Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Superman123

Objectivism and homosexuality dont mix

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hello All,

I am a gay man that has started getting interested in objectivism.

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

Although most of the logical/rational arugments that I can find (on the internet) cannot prove anything wrong with homosexuality, I have come to realize that most Objectivists (apart from a few exceptions) do not really keep logical beliefs about homosexuality. Most of them are happy to let their personal biases rule over their own reason.

Homosexuality as I see it is a product of bother nature AND nurture. I find that this view is the best fit whith what we know about homosexuality today.

I feel dissappointed since I thought this would be a philosophy that I could really accept as an athiest.

While on facebook I found some "gay objectivists" most of them seem to have a problem with their own sexuality. One very outspoken "gay objectivist" couple I found seemed very suspicious i.e. I do not think they are really gay or even a couple - there were just to many inconsistencies. I wonder what their agenda are.

I also find it confusioning that most objectivists find Ayn Rand's support of capitalism and limited government more important than her views against religion. I have even found some "christian objectivists" on-online. Please can somebody tell me how that can make any sense at all?

Is objectivist just another word for conservative (in the closet christians)?

Perhaps somebody can put some light on this for me.

Regards,

Andre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "christian Objectivists" are people so desperate for justification that they took a book that said socialism is bad; and ignored every other part of it to vindicate their own preexisting beliefs.

I'm sure someone who has done more proper academic type study of Objectivism will provide the thorough answer, but there is nothing about being attracted to gender R or S as a person of gender R or S that conflicts with rational egoism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand, one's sexuality is metaphysically given, so I don't see how it could possibly be moral to go against it. In other words, if a person is homosexual, that's a fact which, to my knowledge, he/she cannot change; furthermore, going against one's own sexuality (whether your heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) would certainly not be a way to be happy. I might have something wrong here, though.

As to the ''Christian Objectivists'': I've never heard of these people, but they certainly are not Objectivists, since Objectivism explicitly denies the belief in God.

Finally, here is Peikoff's view about whether or not religion is worse than collectivism/socialism.

Edited by ObjectivistMathematician

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where your Googling has lead you, but opposition to homosexuality is in fact extremely rare among supporters of Objectivism anymore. Though nobody can really prove this of course, it is often suspected the original brief, negative statements by Rand about homosexuality were based on scientific and psychological theories of the time which have since been thrown out as inaccurate upon further, better study. In fact, there's a whole mailing list that exists for non-heterosexual supporters of Objectivism these days. :P As for people who downplay the atheism in Objectivism and just focus on her political and economic ideas, those people are certainly not Objectivists by the definition of the term regardless of what they may want to believe to the contrary for whatever reason. Atheism is not optional to Objectivism. As has been said above, some regular ol' run of the mill conservative types just like to try to take her political arguments to use without regard for the metaphysics and epistemology that are prerequisites to such arguments. It's intellectual laziness, trying to grab some of somebody else's arguments rather than create one's own.

Welcome to the forum, by the way. I hope you'll stick around and find the place to your satisfaction.

Edited by bluecherry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a gay man that has started getting interested in objectivism.

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

Although most of the logical/rational arugments that I can find (on the internet) cannot prove anything wrong with homosexuality, I have come to realize that most Objectivists (apart from a few exceptions) do not really keep logical beliefs about homosexuality.

How have you come to realize this - have you met most Objectivists and asked them?

I feel dissappointed since I thought this would be a philosophy that I could really accept as an athiest.

You may be putting the cart before the horse here. Being an atheist is not a reason alone to be an O'ist. In fact, it's not a reason at all. The ONLY reason to be an O'ist is to learn the philosophy from its roots, evaluate the arguments and positions, and determine ON YOUR OWN using YOUR ability to reason whether the philosophy is rational and therefore true, or not.

While on facebook I found some "gay objectivists" most of them seem to have a problem with their own sexuality. One very outspoken "gay objectivist" couple I found seemed very suspicious i.e. I do not think they are really gay or even a couple - there were just to many inconsistencies. I wonder what their agenda are.

Do you consider hearsay to be valid evidence? If not, then realize that you have presented hearsay to us.

I also find it confusioning that most objectivists find Ayn Rand's support of capitalism and limited government more important than her views against religion. I have even found some "christian objectivists" on-online. Please can somebody tell me how that can make any sense at all?

Again with "most"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Superman, welcome to the forum.

Like the others said, I don't believe your initial impressions reflect most Objectivists or Rand admirers, and they certainly don't reflect the Rand's philosophy itself. But, of course, you'll have to poke around and read more to make that judgement for yourself.

In addition to what the others have said, Objectivism isn't just a political philosophy, it is a total integrated philosophy of all the major branches: metaphysics, epistemology, ethcis, and politics. So, it isn't just political, as in "conservative" or not. Rand herself has much to say on politics, though, and the history of political conservatism. Objectivism, as you may learn, is not conservatism, though they may have an element here and there in common (and probably not for the same reasons).

On homosexuality, it appears as though early on Rand had a personal repulsion against homosexuality, for whatever reason. These days, though, most Objectivists I have met happily embrace homosexuality, for good reasons. Either way, you'll have to weigh what you know about Objectivist principles with what you know about homosexuality to come to your own conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U have encountered a few, a rare few, Objectivists who are truly homophobic. The overwhelming majority just don't care. Hell, this forum is full of homosexuals. I'm pretty sure there used to be more gay members in the chatroom than straight members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd strongly disagree with your impressions of Objectivism and most Objectivists. Most of the Objectivists I've encountered, and certainly most of the people on this forum, have no problem with homosexuality, and there is certainly nothing in the philosophy itself which justifies homophobia. I hope that you'll explore the forum a bit to see if that changes your impression of Objectivists at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,

Thank you for all the kind words. I must say I am really glad that I was wrong.

I am really relieved since I like my impressions on objectivism. I firt came to know about Ayn Rand through the work of Mike Mentzer. He is one amazing guy.

I have already downloaded the podcasts that you have mentioned and cant wait to listen to it.

Here is one of the articles (and there were some others) that I have looked at that made me think gave me my impression:

http://rationalargumentator.com/issue28/SOLO1.html

I could look up others if they want.

Thank you once again I am really excited about Ayn Rands work.

Andre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past 20 years, a wealth of information has been discovered indicating that homosexuality is rooted in physiology more so than a socio-cultural cause. Although evidence suggests that some cultural aspects may be be involved in the determination of sexual orientation, biological implications are undeniable. Since this is more a matter of biology, it is not possible to form an ethical judgement. It would be like saying living or eating is immoral. One cannot not condemn something arising from biology or the natural world as unethical, objectivist ethics are based on the nature of the world around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty sure there used to be more gay members in the chatroom than straight members.

Haha, yeah. Those were the gay old days! ...Those were the gays! ...We had a gay old time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you once again I am really excited about Ayn Rands work.

I am excited for you! When I found Rand, I couldn't stop reading her. I just kept going from one book to the next! I know many members here who have told their similar experiences when they first discovered Rand. Besides her ideas, my favorite thing about her writing is her clarity in style. It's like fresh cold air for the mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firehammer is kind of a crazy nut who has a bone to pick with the Brandens and hence SOLO. Most "mainstream" (I guess?) Objectivists just sort of ignore/write off the Brandens by this point and don't worry too much about them. I definitely would not form your assessment of Objectivists based on Firehammer's work. I can think of one or two posters here on this board, tops, who take him seriously.

Hello All,

Thank you for all the kind words. I must say I am really glad that I was wrong.

I am really relieved since I like my impressions on objectivism. I firt came to know about Ayn Rand through the work of Mike Mentzer. He is one amazing guy.

I have already downloaded the podcasts that you have mentioned and cant wait to listen to it.

Here is one of the articles (and there were some others) that I have looked at that made me think gave me my impression:

http://rationalargumentator.com/issue28/SOLO1.html

I could look up others if they want.

Thank you once again I am really excited about Ayn Rands work.

Andre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you think homosexuality and Objectivism mix very well, and what about these Objectivists' behavior make you think they're confused about their sexuality? After clicking on the URL you provided, and noticing the title, I lost all motivation to entertain the idea of reading past the author's name or to bring up SOLO and Lindsay Perigo.

As mentioned above, a mailing list you may be interested in is OHomos

*edit: I don't use that mailing list, so I don't know much about its content. I just know that the OLists are filled with some very knowledgeable people.

Edited by RussK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,

Thank you for all the kind words. I must say I am really glad that I was wrong.

I am really relieved since I like my impressions on objectivism. I firt came to know about Ayn Rand through the work of Mike Mentzer. He is one amazing guy.

I have already downloaded the podcasts that you have mentioned and cant wait to listen to it.

Here is one of the articles (and there were some others) that I have looked at that made me think gave me my impression:

http://rationalargumentator.com/issue28/SOLO1.html

I could look up others if they want.

Thank you once again I am really excited about Ayn Rands work.

Andre

It's no surprise that website reads a bit like Time Cube...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andre,

You might want to check out the OHomos email group and ask them some of your questions. It is a mailing list for "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) Objectivists (and others)." Here is their website with info on joining. In my experience those Objectivists who view homosexuality as immoral are a very small minority. From what I've seen, if some Objectivist starts babbling anti-gay nonsense other Objectivists will come down on him pretty hard for his irrational beliefs.

*** Mod's note: some reaction to the rules of the OHomos list has been split to a separate thread. - sN ***

Edited by softwareNerd
Split notice

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All,

I am a gay man that has started getting interested in objectivism.

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

Although most of the logical/rational arugments that I can find (on the internet) cannot prove anything wrong with homosexuality, I have come to realize that most Objectivists (apart from a few exceptions) do not really keep logical beliefs about homosexuality. Most of them are happy to let their personal biases rule over their own reason.

Homosexuality as I see it is a product of bother nature AND nurture. I find that this view is the best fit whith what we know about homosexuality today.

I feel dissappointed since I thought this would be a philosophy that I could really accept as an athiest.

While on facebook I found some "gay objectivists" most of them seem to have a problem with their own sexuality. One very outspoken "gay objectivist" couple I found seemed very suspicious i.e. I do not think they are really gay or even a couple - there were just to many inconsistencies. I wonder what their agenda are.

I also find it confusioning that most objectivists find Ayn Rand's support of capitalism and limited government more important than her views against religion. I have even found some "christian objectivists" on-online. Please can somebody tell me how that can make any sense at all?

Is objectivist just another word for conservative (in the closet christians)?

Perhaps somebody can put some light on this for me.

Regards,

Andre

You really need to figure out what an Objectivist is before you start making claims about the group. I suspect you are a troll.

Someone who likes the book Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead is not an Objectivist. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservatives who like her work are not Objectivists. An Objectivist is basically someone who believes in the Fundamentals of Ayn Rand's philosophy in the five branches of philosophy. A Christian who appreciates the work of Ayn Rand is not an Objectivists. Someone who supports anti-statism is not an Objectivist. Someone who disagrees with Ayn Rand's view of human nature is not an Objectivist so on and so forth.

There are people who believe in similar philosophies to Objectivism (usually of their own creation). They are not Objectivists.

I am not an Objectivist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no reason to accuse this guy of being a troll, especially given his subsequent responses in the thread. There's no need for this type of hostility to newcomers. I swear, this is how perfectly good people get turned off. Anyone who comes here, even with a disagreement, should not be assumed to have any ill intentions unless they really start to show that and this fellow did no such thing.

Chill out, man. Seriously.

You really need to figure out what an Objectivist is before you start making claims about the group. I suspect you are a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to figure out what an Objectivist is before you start making claims about the group. I suspect you are a troll.

It's really quite common for newcomers to be misinformed about what Objectivism is and who qualifies as an Objectivist, whether or not certain people 'speak for Objectivism,' etc, and this is a highly inappropriate and frankly ridiculous response to such confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to figure out what an Objectivist is before you start making claims about the group. I suspect you are a troll.

Element, inquisitiveness....

spock_inquisitive.jpg

.....is not the same as trolling....

Trollface.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although most of the logical/rational arugments that I can find (on the internet) cannot prove anything wrong with homosexuality, I have come to realize that most Objectivists (apart from a few exceptions) do not really keep logical beliefs about homosexuality. Most of them are happy to let their personal biases rule over their own reason.

...

I feel dissappointed since I thought this would be a philosophy that I could really accept as an athiest.

The personal views of many (or even most) Objectivists on homosexuality have nothing to do with the validity of the philosophy itself.

You should accept or reject the philosophy on it's merits, not the unrelated personal views of it's followers or even it's original philosopher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This bizarre of a misunderstanding is way beyond the normal misunderstandings that are annoying. (Objectivism is Naive Realism, Objectivism is Misanthropy, Objectivism is AnCap, Objectivism supports the status quo, etc). Objectisivst are crypto-christians? What?

When talking about any subject that you want to talk about in a forum, try reading these things first.

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.

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...