the average questioners are in a capacity to ask them. Putting aside the fact that most people are less self-aware than Objectivists, the concept of masculinity is under major assault today, unlike femininity, and I seriously doubt that the questioners would really be interested in going after researching concepts like these in their studies, or would properly interpret them once the studies were concluded. If you guys, or I, or some other people on this Forum did those studies and asked those vital questions, I would be more inclined to treat the studies with respect, but not otherwise.

I hope this explains why throughout this thread I've been taking the mention of studies with a grain of salt, and why they are to me, even at best, inconclusive. I take with a lot more attention Stephen's personal recollections of his childhood, and his introspection and observation regarding how his son developed, and how his son's rich friends developed. That is the real factual data here, and I provide my own as well, as explained above. Introspection matters, so do memories. It is one thing to say that someone simply doesn't introspectively see the same things I do; it is another thing to say I have absolutely no basis for saying what I say and that the studies are the be-all-end-all argument here. If it was, then there'd be no value in Stephen's private recollections. But in fact they aren't, and it is only those private recollections that I take with seriousness.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Now onto particular responses:

Betsy said,

And since no animal is born with shoes we ought to go barefoot?

And if men were meant to fly, they would have been born with wings?

Again, I think I am being completely misunderstood here. I am not saying that human beings ought not wear shoes, or fly in airplanes. Nor am I saying that it is somehow wrong to engage in all kinds of unusual sexual practices. In the case of wearing shoes, that is simply an extension of us employing our mind and practicing our faculties. There's nothing unnatural about the shoe because it is a direct result of human thinking, which is a natural activity. Same thing with flying in airplanes. And in regard to unusual sexual practices, they are not unnatural in any way because they are done by CHOICE, which means again the mind is the "moving principle" as Aristotle put it, the cause of why it happens. Plus, the people engaging in those practices do not define their sexual nature by them. But imagine someone who is born always getting 'excited' about hearing a tree plank break in two. There's no reason for it, no 'associative habit' -- he is simply born that way. Would I consider that unnatural? You bet! Would I consider it improper? Absolutely! Would I consider it immoral? Absolutely not.

Betsy, it is clear that you assume I am making a moral argument here. That when I say something is 'improper' that I mean it is immoral, that when I say something or someone is unnatural, that I imply a negative moral judgment of some sort. But actually my statements have been quite to the contrary. I can quite quite a few sentences from my posts here where I do all I can to say that I am making a cognitive evaluation here, not a moral one.

On another issue, Betsy says

By Objectivist standards, there is nothing about being gay that keeps anyone from being rational or practicing any of the Objectivist virtues.

I agree, and have never said otherwise. It is a huge indication that we're talking past one another that I am still being accused of saying that homosexuality makes the person somehow irrational or something.

BUT!! Imagine a newborn child with his umbilical cord still uncut. Is he a human being? Now imagine the umbilical cord never cut, and the child grows into a man who can think and practice Objectivist virtues and so forth. Is he still a human being? No! Rationality is not fundamental, it is actually the least fundamental of all aspects of the human being. Our animal nature is more fundamental in defining who we are (we're animals of some sort), and our vegetative nature is more fundamental than even that (we're alive). So just because someone can think and practice Objectivist virtues does not play into this at all, because my argument is that homosexuality is an abberration on the animal level, and that all homosexual individuals, regardless of the particular species of animal (human, babboon, whatever), are creatures with defects, whose nature is an imperfect version of the proper nature. I will make the same conclusion about someone who has six fingers, or four fingers (even if they will be able to type on this keyboard a lot better than I).

The only statement that shocked me in what Betsy said was this:

Since when is "natural" synonymous with "good" or "proper?"

Since about 390BC, when Aristotle was born. I really don't have much of a better answer than that, he wrote a lot about this. I would really like to get Dr. Gotthelf to make a comment here, because he would really bring out some awesome arguments that Aristotle made. To have five fingers is proper. To have six fingers is less proper. Can't we agree on that?

I just have to say that I am with AR and Aristotle 100% on this issue, and when she identified homosexuality as improper she was right (I don't think Aristotle ever explicitly addressed this particular issue). I would really like to see what she'd say in an argument like this, because I haven't finished making cognitive connections between all the dots of what I'd like to say. But I am pretty sure that I'm on the right track. In any case, I don't want be a nuissance so I'll just leave the thread again, like I wanted to before, and proceed expanding my understanding of the issue privately. Unless one of the responses I get is such that I will simply have to respond.

[Tom Rexton 0]

...

Moreover, it is a common reproach, by now, that I have not shown any factual data for my view. Isn't introspection enough? I have two primary inductive factual bases for my argument -- my childhood memory which I trust is very much alike most people's, and my introspective analysis of my self and what would happen to me if growing up with gay parents, which is something everyone else has access to as well. And on the issue of studies, I do not trust them that much because, from Betsy's posts I gather that they are too narrow, and do not study the issue in any depth. Regardless of divorce rates, does the son of gay parents feel less manly, and less willing to exercise his masculinity? Does he have greater insecurity than most people? Does he go more often to therapy? Does he abuse his wife more? Does he have bitter memories about his childhood? Does he teach his son how to properly exercize his masculinity? None of these vital questions are answered, and I don't think the average questioners are in a capacity to ask them. Putting aside the fact that most people are less self-aware than Objectivists, the concept of masculinity is under major assault today, unlike femininity, and I seriously doubt that the questioners would really be interested in going after researching concepts like these in their studies, or would properly interpret them once the studies were concluded. If you guys, or I, or some other people on this Forum did those studies and asked those vital questions, I would be more inclined to treat the studies with respect, but not otherwise.

I hope this explains why throughout this thread I've been taking the mention of studies with a grain of salt, and why they are to me, even at best, inconclusive. I take with a lot more attention Stephen's personal recollections of his childhood, and his introspection and observation regarding how his son developed, and how his son's rich friends developed. That is the real factual data here, and I provide my own as well, as explained above. Introspection matters, so do memories. It is one thing to say that someone simply doesn't introspectively see the same things I do; it is another thing to say I have absolutely no basis for saying what I say and that the studies are the be-all-end-all argument here. If it was, then there'd be no value in Stephen's private recollections. But in fact they aren't, and it is only those private recollections that I take with seriousness.

←

Human sexuality and childhood psychological development are not the subject of general philosophy. They are highly specialized subfields of a science called PSYCHOLOGY. (Of course, I have not read all of Ayn Rand's writings, but I don't believe she ever included psychology as one of the basic branches of philosophy.) Thus, I don't believe introspection alone is sufficient to develop and support a psychological theory (e.g., homosexual parents impair the proper psychological development of their children).

Just imagine developing a physical theory through introspection alone without advanced studies and sophisticated instruments. You'd probably conclude that the earth is flat.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I am not saying that gay parents necessarily will produce child with characteristics X, Y, and Z. But, for example, take an abusive father. I will say, for a fact, that he will produce an unhappier son than if the father was less abusive. You will undoubtedly agree with me.

Not in this lifetime! My stepfather beat me with a hangar, but if I were any happier today I would explode. And if he didn't beat me it would not have made a single bit of difference, because my happiness was not determined by what my stepfather did or did not do.

Is that any kind of determinism, behaviorism, and such?

Yes.

Absolutely not, parents play a vital role in the child's development, and if they are bad parents they will necessarily create some problems for the child. Can he overcome them? Probably yes. But will he be better off without them? Absolutely! This is not determinism in any way at all, and I am a bit distraught that my view is being misunderstood in this way.

Your view is not "being misunderstood," except perhaps by yourself. They "will necessarily create some problems for the child?" (emphasis mine!)

Therefore, If I say that a bad father will adversely affect his child, that is not behaviorism/determinism, and so if I say that a homosexual father will adversely affect his heterosexual son, that should not be accused of behaviorism either.

This is doubly obscene. Not only the determinism part, but the choice to equate a homosexual father with a bad father, as if we are just supposed to take such an unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and, frankly, utterly ignorant argument for granted.

I stopped reading this post here.

Let me say one thing about "bad" parents. Leaving out really extreme circumstances, a "good" parent can just help a child along, and a "bad" can just make things a bit harder. But neither good nor bad "necessarily" has any effect on the long-term happiness of a child. If my own personal view of life was "necessarily" affected by the actions of my own parents then I would be living in a gutter somewhere begging for food. Aside from food, clothing, and shelter my parents offered me nothing of any value, but plenty for me to reject. A third grade teacher embraced me for the poetry I wrote; an upstairs neighbor lent me the classics from her bookstore when I was nine. An aunt made me a sword out of a wooden box and she sewed a big "S" on a red cape. That's all I needed; the rest did not matter. And, if the third grade teacher was not there, and neither the neighbor nor the aunt. then it just would have taken me a little longer to get where I am today. I'll be damned if I "necessarily" had to have problems because of people who I could never respect or admire. They did not matter, but I did, and I made my world after me, not them.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Moreover, it is a common reproach, by now, that I have not shown any factual data for my view. Isn't introspection enough?

If you were raised by gay parents, maybe. Other than that, you are merely expressing how YOU feel with about the matter with an opinion arising from no verifiable facts of reality.

In fact, some children raised by gays have written about their experiences and talked to researchers and you ought to find out what they have to say. That way you can compare your assumptions and conclusions with reality. You may find that things are not as introspection might lead you to believe.

I have two primary inductive factual bases for my argument -- my childhood memory which I trust is very much alike most people's, and my introspective analysis of my self and what would happen to me if growing up with gay parents, which is something everyone else has access to as well.

←

But you have absolutely no memory or experience of being raised by gay parents. This is all arbitrary conjecture and not reality-based reasoning.

And on the issue of studies, I do not trust them that much because, from Betsy's posts I gather that they are too narrow, and do not study the issue in any depth. Regardless of divorce rates, does the son of gay parents feel less manly, and less willing to exercise his masculinity? Does he have greater insecurity than most people? Does he go more often to therapy? Does he abuse his wife more? Does he have bitter memories about his childhood? Does he teach his son how to properly exercize his masculinity? None of these vital questions are answered, and I don't think the average questioners are in a capacity to ask them.

Some of those questions have been asked and answered and you may find it worthwhile to check out the studies and biographical material available.

Putting aside the fact that most people are less self-aware than Objectivists, the concept of masculinity is under major assault today, unlike femininity, and I seriously doubt that the questioners would really be interested in going after researching concepts like these in their studies, or would properly interpret them once the studies were concluded. If you guys, or I, or some other people on this Forum did those studies and asked those vital questions, I would be more inclined to treat the studies with respect, but not otherwise.

Since you don't trust the studies, how about the opinions of Objectivist psychological professionals? Try posing your questions or checking your conclusions with experts like our Dr. Rosman or Dr. Michael Hurd.

I dare you.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The only statement that shocked me in what Betsy said was this:

Since when is "natural" synonymous with "good" or "proper?"

Since about 390BC, when Aristotle was born.

←

The environmentalists would love that!

To have five fingers is proper. To have six fingers is less proper. Can't we agree on that?

No. "Proper" is a moral judgement because it applies to chosen actions while "normal" can be used to apply to statistically average life-sustaining traits like the number of fingers. I'll grant you having six fingers is abnormal, but it is not improper.

To carry your analogy further, do you think it is OK for people born with six fingers to adopt children? Nobody has shown how or why it can negatively affect the children.

Those who make similar claims about gay parents have the same onus of proof.