Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

You are conflating what a right is and what a benefit is.  A benefit is something positive that you get above the minimum you were expecting.  A right is something that defines what is required for you to live according to your nature as a rational human being, and is usually defined in negative terms like “Initiating force is bad”.  It is the minimum requirement needed to live as a man.  I do not need the Medal of Honor to live as a man.  I need freedom of speech to live as a man. 

 

A medal of honor is a benefit and affects no one but the person getting it, largely a windfall that adds in some way to their life but is not required for their life.  The government’s protection of the right of association affects everyone and is required for people live and interact in a free society.  If the Government stops giving approval metals out no one is hurt.  If the Government picks and chooses who can receive a right you end up with the collectivist pressure group warfare which the gay marriage issue is one example.  The fact that both sides are acting as irrational collectivists is just proof of concept.   

 

The bottom line is that it’s the government’s job to protect my rights.  Two people getting married does not violate my rights.  Why I would need the Government to forcefully stop or punish the happy couple when they do not affect me in any way simply does not make sense.  

Edited by Spiral Architect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biddle on homosexuality:

 

"Biddle explains that sexual orientation per se is neither moral nor immoral and that the relevant issue is whether, given a person’s orientation, he approaches sex in a rational, self-interested, rights-respecting manner. Biddle then discusses the purpose and importance of sex in human life, points out that hostility to homosexuality stems primarily from religion and should be ignored, touches on possible causes of homosexuality and explains that this as irrelevant to its moral status, and encourages homosexuals and everyone else to embrace their sexual orientation and to engage in sex rationally and joyously."

 

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/11/homosexuality-moral-or-immoral/

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you post Biddle's opinion?

 

Because I find it compelling.  Ever since during the writing of one of my plays, The Untold Story of Iphis and Ianthe, I've gotten perspective, and I think this coupled with it, is enough to change my mind completely.  But, I still haven't watched the video, and thought hard on this.  I thought it was super relevant to this thread, so I posted it, while I'm thinking about things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot more information and opinion out there on Objectivism and sexuality besides just Biddle's. People in this very thread already gave you ample arguments, which you ignored repeatedly in your follow up posts.

You don't need an "intellectual" to tell you what to think. They might be more likely to have decent ideas, but you're the one who has to do the thinking and deciding. Why weren't all of the people who took time responding to you personally given the same respect you give to Biddle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what Biddle, Peikoff and the rest of them have to say, but at the same time I'm bothered that none of them has ever acknowledged that Rand said quite the opposite, that she was wrong and that, e.g. her remarks at the 1971 Ford Hall Forum Q&A, not the Bible, are some people's reason for entertaining irrational beliefs on the subject.

 

(Correction: Maybe they have.  See #134 on p. 6 of the current thread.  Just the same, published remarks in a public forum trump anecdotes, so Rand's  "position" is still that homosexuality is [phrase it as you will] sinful.)

Edited by Reidy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, apparently, it took me writing said play, to finally get perspective enough.  Plus Biddle says something I hadn't heard any say explicitly before, that the orientation, as such, is neither moral nor immoral.  Again, I find it compelling, and am still thinking about all this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what Biddle, Peikoff and the rest of them have to say, but at the same time I'm bothered that none of them has ever acknowledged that Rand said quite the opposite, that she was wrong and that, e.g. her remarks at the 1971 Ford Hall Forum Q&A, not the Bible, are some people's reason for entertaining irrational beliefs on the subject.

 

(Correction: Maybe they have.  See #134 on p. 6 of the current thread.  Just the same, published remarks in a public forum trump anecdotes, so Rand's  "position" is still that homosexuality is [phrase it as you will] sinful.)

Well, no. Not phrase it as you will. If you're gonna talk about what Ayn Rand said, you should probably phrase it as she phrased it, not as you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, apparently, it took me writing said play, to finally get perspective enough.  Plus Biddle says something I hadn't heard any say explicitly before, that the orientation, as such, is neither moral nor immoral.  Again, I find it compelling, and am still thinking about all this.  

Here are a couple posts from early on in this thread which brought up that same idea:
 
If homosexuality were a choice, even then how would it be immoral?
 
Anyways, I don’t know if this matters to anyone or not, but when I worked at ARI there were at least two openly homosexual employees there.  Great guys both.
 

It’s not really a choice and it’s irrelevant to the morality of the situation anyway.

Edited by JASKN
Accidental earlier posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, apparently, it took me writing said play, to finally get perspective enough.  Plus Biddle says something I hadn't heard any say explicitly before, that the orientation, as such, is neither moral nor immoral.  Again, I find it compelling, and am still thinking about all this.  

I'm getting into this late, but this particular comment caught my attention.  Biddle's position appears correct in terms of appetite, but not in terms of behavior.  Life, as such, is neither moral nor immoral, but volitional life is distinguished by chosen behavior, which is moral or immoral.  Suppose ones orientation is sexually aggressive... does this imply that rape is amoral??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retraction:

Biddle on homosexuality:

 

"Biddle explains that sexual orientation per se is neither moral nor immoral and that the relevant issue is whether, given a person’s orientation, he approaches sex in a rational, self-interested, rights-respecting manner. Biddle then discusses the purpose and importance of sex in human life, points out that hostility to homosexuality stems primarily from religion and should be ignored, touches on possible causes of homosexuality and explains that this as irrelevant to its moral status, and encourages homosexuals and everyone else to embrace their sexual orientation and to engage in sex rationally and joyously."

 

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/11/homosexuality-moral-or-immoral/

Biddle is correct in terms of behavior, as I see after going back to the full citation.  Please disregard my prior post...

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...