Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Queer Capitalist

Objectivism and homosexuality?

Rate this topic

213 posts in this topic

Ah. Well, the Tea Party has never been uniform, there is no one, official, "Tea Party position" on much of anything. It's a loose association of people with the thing pulling them together being a general objection to long standing government economic policies. That is what Objectivism saw as a positive thing and an opportunity in. There have been many comments I've seen in various places that show how the Tea Party may have a very different character to its protest from one place to another. Some places you'll hear more people trying to bring in other typical republican crap, other places this is absent. Generally, the protests with a more heavily religious influence on how they have been run have been avoided and the ones Objectivists have put effort into are places where they stick to focusing on the economy. If you'd like to see exactly what it is Objectivists have been up to in relation to the Tea Party protests, there are recordings of speeches given by people associated with Objectivism from some protests and there are some copies of flyers and pamphlet type things that were made for giving out to the crowd at these protests. Just say so and I can go get them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that I will have to try and keep myself knowledgeble on how consistently Objectivists keeps to individual rights for everybody on a political level.

I know from experience how religious minded individuals can turn black to white and white to black. Tell them about individual rights and they will only think of individual rights for straight people. You have to be really vocal that it is for everybody, if you can convince them of that! And when you have finally convinced them, tomorrow you will find that they have reverted back i.e. that you where wrong and that it should only be applied to straight people. Rights for gay people will always be challenged and will always have to be consistently protected and guarded. We are the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for all the lovely responses. Especially Eioul and bluecherry yours where really awesome.

What I still do not understand is what purpose it would be to limit Federal government but promote State regulations and controls. I think that would only serve to shift the power of government form the Federal level to the state level. Perhaps even alienate the states from each other.

@Nicky look at my posts carefully and perhaps you will fugure out what the purpose of my posts are. I won't tell you outright but if you think a bit perhaps you could figure it out :):zorro:

I don't want to figure it out. I figured out that your purpose isn't to have an intellectual conversation on Objectivism, back when you repeatedly ignored my question "What Objectivist principles lead you to believe Objectivism holds homosexuality to be immoral?".

Unless you change your mind, and decide to answer that, your purpose doesn't matter to me. That's what the thread is about, and that's the only reason why I chose to read it and post in it. Everything else is just spam to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the Objectivist position on homosexuality? The answer is: at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether it's a matter or choice or not, it's still not irrational or immoral.

Let me just deal with some *myths* (based on ignorance and/or groundless speculation):

Ayn Rand was *not* a "homophobe". She didn't held any irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. People should not use words, if they do not know the meaning of them.

Ayn Rand's views were not based on ignorance or the science of her time. It was based on her own observations of the psychological differences between men and women; a differences which are, at least in part, based on physical differences between men and women. (Her views were, as a result, non-philosophical. They are not part of Objectivism. They are not even based on Objectivist principles, more than very indirectly: she reached them by making observations and applying logic. They are, if anything, part of psychology.)

I will not repeat her argument here, because it takes too long, and it is beside the point of me posting this. I might do it later, if I feel like it. Let me just note that nobody has, to my knowledge, been able to refute it. Nobody has even attempted to refute it, because they have not made any serious attempts to familiar themselves with the argument. Being "deep thinkers", they just guess and speculate that Ayn Rand was "ignorant". (Those who are interested in taking part of Ayn Rand's view can, as one possible source, listen to Leonard Peikoff's short lecture "Love, Sex and Romance". It *might* still be available here: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP51C )

What, then, about Leonard Peikoff's views? I am not able or willing to repeat them all here. Let me just state that whatever his views, they too are only part of psychology, not philosophy. For what's it's worth, you can listen to his podcasts and see, clearly, that he's not "homophobic". He's does not think that homosexuals are immoral or anything like that.

Let me just clarify one thing though: Even if you share the view that homosexuality was, ultimately, an irrational choice, it does not follow that it's immoral. Why? Because the choice was made and then so strongly automatized, so early on, that there's virtually nothing you can do about it. Therefore, it would be irrational and immoral to attempt to "change" your sexuality as an adolescent or adult. It would, likewise, be irrational and immoral to hate yourself or to give up sex, on the misguided premise that it would be wrong to indulge in sexual desires that *may* rest on a series of generalizations you made and have automatized when you were growing up.

Edited by knast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And since according to Objectivist morality she always comes first, she is obliged to oppose it,...
You clearly have little knowledge of Objectivism. Even if we accept your false premise that an Objectivist will find homosexuality immoral and disgusting, it still does not follow that he will do anything to force his views on others. In fact, Rand would say that one should fight for the rights of people to do things that we find disgusting. Here's a quote: "But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle." - Censorship: Local and Express (1973) - The Ayn Rand Letter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed. As with the better known Voltaire quote " I disapprove of what you say,

but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

monstrum is smuggling in two false premises here: That Objectivists today consider

homosexuality to be immoral,

and - the collectivist/altruist mindset. When applied to O'ist morality and individual

rights there is no common ground, and never will be. Oil and water cannot mix.

Two things he may not know: without options of choice, morality is not feasible; and,

individual rights do not privilege any person (or self-announced 'collective') to

'special treatment.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

(by hanging "no gays allowed" signs, for example)

This is something that has been troubling me for a while and you have not suffiently answered me on this whYNOT. What happens when the majority of people are homophobic. If enough people are they could socially ostracise us e.g. not purchase from shops that employ gay people. Eventually no gay man or woman would think it is safe to be out. I have been thinking you cannot have spiritual values without wealth or money but also without spriritual values wealth has no value to me.

Edited by Superman123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What happens when the majority of people are homophobic. If enough people are they could socially ostracise us e.g. not purchase from shops that employ gay people. Eventually no gay man or woman would think it is safe to be out.
A few decades ago, coming out could hurt substantially. So, yes, being openly gay in such a society could hurt a gay person. It makes sense that people hid their homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

This is something that has been troubling me for a while and you have not suffiently answered me on this whYNOT. What happens when the majority of people are homophobic. If enough people are they could socially ostracise us e.g. not purchase from shops that employ gay people. Eventually no gay man or woman would think it is safe to be out. I have been thinking you cannot have spiritual values without wealth or money but also without spriritual values wealth has no value to me.

Capitalism is a necessary condition of a rational culture, but not a sufficient one. It is the political system that allows people to be rational, but it doesn't make them rational.

The solution to irrationality is rational discourse, advocacy, dialog, etc. Capitalism facilitates those (prevents the government from interfering with it, and forces the government to protect the rights of advocates as much as possible), but doesn't make them magically happen.

The kind of acceptance we have today is the result of some brave people fighting for a culture that's more rational on this topic, back when it wasn't popular to fight for it. That happened due to their bravery, but also due to having a capitalist society (at least as far as speech and the exchange of ideas is concerned, not so much economically). Without either one of those causes, the other wouldn't have been worth much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monstrum thinks that the job of the government isn't just to protect rights, but to also force people to be rational, not realizing that "forcing someone to be rational" is a contradiction in terms.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heya Superman123, another gay Oist here. Same to the OP, hello! Welcome to the forum.

In response to your recent point, Superman: In a free market system all minorities would be in the same boat. However, there's an important part of Ayn Rand's view of -how- a free market system becomes adopted. Ayn Rand believed that in order for the government to change fundamentally to become more capitalist the general attitude of individuals' personal views on morality and politics would have to change. If a dictator ran in and suddenly abolished taxes, regulations, social programs, and left the perfect framework for a capitalist government with individual rights, it would immediately topple. You can't force people to believe in a philosophical system, and such a system is a necessary part of how a government style arises.

The general trend is that individualism is more compatible with atheism and (classical) liberalism than it is with religion and theocracy. Those fundamentalist religious types who are such 'ardent' supporters of individual rights are simply compartmentalizing their metaphysical and moral beliefs away from their political beliefs. When it comes right down to it Jesus was a dirty hippie who hated family and wanted people to pay their taxes and support the poor, hungry, and bereaved. The association with religion and capitalism has been a recent development in America, and in my opinion it is not a strong bond. There is a ticking timebomb in America's culture war, which ends with the marriage of fundamentalist religion and mystical altruism. Already the two parties are nearly identical ideologically on every important issue, and argue mostly on the most practical way to implement altruism.

So the idea here is that if and when a free market system arises in America it will be to a whole new moral zeitgeist (which the ARI is trying to start) that will necessarily have to include individual rights for all human beings. So you're right, nothing will stop a single shopkeeper from putting up a sign what says "Keep out the gays." And similarly, nothing will stop the majority of people from simply not patronizing such businesses. Any business which unfairly and irrationally denies itself customers is doomed to failure in a capitalist economic system, besides being irrational and immoral to discriminate based on such criteria, it is also not good business sense.

That is a fundamental part of Objectivism: That all real principles must also be practical. There is no dichotomy between theory and practice, because if your principles do not work in practice, they were not good principles in the first place.

Also another thing I am surprised no one has brought up here: Ayn Rand had a very close friend who was gay, her husband's brother. She remained friends with him her entire life. No, she was not a homophobe, and no her recorded comments about gays do not constitute a necessary part of this philosophy. Peikoff is recorded in his podcasts saying that Objectivism does not count homosexuality as immoral and that he personally believes the theory Louie put forth earlier that it may be the sum of a number of choices. This view of his is not a result or tenet of Objectivism.

Objectivism has been the most amazing force for positive change in my life. I know many Objectivist gays and many Objectivists with gay friends. So stick around, Queer Capitalist, and Superman123. We would be happy to have you, and don't let any small minds get you down.

<3

Edited by Jackethan
ttime, Dante and aequalsa like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There're going to be some small, nasty minds everywhere, and as long as

we have States that insist on allocating rights by group, instead of by

individual, those nasty-minded will gain in power.

The only way to protect minority groups is to NOT recognize minorities -

at all. Personally, and certainly governmentally, the individual is the only minority.

In my country which adopted a Scandinavian model of Constitution, the cracks are

becoming more noticeable, recently. We recently had the ugly specatacle of one

'special interest group' the "Traditional Leaders" (ultra-conservative tribal elders)

publicly come out against homosexual rights - demanding they be rescinded: because blacks are not homosexual(a blatant lie), the white colonist brought it with him :), and it offends the

dignity of a black male (blah, blah..

The point is, that after enjoying 18 years of relative acceptance and openness (marriage, etc)

gays are back under attack - as a group. With a Constitution that is being threatened on

other fronts as well by our majority government.

So who wins between two special-interest groups? The numbers - by 'democratic' vote?

If enough conservative Christians join in, gay rights could conceivably go under,

and another Uganda-type repression occur here too.

Nothing proves so strongly the rationality (and benevolence, ultimately)of individual rights

as does living in Africa. What is perhaps a distance away for you folks, is already established here.

On a TV debate last week, a young black guy spoke up bravely and calmly against one old bigot,

saying "I am a man, who is also homosexual - I need nobody's permission to live."

I'm not gay, but I thought "Well said, brother: you understand".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

The kind of acceptance we have today is the result of some brave people fighting for a culture that's more rational on this topic, back when it wasn't popular to fight for it. That happened due to their bravery, but also due to having a capitalist society (at least as far as speech and the exchange of ideas is concerned, not so much economically). Without either one of those causes, the other wouldn't have been worth much.

I agree with what people are saying here. Very much so. But always remember it was people like Harvey Milk that fought for civil rights that changed the culture. If it was not for people like him we would never have what we have today. The conservatives did nothing for the gay community. In fact today they are trying their best to destroy any rights gay people have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

I agree with what people are saying here. Very much so. But always remember it was people like Harvey Milk that fought for civil rights that changed the culture. If it was not for people like him we would never have what we have today. The conservatives did nothing for the gay community. In fact today they are trying their best to destroy any rights gay people have.

That's not really true. The main right gay people have is to have gay sex. Most conservatives aren't trying to take that away. They are only targeting the right to marry, which is a minor issue compared to the decriminalization of homosexuality.

I can't really think of any other rights that are particular to gay people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky, I have been thinking about what to respond to you. If you look at conservatives and even the right most has spent a lot of enery if you look at your history to make homosexuality illegal. Today the conservatives are not talking about this 'cause of the huge effort made by the civil rights movement. If there was not civil rights movement there would not even have been a dabte about same sex marriage or anything. Why dont you show from history where the right and specifically the conservatives fought for gay rights before the 1960s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

I agree with what people are saying here. Very much so. But always remember it was people like Harvey Milk that fought for civil rights that changed the culture. If it was not for people like him we would never have what we have today. The conservatives did nothing for the gay community. In fact today they are trying their best to destroy any rights gay people have.

I am gay and Harvey Milk did nothing to advance the rights of anyone.

He was in the pocket of union thugs, anti-rights, and a statist that believed the government should run peoples' lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvey Milk did help further civil rights for gay people but I can understand that if you are thinking in terms of Objectivism that would not be a good thing. Being an openly gay Supervisor at the time is enough for me to say that he did alot to change views of gay people at the time.

Edited by Superman123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He may have *changed* the way people view gays but not necessarily for the better.

And I am not thinking in just in terms of my Objectivism but in terms of someone who is gay.

Milk wasn't a hero or a role model of an advocate for rights. He was a stereotype.

Like the so called "gay pride" events where exhibitionists wear appalling clothing (or no clothing), get trashed in public and flap their junk at passer-by what he did was more harm than good.

Edited by SapereAude
JASKN likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He may have *changed* the way people view gays but not necessarily for the better.

And I am not thinking in just in terms of my Objectivism but in terms of someone who is gay.

Milk wasn't a hero or a role model of an advocate for rights. He was a stereotype.

Like the so called "gay pride" events where exhibitionists wear appalling clothing (or no clothing), get trashed in public and flap their junk at passer-by what he did was more harm than good.

Preach!

The best thing gays can do for themselves is to remove the idea in their own minds that their values are somehow stigmatized. That's breaking old thinking habits in exchange for new ones. If you don't think you are an oddball yourself, nothing people say will affect you much, and they will eventually just absorb your attitude about yourself without realizing it.

SapereAude likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

Preach!

The best thing gays can do for themselves is to remove the idea in their own minds that their values are somehow stigmatized. That's breaking old thinking habits in exchange for new ones. If you don't think you are an oddball yourself, nothing people say will affect you much, and they will eventually just absorb your attitude about yourself without realizing it.

This is similar to what all the gay people in my country was saying. Every gay person was saying that the gay activists are crazy and extreme. Everybody was saying that we have gained acceptance and should move on from old ideas. Until somebody actually wanted to take their rights away. Oh you should have heard how every gay man and women was going on. I was scared somebody should would do somethings stupid.On another topic. I am currently enjoying reading Ayn Rand. I do try and read as much as I can but I find it hard to get the time. I enjoy her ideas but I have realized it would only work in an utopia where everybody is rational, a kind of Atlantis. But not everybody is rational and that is why we have things like regulations etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

This is similar to what all the gay people in my country was saying. Every gay person was saying that the gay activists are crazy and extreme. Everybody was saying that we have gained acceptance and should move on from old ideas. Until somebody actually wanted to take their rights away. Oh you should have heard how every gay man and women was going on. I was scared somebody should would do somethings stupid.On another topic. I am currently enjoying reading Ayn Rand. I do try and read as much as I can but I find it hard to get the time. I enjoy her ideas but I have realized it would only work in an utopia where everybody is rational, a kind of Atlantis. But not everybody is rational and that is why we have things like regulations etc.

I'm not sure the point you are making with the first half there.

But as for the second half, Rand's ideas, or anybody's ideas, work or don't work because they correspond or don't correspond to reality -- that is, correspond to the truth, or how things actually are. Nearly all of Rand's ideas correspond to reality. She was a great thinker. She would strive to break things down to their most essential meanings and then link them to the real world. If they didn't add up in the real world, she would tirelessly seek for those ideas that did add up. Since she spoke on so many topics, in fact something as broad as an entire system of philosophy, It doesn't serve any purpose to group all of her ideas in general into a category of "Only works in utopia scenario." You'd have to take each idea separately and find out if it corresponds to reality.

Concerning regulations, for example, Rand would say that regulations are not appropriate for men because they limit what a man can do with his own property. It doesn't matter if he chooses to destroy his property, what matters is that he is free to make the choice. Of course, those ideas can be chewed and mulled over until the reasoning behind them is understood completely -- Rand would have advocated such a process, and in fact it is through that process that she reached conclusions for herself.

Thinking is hard and broad thinking is even harder. Rand is a good source of thoughts, and I think you, and everyone, would do good to read what she wrote until you understand completely the meaning of her ideas. It takes a long time but its benefits are far-reaching, in many different facets of living.

EDIT: One of the greatest benefits of doing this is to turn the process itself into a habit, a default way of thinking.

Edited by JASKN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont worry JASKN I think you are on the winning side. Despite what all the doomsday-sayers think our world and especially American will become more and more capitalistic and Objectivism will become a very popular philosophy.

Edited by Superman123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky, I have been thinking about what to respond to you. If you look at conservatives and even the right most has spent a lot of enery if you look at your history to make homosexuality illegal. Today the conservatives are not talking about this 'cause of the huge effort made by the civil rights movement. If there was not civil rights movement there would not even have been a dabte about same sex marriage or anything. Why dont you show from history where the right and specifically the conservatives fought for gay rights before the 1960s.

Because you didn't say that conservatives weren't fighting for gay rights in 1960, you said they were trying to take away all gay rights today. That's not true. There are two "gay rights" in total: the right to engage in gay specific sexual behavior, and the right to be treated equally by the state.

The only right conservatives are trying to deny gays is the second. And even that, only to a relatively small extent. They're only seeking to deny gays access to one government defined legal arrangement, out of many: the institution of marriage. Claiming that they are trying to take away all rights is blatantly false.

Today the conservatives are not talking about this 'cause of the huge effort made by the civil rights movement.

I know conservatives personally. All the ones I know, the reason why they're not talking about outlawing homosexuality is because they don't believe it should be outlawed. That is the reason. Not any other one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preach!

The best thing gays can do for themselves is to remove the idea in their own minds that their values are somehow stigmatized. That's breaking old thinking habits in exchange for new ones. If you don't think you are an oddball yourself, nothing people say will affect you much, and they will eventually just absorb your attitude about yourself without realizing it.

I believe it can't be stated strongly enough that the biggest foe the gay world faces

is collectivism: that of the collectivist Conservatives, the collectivist 'progressives'

or their own collective resistance to injustice and homophobia.

In fact, I'm making a self-contradiction by writing "the gay world".

Not, I emphasise, to deny, or to hide in shame, what is a part of one's physical

and volitional identity -

but to acknowledge that what makes an individualist, crucially involves many more

efforts, virtues and outcomes, than the property of being gay, per se.

One's sexual identity is insignificant, relatively: It is only 'other people' who traditionally

gave homosexuality any significance. So, seeking acceptance of one's own 'group', by some other 'group' is a fallacy of altruism-collectivism. At the individual level it is the desire for the sanction of one's existence from others, and must be pure altruism.

Allowing one's full consciousness to prevail, it becomes clear how singular and unique

each person is, and can be (or should be); therefore, superseding other factors by miles.

Coupled with individual rights - which, incidentally, would have accomplished immediately, what

the American Civil Rights movement did irrationally (by opposing collectivist prejudice, with

collectivist force) rational egoism is the 'natural home' for all of us - gay or straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.