Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

<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.

There is the very real problem of gay activists wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

A great deal of this can be blamed on the pathology all too common in our increasingly collectivist society- the admiration of victimhood.

On the one hand they are protesting being defined by and singled out because of their sexuality and on the other the basis of the gay rights movement is that they are defining themselves by and singling themselves out based on their sexuality.

If they focused on fighting for individual rights instead- equal rights for all- the rights of gays would just be a natural part of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the very real problem of gay activists wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

A great deal of this can be blamed on the pathology all too common in our increasingly collectivist society- the admiration of victimhood.

On the one hand they are protesting being defined by and singled out because of their sexuality and on the other the basis of the gay rights movement is that they are defining themselves by and singling themselves out based on their sexuality.

If they focused on fighting for individual rights instead- equal rights for all- the rights of gays would just be a natural part of that.

That's it, to a 't'. How deeply collectivism has insinuated itself.

Questioning a woman once who identified herself as first and foremost a radical

gay, it came out that she wanted some sort of special status for gays. I think

she called it "extra recognition".

Equality, for her anyway, is no longer enough.

(Would you believe she's also an extreme liberal? The false dichotomies pile up.)

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questioning a woman once who identified herself as first and foremost a radical

gay, it came out that she wanted some sort of special status for gays. I think

she called it "extra recognition".

Equality, for her anyway, is no longer enough.

What I gather from these types- and not just gays but in general people who identify as minorities that have as a group been collectively wronged- is that they want a form of social reparations. They don't want to be treated equally, or to have government discrimination against them stop. They want some form of compensation.

And society, most especially the progressive, has been telling them they can have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I gather from these types- and not just gays but in general people who identify as minorities that have as a group been collectively wronged- is that they want a form of social reparations.

Maybe you're right. I am always so perplexed as to why gays don't get the real issue of individual rights and not "gay" rights. Even at the suggestion, you're immediately written off as a nut job who doesn't get it. If they do want reparations, what they are asking for is a childhood redo where nobody bullied them -- most gays aren't very concerned with the real issues of a same-sex spouse given hospital authority or joint taxes or whatnot. To anyone, gay or not, who as an adult wants a childhood bully to "pay" is just a whiner who needs to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do want reparations, what they are asking for is a childhood redo where nobody bullied them

I do think that is the foundation of much of it.

Having suffered in the past they want the promise of being mollycoddled in the future.

They lack the insight that this does not balance out the scales.

Even more important, what they don't understand is that the government willing to hand this to them is intrinsically unjust and that eventually so called "social justice" advocates will move on to a new victimization flavor of the month, leaving them high and dry.

Edited by SapereAude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>
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.


People are stupid, yes. But WHY are people stupid? Certainly evolution doesn't favor irrationality in a species which depends on rationality to survive. People are stupid because we create things like regulations to keep people from trying various ideas and/or various laws to shift the burdens of failure onto other people's shoulders and thus prevent people from learning about consequences and alternatives. Getting away from capitalism because "people are stupid" only keeps people stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But WHY are people stupid? Certainly evolution doesn't favor irrationality in a species which depends on rationality to survive. People are stupid because we create things like regulations to keep people from trying various ideas and/or various laws to shift the burdens of failure onto other people's shoulders and thus prevent people from learning about consequences and alternatives. Getting away from capitalism because "people are stupid" only keeps people stupid.

A great article about the government's intentional dumbing down of its citizenry.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/prologue6.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any conflict with objectivism and homosexuality. Objectivism is just reason. There's nothing irrational about homosexuality. Is there? If you are gay then you probably know that its natural. Leonard Peikoff has said in his podcasts that nearly all attempts to correct sexual orientation are in vain. Its not clear what the cause of sexual orientation is - is it nature, nurture, both? In either case, and as Peikoff has said in his podcast, at some early age, orientation, however it comes about, gets locked in.

I am familiar with what Rand has said about homosexuality and I think we have to remember to separate the woman from the philosophy. She was opinionated. She had subjective value judgements. If you listen to enough stories from people who knew her, including Peikoff, she had a tendency to want to prove objective value to the things she subjectively valued. I understand that because aren't all of us guilty of that attempt at one time or another? We tend to want people to like what we like and agree with us.

Also, remember that during most of Rand's life homosexuality was considered a mental illness. It was on that list, remember? It didn't get removed until some time in the 70's, I believe. She died in 82? So, who knows what she ended up thinking about gays toward the end of her life. And I'm not aware of any specific reasons why she thought they were "disgusting." I surmise she thought sodomy was disgusting or something like that. Who knows. Doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, remember that during most of Rand's life homosexuality was considered a mental illness. It was on that list, remember? It didn't get removed until some time in the 70's, I believe. She died in 82? So, who knows what she ended up thinking about gays toward the end of her life. And I'm not aware of any specific reasons why she thought they were "disgusting." I surmise she thought sodomy was disgusting or something like that. Who knows. Doesn't matter.

Back on post #43, I was mentioning how if it really was viewed as a mental illness, then it wouldn't be up to choice, so therefore not up to moral evaluation. Rand was vociferous about that line of reasoning. There was (apparently) philosophical reasoning to go with Rand's judgment that homosexuality is immoral, but I doubt there was any good reason. Her judgment seemed to come out of no where. Objective value really just has to do with a value being determined as good or bad - not that if Rand valued skyscrapers, you had to value skyscrapers or else she thought you were a bad person. I see no evidence to suggest she was attempting to make other people based off of a value she didn't consider carefully. The only conclusion I come to here is that Rand was wrong on many counts regarding sexuality and gender overall.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old days, as I understand Rand and Branden, they would have said that most so-called mental illnesses - the ones that aren't the result of brain damage, hormonal imbalances and the like - are acquired by choice. This would include homosexuality, as the famous Ford Hall Forum quote establishes. We may not choose them deliberately and for their own sake, but they are the outcome of choices we've made. A smoker doesn't say to himself "I think I'll get lung cancer," but in the latter sense he chose it.

The scientific consensus today is that sexual orientation is innate, and the Objectivists, as far as I ever heard, never even tried to make a case against this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Stotts blog entry here, he goes to show why he sees that Rand views homosexuality the way she does:

http://jasonstotts.com/2010/07/objectivism-masculinity-femininity-and-homosexuality-initial-thoughts/

I think Ayn Rand’s position on the subject is clear: homosexuality is immoral and, although she did not give her reasons explicitly, I think it’s clear that it is because it involves an unnatural orientation of the masculine for the masculine and the feminine for the feminine (just as magnetic north attracting magnetic north would be unnatural). Since the masculine necessarily involves the drive to dominate the feminine, for a man to be a bottom in a homosexual relationship is necessarily emasculating as he is assuming the role of the woman. (This was the same objection to men who were exclusively receptive homosexuals in ancient Greece: that they destroyed their masculinity by being passive like a woman.)

Now that we have seen Ayn Rand’s position on homosexuality, let me state formally that I completely disagree with her on this point. In order to understand why I think she is wrong, we need to reconsider the natures of masculinity and femininity, as it is here that her critical error lies.

To me, her views on masculinity and femininity are a part of Objectivism.

STOTTS disagrees with Rands view. Even goes so far as to claim homosexuality is "normal and natural" here:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25156&hl=

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Stotts blog entry here, he goes to show why he sees that Rand views homosexuality the way she does:

http://jasonstotts.com/2010/07/objectivism-masculinity-femininity-and-homosexuality-initial-thoughts/To me, her views on masculinity and femininity are a part of Objectivism.

STOTTS disagrees with Rands view. Even goes so far as to claim homosexuality is "normal and natural" here:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25156&hl=

Why did you say "to me"? Do you believe that your statement is a fact or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intellectualammo, I can understand why you would seem to have some misgivings with homosexuality. The Objectivist position that homosexuality is ‘tolerable’ because gays and lesbians did not choose it is (I think) a very weak and negative argument. But this whole topic for me has become a bit tedious and boring. Whatever you think about it, I really don’t care, apart from amusing myself with this little post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OPAR: "To respect sex means to approach it objectively"

"Sex is the preeminent form of bringing love into physical reality"

"This excludes....any form of....faking"

I would think this is applicable to gender, biological roles of the two sexes qua man, qua woman.

Homosexual acts fake/evade reality, gender, biological roles, even gender specific sex organs.

For example:

Females strapped on a strap-on - faking the role of a man has as penetrator, etc

Male poop chute is faking the role of a vag and a man has become the penetrated, etc.

This is not normal or natural. Human biology, human sexual reproduction evidences that. Man qua man is heterosexual and it's a concern for psychology to deal with primarily if there is a deviation from that, or for philosophy as in hedonism/subjectivism, or them being "broken units", etc. It indicates something is not normal, not natural, something is wrong somewhere.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High end sex dolls can be a rational alternative, can be treated like "masturbating in style" as Stacy Leigh once described it, etc. Nothing wrong with a guy like me who is not only working on his own moral character, but the moral character of those around him are not enough to warrant having sex with and choose dolls. They are not the same gender as I am, btw.

I talk more about them in my thread on Kira kissing statues thread:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25134

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High end sex dolls can be a rational alternative, ...

Who said they weren't? The point is that if you're going to use some spurious "being natural" standard, homosexuality has been around for many thousands of years, plastic dolls have not. So, if your standard of morality is to do things that are "natural" then you should stick to regular masturbation or take to homosexuality -- which at least has many centuries of tradition, rather than using plastic dolls. I have absolutely no objection to plastic dolls being used for masturbation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homosexual acts fake/evade reality, gender, biological roles, even gender specific sex organs.

 

This is not normal or natural....

 

Homosexuality (aka: connecting with another person on an intimate level) is much more normal in my book than the alternative you mention: being alone and having no desire to connect or even try to connect with real people at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slogans are not philosophy.

Do you not recognize it?

every "is" implies and "ought".

Rand said it.

She applied it to Man. My point, is that male and female, each implies an ought, too. Look at her view on femininity, masculinity, and hero worship.

She also said it this way:

"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."

Btw, you have a thread with the former quote in the title:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=10399

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does one go from the "is" of "I possess this type of sex organs"  to the "ought" of "I should only use them with people who have a different type"? Is implies oughts, yeah, but the oughts of what one ought to do according to the standard of one's own life qua oneself (including that they are human and have a certain type of genitals among other things) that I see implied by the type of sex organs one has is stuff like, "I'm a male, so I should see a urologist to make sure my plumbing down there is healthy, not a gynecologist" or "I'm a female, I should get pads or tampons to keep from staining all my nice stuff with blood on a regular basis." Not everything that is true of humans in general is true of every single individual constituent of the group. Most people are heterosexual which can lead to them producing more humans via their sexual activities and this is largely responsible for keeping the species going, especially until artificial insemination came along, yes. However, nobody is obligated to reproduce even if most people do. There are even heterosexuals who cannot or choose not to reproduce. If one isn't doing it for the sake of reproducing, then what functionality is missing from homosexual sex that heterosexual sex has? Yeah, you can't do vaginal intercourse without both male and female parts, but that is merely one way among many that one can achieve the goal of creating physical pleasure and having intimate interactions. I'm not aware of any evidence either that vaginal intercourse has a much greater capacity to produce these pleasurable things than any other sexual acts. Furthermore, sex between people of the same sex doesn't prevent them from reproducing anyway, not any more than masturbation does. The mere fact that one would not exist in the first place without heterosexual sex and reproduction leading the creation of themself and their ancestors I don't even see any relevance to here either. After all, if somebody was born to a rape victim that wouldn't mean they were obligated to rape people because they wouldn't exist without rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point, is that male and female, each implies an ought, too.

What kind of ought is implied by the "is" of homosexual male or homosexual female?

You are taking male and female as observations of "is". Fair enough.

However, you're implicitly saying that "homosexual male" is not an "is".

What about "fat male", or "thin male" or "black male"... surely you see that these are "is"-es, and they each imply some type of "ought".

Edited by softwareNerd

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...