Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Superman123

Objectivism and homosexuality dont mix

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Should not the category be also accepted or rejected on its merits? Aren't the individual and the categorical being confused, or, at least, conflated here? We cannot dictate the attributes of an existent but we must evaluate them relative to some principled standard. The highest value being life and its nadir is non-life sterility.

Objectivism is objective, A is A. If a predicate 'A' is rejected then so is the subject 'A' rejected. The chain of reasoning may be tortured and long but it is implacable.

I am a novice here. If I am in error then please demonstrate it. I directed the operation of small nuclear power plants, very much from the volumes of principles and procedures analogous to Objectivism's orthodox literature. "Back to basics" was a good aphorism when tough decisions had to be made, be they personal, technical or professional.

ETA: I saw "primary texts" twelve minutes after the post. I agree.

Edited by Doug Huffman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Wikipedia

2. Publications by supporters of the philosophy, especially FAQs, but youtube videos, journal articles, blogs and such are good also.

3. Specialized encyclopedias are helpful (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for example)

4. Primary texts are good too, but expensive so I understand if you don't want to go buy them immediately.

Add 5. Asking like minds on a *friendly* internet forum. In fact, this forum can be (and frequently is) a first stop on the road to knowledge. I think it is one purpose that can be served well here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Huffman, concerning #26:

I know a man who, after fathering two children, had himself sterilized (vasectomy). He is not operating according to some principle antipodal to life, his highest value. He had long planned to have two children. He and their mother, though they divorced when the boys were in late grade school, raised those boys devotedly and to wonderful result. He never regarded having children or his embrace of woman to be for the sake of the life of the species or for conformance to an essence Man. Children and love-making were treasures he wanted for his individual life.

Father sought and found gay relationships, and eventually came to one that was for keeps.* That man, as a young man, had not wanted to have children; he wanted as much time as possible for his brain children. Those were the treasures he wanted in his individual life. There was nothing opposing life in him from mind to fingertips, whether he found woman (and practiced birth control) or found man.

All these individuals love each other as one family. There is a grandson. The childless man watched that wonder from its first lights and expects to do so to his own last.

Edited by Boydstun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that Rand/Objectivists have no issue with homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle. As the categorical, though, homosexuality does not value life - per se it is sterile.

Last time I checked, "homosexuality" was not an entity capable of rational, conceptual thinking, and thus is unable to value anything. Homosexual people, on the other hand, are perfectly capable of valuing life just as much as anyone else. If your definition of "valuing life" necessitates the desire to procreate, then I know many straight people who would not fall into your definition, either. Ayn Rand was most likely one --she lived a long, full life and never had children. The desire to procreate has absolutely nothing to do with having one's life as a standard of value.

EDIT: I see Dante beat me to the punch, and you responded. Props. :)

Edited by Rudmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add 5. Asking like minds on a *friendly* internet forum. In fact, this forum can be (and frequently is) a first stop on the road to knowledge. I think it is one purpose that can be served well here.

Yeah, as indicated by the numbering, that should be the last step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand has stated explicitly that homosexuality was not normal homo sapien behavior. I support that view. It appears as though, in terms of morality, too many proclaimed Objectivists of this generation take the anarchist/subjectivist approach. This line of reasoning is simply not in line with the philosophy of Objectivism that that Ayn Rand created, Peikoff maybe, but not Ayn Rand. That being said, I don't think she would have an issue with someone choosing to be gay, but she would certainly not endorse it as Objectivist approved morality. The Objectivism of today seems more concerned with a libertarian approach to subjects that Miss Rand stated were contrary to her philosophy. Will the defenders of Rand's work and beliefs please stand up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand has stated explicitly that homosexuality was not normal homo sapien behavior. I support that view.

The evidence on the subject available at the time was a bit lacking, certainly compared to what it is today. Today, we know that this claim is wrong. Google is a wonderful tool.

It appears as though, in terms of morality, too many proclaimed Objectivists of this generation take the anarchist/subjectivist approach...The Objectivism of today seems more concerned with a libertarian approach...

Simply labeling disagreement with you 'the *insert unsavory word to Objectivists* approach' is not a valid argument or defense of your viewpoint, no matter how much you seem to enjoy doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand has stated explicitly that homosexuality was not normal homo sapien behavior. I support that view. It appears as though, in terms of morality, too many proclaimed Objectivists of this generation take the anarchist/subjectivist approach. This line of reasoning is simply not in line with the philosophy of Objectivism that that Ayn Rand created, Peikoff maybe, but not Ayn Rand. That being said, I don't think she would have an issue with someone choosing to be gay, but she would certainly not endorse it as Objectivist approved morality. The Objectivism of today seems more concerned with a libertarian approach to subjects that Miss Rand stated were contrary to her philosophy. Will the defenders of Rand's work and beliefs please stand up?

Is that why you are sitting down?

The belief that homosexuality is not natural homo sapien behavior reeks of Christian and Enlightenment ideas concerning "nature". I don't know if you realized, but since that time this little-known theory called "evolution" has proven this idea to be bunk.

You really should self-analyze your concept of "normal" and ask yourself upon what moral basis a person can claim to normalize a population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erik Christensen has made the same arguments on this forum before, and he has continued to ignore all charges against him. To this day, I am still waiting for the quote by Ayn Rand, and the periodical it came from, where she stated that homosexuality was contrary to her philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand has stated explicitly that homosexuality was not normal homo sapien behavior.

In the statistical sense of 'normal', that is still an indisputable fact (less than 5% most likely). However, it is just a lonesome fact standing all by itself, a factoid, unless and until it is understood what causes sexuality at all. Ayn Rand's insights about who one finds attractive can be psychologically revealing are useful, but it is apparently not the case that puberty, sexual adolescence, and sexual orientation are willed into existence from nothing. The most fundamental aspects of sexuality are from the body's genes, genetic expression and hormones, i.e. not conscious or even subconscious. Since morality depends on the possibility of there being a choice, where there is no choice possible there morality does not apply.

I support that view. It appears as though, in terms of morality, too many proclaimed Objectivists of this generation take the anarchist/subjectivist approach. This line of reasoning is simply not in line with the philosophy of Objectivism that that Ayn Rand created, Peikoff maybe, but not Ayn Rand. That being said, I don't think she would have an issue with someone choosing to be gay, but she would certainly not endorse it as Objectivist approved morality. The Objectivism of today seems more concerned with a libertarian approach to subjects that Miss Rand stated were contrary to her philosophy. Will the defenders of Rand's work and beliefs please stand up?

This is appeal to authority. It is also presuming that every word of Ayn Rand's has the same status as part of her philosophy, but that is not correct. Ayn Rand's psychological theories are not part of the philosophical system she founded because psychology is not philosophy. That sexual orientation is always fully chosen is a psychological theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand has stated explicitly that homosexuality was not normal homo sapien behavior. I support that view. It appears as though, in terms of morality, too many proclaimed Objectivists of this generation take the anarchist/subjectivist approach. This line of reasoning is simply not in line with the philosophy of Objectivism that that Ayn Rand created, Peikoff maybe, but not Ayn Rand. That being said, I don't think she would have an issue with someone choosing to be gay, but she would certainly not endorse it as Objectivist approved morality. The Objectivism of today seems more concerned with a libertarian approach to subjects that Miss Rand stated were contrary to her philosophy. Will the defenders of Rand's work and beliefs please stand up?

There is no argument here, only arbitrary assertions. What does sanctioning homosexuality have to do with anarchism or subjectivism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, as indicated by the numbering, that should be the last step.

That is not what I meant, and no, it shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just being obtuse.

It's not "know everything about Objectivism" or "imply bad things out of ignorance"... That is a false alternative.

This forum serves a purpose of hashing out ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand has stated explicitly that homosexuality was not normal homo sapien behavior. I support that view. It appears as though, in terms of morality, too many proclaimed Objectivists of this generation take the anarchist/subjectivist approach. This line of reasoning is simply not in line with the philosophy of Objectivism that that Ayn Rand created, Peikoff maybe, but not Ayn Rand. That being said, I don't think she would have an issue with someone choosing to be gay, but she would certainly not endorse it as Objectivist approved morality. The Objectivism of today seems more concerned with a libertarian approach to subjects that Miss Rand stated were contrary to her philosophy. Will the defenders of Rand's work and beliefs please stand up?

Okay, was there a single assertion in there that you have backed up with either appeals to common sense and knowledge, or actual reasoning and evidence?

1) There is no reason to care what Ayn Rand would endorse.

2) Throwing words like "Anarchist", "Subjectivist, and "libertarian" doesn't scare anyone.

3) As others have pointed out you are just appealing to orthodoxy and authority. Not a bad authority to appeal to, but none the less, on this issue she is wrong.

4) Objectivism is supposed to be an integrated whole. I don't see how accepting homosexuality as a viable life style is contrary to being an Objectivist. Being gay won't destroy the the system or anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just being obtuse.

It's not "know everything about Objectivism" or "imply bad things out of ignorance"... That is a false alternative.

This forum serves a purpose of hashing out ideas.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never presented such a dichotomy; the original post did imply bad things out of ignorance. That being the worst end of the dichotomy that you presented, you must already know that I am in the right to be just a little weary of that sort of thing.

All I said was that I suspected him of being a troll to show him that he was way off, and being offensive. Which he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't put words in my mouth, I never presented such a dichotomy; the original post did imply bad things out of ignorance. That being the worst end of the dichotomy that you presented, you must already know that I am in the right to be just a little weary of that sort of thing.

All I said was that I suspected him of being a troll to show him that he was way off, and being offensive. Which he was.

Although I don't know if the guy is trolling or not, I was (am) sympathetic to your conclusions. Furthermore, I'm still waiting to learn the details concerning the behavior of Objectivists, including a few who were "confused about their sexuality." There are many prevalent things and behaviors of the homosexual community that do not mix with Objectivism, and the accusation of confused sexuality is often used to table people who don't conform to stereotypical homosexual behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unfortunately I have come to realize that objectivism and being gay does not really mix well."

Nothing in the philosophy of Objectivism can justify homophobia. This is true that Ayn Rand as a person didn't like gays. She didn't recognize the metaphysical nature of homosexuality and claimed that homosexuals hold "unfortunate premises". I still wonder what they may be. I also think it is a mistake to confuse a philosophy with its creator.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apropos this thread, I just finished Rand's The Argument from Intimidation. HO Ho ho. "Only those who lack finer instincts can fail to accept the morality of altruism."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true that Ayn Rand as a person didn't like gays. She didn't recognize the metaphysical nature of homosexuality and claimed that homosexuals hold "unfortunate premises".

It's not true that Rand didn't like gay people (taken as individuals), although she was openly disgusted by whatever she conceived homosexuality to be (who knows?). Her best friend was actually a gay man (her brother-in-law, Nick O'Connor). He wasn't in-your-face about his sexuality but she must have known and not thought it was very important. She was also pretty much the ONLY person to publicly state that no sexual acts should be outlawed by the state so long as they occur between consenting adults, at a time when sodomy laws were rampant on the books in nearly every state. Yes, Rand was wrong on the issue of homosexuality, but I think she also deserves a little credit for some foresight. If she were better informed about queerness generally she might have changed her views. My general impression is that she just had no idea what she was talking about but was smart enough to recognize that it should be legal based on her other principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand regarded homosexuality as immoral. She said ""[Homosexuality] involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises .... Therefore I regard it as immoral ... And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. It's disgusting." ( Q&A)

Although I can understand her personal feelings-this is a matter of taste after all, I don't understand her philosophical position in this regard-namely: what in Objectivist ethics indicates that homosexuality is immoral, that is-incompatible with man's life?

So far I couldn't find an answer.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your opinion, but more for pointing me to the Wikipedia as a source and to 'The Moratorium on Brains' Q&A as a reason to purchase the multimedia expositions of Randianism. Now maybe Dragon Naturally Speaking can demonstrate its ability to produce text from voice (other than mine).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what in Objectivist ethics indicates that homosexuality is immoral, that is-incompatible with man's life?

So far I couldn't find an answer.

Here is a blog post that discusses Rand's views of masculinity and femininity and ties these in with her views on the immorality of homosexuality. The author then presents his own slightly different views which can be reconciled with homosexuality as a moral lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...