Jackethan

I am gay, and Ayn Rand's opinions on the morality of homosexuality don't affect my self esteem too much. Either she learned to accept that being gay is not immoral and was right, or she didn't and she was wrong.
My curiosity is academic. It's a frequently asked question from non-Oists and students, and I've heard many conflicting answers on the subject so I'd like to collect evidence and see if I can get to an accurate answer. 
Objectivism has taught me how to think, not what to think.
Thanks for the concern.

What will a man in the women's room be charged with? Indecent exposure? I thought it was well established that such laws are not objective. If the man is charged with peeping, then firm evidence for the fact that he was actually peeping needs to be established. It's not like women keep the stall doors open for a chat while their skirts are down.

Any name from pretty much 1AD onward is going to be based on the altruistic mythologies of Judeo-Christians. This includes most names from all of the areas of Byzantine influence. These are the names which are most common today that don't sound 'weird' to modern ears. A few characters in the bible were actually badasses, such as Samson. If you're interested different names from those I suggest looking at Greek and Roman names. However most of those represent ideals or mythology from those religions. Alexander, for instance, is Greek for 'protector' (I believe). However, I doubt you will come up with any names of specific Objectivist ideals, since Objectivism has only existed within the last century.

This is a delightful surprise, implied speculation of doom and schism aside. I'm not going to read any more tonight - I'm going to bed happy.

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

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

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

I'd like to correct a semantic error. I don't think Sentient is the word we want to use for distinction in this case. I made this mistake in an argument about animal rights once already.
Sentient according to Merriam-Webster Online:
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2: aware (checked: having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Sentience only means the ability to feel, not self awareness or consciousness as we define them.




You put together a really good case for receiving a legitimate financial compensation for the dog, but your case is still purely financial. You spent money to get the dog, you spent money (in the form of not working) to train the dog from youth. Most of the things you said are quantifiable and able to be verified by paper documentation and financial records. They are wholly different from an emotional attachment case. I believe courts rightly should award people compensation from the aggressor for breeding, training, feeding, taking time off, and medical care. It is the idea that you should be awarded more compensation based on the level of emotional investment you have made which is more difficult to objectively quantify and prove in court. Note, I don't believe it is impossible, I just haven't seen it done yet, neither had Rand or Peikoff. I believe it can be done, and I believe they both thought so too.



I think a good case could be made for doing disturbing things in earshot/view of neighbors. At least, I've seen far more petty cases on television go to court, not even involving animals. Furthermore, in an Objectivist society a homeowner's association, township, or even city could have laws against animal abuse like that as an issue of disturbing peace of mind for locals. I think the more difficult issue to legislate is when someone, willfully or not, neglects an animal to the point of abuse. I think direct violence to an animal is easier to stop than the ones who simply bought a dog, found out it was too much work, and now just leave it in their yard, forgotten, giving water and food to it maybe on a monthly basis. In these cases, the person is not acting violently toward the animal and thus creating a ruckus to distract neighbors with. The animal is just slowly dying. I think these cases are more common than direct violence.

I think it's important to remember that Animal Planet and Nat Geo both play up the situations you encounter on shows like Animal Cops. These channels, the ASPCA, PETA, and the enviro movement itself really wants you to believe that we're all cruel or negligent caretakers for animals. It is important for them that you believe it so that you'll continue to watch their networks, and support animal rights organizations.

Also something important to note about those shows as I have seen them, it is rarely a successful happy person who has three dogs chained to spiked posts with no food and water in a 8x8 backyard. It is most often a house in the ghetto, with unemployed owners. For horses, a failing farm that is kept by someone who doesn't know horse care and will probably have to give up or change the property soon to get any money on it. So the case could be made that those enviro groups should advocate dropping welfare and boosting the free market so there are less poor uneducated people to mistreat the animals they own.

In fact in many laboratories for the medical industry the FDA requires animal testing even when it could be deemed unnecessary, and they have strict draconian rules on how the animal must be treated during testing. If the FDA wasn't around animal testing could be conducted on a per company basis and the treatment of their animals could be overseen by free market forces.

Laws against cruelty are a problem because punishment for such cases is either irrelevant or too harsh. You can throw a few guys who left their dogs alone during vacation in jail for a few years, but ultimately no objective system of law and punishment can be constructed which satisfies both reason and emotion in this case. I believe both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff had said this before, that they wish some kind of special case could be formulated for animals but they could not think of one. Peikoff mentioned (I believe) prosecuting someone who is cruel to animals on the basis that they represent a threat to other humans around them, based on the pathology of someone who is capable of being that cruel to an animal.

Ultimately involving government in the fight to stop cruelty to animals only causes more harm to them.

Grow up, stop drinking so much, and stop attending these ridiculous parties.

So much for not getting pulled into this again, eh EC?

Even if homosexuality is a choice, and I believe it is, and I'm also homosexual, you have not proven your reasoning behind the idea that this choice should be judged as morally wrong.

Further, this thread has gone entirely off topic from its origin, as these threads normally do. To the OP, I would like to say welcome to OO.net. Objectivism and homosexuality are mutually compatible, there are many gay Objectivists. If you have any questions about the philosophy as you continue to learn please don't hesitate to ask, I'm sure someone will answer.

I would like to point out, Superman123, it would probably behoove you to approach learning Objectivism from the perspective of learning the principles and reasoning of the philosophy. I noticed that your post and your original opinion seemed to focus on what "Objectivists" think about homosexuality, christianity, capitalism, etc. What Objectivists think should be totally irrelevant to your study of Objectivism, which is a philosophy, not a religion. It is much better to learn what you can about the actual philosophy and then judge for yourself whether the Objectivists you come across are applying it appropriately.

Regards,
Tom

I'm circumcised, or mutilated as some people here put it. I don't feel mutilated, I like the look of my penis. I'm not going to press charges on my mother and father for doing this to me. Maybe I'll do it to my son. Regardless of whether religious motives were -the first- reason why circumcision happened, I happen to like the aesthetic. Why is that your business? Shall I go through life downtrodden and angry that I was 'mutilated' as a child? Shall people I want to date ignore me or pity because I'm a victim of 'genital mutilation'?

I'm circumcised, or mutilated as some people here put it. I don't feel mutilated, I like the look of my penis. I'm not going to press charges on my mother and father for doing this to me. Maybe I'll do it to my son. Regardless of whether religious motives were -the first- reason why circumcision happened, I happen to like the aesthetic. Why is that your business? Shall I go through life downtrodden and angry that I was 'mutilated' as a child? Shall people I want to date ignore me or pity because I'm a victim of 'genital mutilation'?