The true question that should be asked is "Is Objectivism bad for a homosexual? Does it protect his individual rights?". Let's see: One homophobic individual, providing that he is not violent, should have a freedom to express his homophobia, or to be "homophobically" active (by hanging "no gays allowed" signs, for example). Individual freedoms (rights) are holy to Objectivism, so they should be protected. What this belief system is not aware of is that people come in plural, even if their rights are only individual. Two individuals make a group. If their individual rights correlate and if they combine them, we can call them what ever we want, they become rights of a collective. When more such individuals combine their individual rights then we get a rights of the majority. Or should we cal them "moral majority"? It all comes down to homophobe's individual rights vs. homosexual's individual rights. The deadlock is solved always in favour of the majority opinion, when another homophobe joins the first one. Homosexuality will always be a minority orientation. That is why a homosexual's (you can exchange it with any other minority) individual rights can never be guaranteed by Objectivism. In fact, they will always be in danger also for another reason. When Objectivists follow their Objectivist morality they are morally obliged to oppose what they regard distasteful. And "oppose" also includes to ban, to supress and so on. That is precisely why Ayn Rand considered homosexuality immoral. The reason is because it made her puke. And since according to Objectivist morality she always comes first, she is obliged to oppose it, otherwise she is letting herself down, preventing the blossoming of her own excellence, of her selfishness or whatever. The only way objectivism is not dangerous for homosexuality is if homosexuals were a majority. But that is not going to happen.