Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Homosexuality: What is the philosophical significance of “coming out

Rate this topic


Lorenzo de' Medici

Recommended Posts

I recently had a discussion with a friend online, that “coming out” in action is a declaration of individualism. We had a disagreement. The question essentially is: Is there is a philosophic difference between the struggle of 'coming out', and others.

This was my initial statement:

“Gays are already declaring they subconsciously or consciously are individualistic.” (By coming out).

Here are some quotes from my opponent in our chat:

“Some groups would indeed be less open than others. but this would primarily be an ideological concern. I.e. is one a catholic, an atheist, a Marxist, etc? this is the more important question than factors of empiricism, like sexual orientation or nationality”

“Well, that's it precisely. if I was trying to make objectivism appeal to others, I wouldn't target any group in particular. Not gays, not artists. I don't think there's sense in it, when Objectivism is a philosophy for individuals, not individuals with a particular empirical disposition”

“your problem is you're trying to group them, identify them all as one type or another. as in 'coming out' vs 'coming out atheist' vs 'coming out with your favorite pizza topping'. can you really not imagine difficult conflicts that are completely particular, unique to the context and only experienced by one person? I would say that the majority of conflicts are of this type”

“I'm saying there are conflicts which can be difficult in the same way that 'coming out' can be, and that 'coming out' in itself isn't a uniformly difficult conflict, with oneself or others. there is nothing more philosophically significant about 'coming out' than there is with other personal conflicts”

“there's nothing that philosophically separates 'coming out' as gay from other struggles one may endure”

“ones independence does not rely entirely on the choice to explain to others the nature of one's life”

“can you explain why, in temrs of philosophy, 'coming out' is necessarily more independently virtuous than any other personal conflict? or do you only have more anecdotal evidence?”

“it doesn't really matter how tough it is. it being 'very difficult' does not make it true that others cannot endure similar challenges”

“yes, it is a choice to live for ones own happiness. but coming out is not necessarily a stronger test of independence than other conflicts”

“I announced that I was an atheist to my mother and my brother. if not as difficult, it's similar”

“it just is. coming out is a declaration of that. it doesn't require independence, per se, but strength”

“having their sense of individualism depend on their sexual preference would imply that it's something they can choose”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point in this chat was primarily that I believe many Gay people are at least somewhat more likely to be open to learning about Objectivism than other groups because they have already declared their individuality as important, consciously or subconsciously. They are showing in their action of “coming out” that their own selfish happiness is valuable enough for them to risk their relationships with their friends, family, co-workers, employers, and church or religious institution. Since, “out” Gay people recognize their personal happiness as important, and are often rejected by religion, I consider many of them to be potentially open to what Objectivism has to offer. I consider many of them to be more open than other groups of individuals, such as the religious, or the declared collectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might as well change the question of the thread to "what is the significance of not hiding your identity from the world?"

Consider Gail Wynand, who lived a perfectly selfless life - hiding everything he is from the world, keeping it more locked and hidden than any man but Ayn Rand could conceive (just a manner of speaking).

Was it good living like a slave to the world, arresting his soul, his actions and potential?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[M]any Gay people are at least somewhat more likely to be open to learning about Objectivism than other groups because they have already declared their individuality as important, consciously or subconsciously.

I would agree that an open homosexual might be more open to a radical philosophy given that it can require a tremendous amount of courage to publicly express one's homosexuality in the United States today. (At the very least, outside of San Francisco, New York City or Atlanta!) Objectivism, certainly not (yet) a widely accepted philosophy, can be included under "radical philosophies".

However, I think it is a mistake to assume that an open homosexual might be more likely to be interested in an individualistic philosophy. I think there are a significant number of such individuals who embrace a different form of collectivism. For example, one that advocates sacrificing one's own interests to advance those of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual whatever else community.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not understanding rights, and accepting collectivism to some degree is a basic crime committed by most non-Objectivists and Americans. What I think is interesting in particular about Gays as a group is that they usually have to "come out." Why? Why stand up and say this is who I am? Sometimes in the face of hostility they still stand up and show the world that they are not afraid, that they will not accept the doctrine that others should have a claim on their existence, or their happiness. This does not mean that Gays are automatically free from the possibility that they may or will not have contradictions in their reasoning. Declaring that one is homosexual does not automatically integrate the mind. However, when questioned they usually have to admit the value of their personal stance. They identify that they are different from most people that surround them, they identify the atmosphere around them, and they must choose to whom they feel it is necessary or important to share this information with. Many Gay people have never heard of Objectivism or Ayn Rand, but I do think there are groups of people, or nations that are more open to her ideas than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm encountering a couple conflicts in reviewing this thread's subject material in that I'm unable to determine whether the ultimate goal of your action here is merely to utilize this forum as a vehicle to feel out the waters for you to "come out"; that it is your stance that Objectivism is specifically designed for homosexuality; or that you attribute the core principles of Objectivism to encouraging "selfish[ness]" as a means of "hapiness", even at the expense of one's own "...friends, family, co-workers, and church or religious institution." ???

I'd appreciate the opportunity to entertain additional insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... conflicts ...
How is this a conflict in any way? If the topic starter is a gay man, and the topic is "coming out", how can that be construed as a conflict? An interested (as opposed to disinterested) question is what one would expect in the field of ethics, and almost any other. It is truly disinterested questions that are less appropriate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this a conflict in any way? If the topic starter is a gay man, and the topic is "coming out", how can that be construed as a conflict? An interested (as opposed to disinterested) question is what one would expect in the field of ethics, and almost any other. It is truly disinterested questions that are less appropriate.

I was unaware that the topic starter is "gay"...I am aware now though (thanks), and to this end it is that I would again request their perspective on my inquiry as it concerns their (not yours or another's) feelings towards whether or not they (again, not you or someone else) feel/believe that Objectivism is a philosophy/codex of principles specifically formulated for "homosexuality", not to mention their elaboration on the whole bit about whether they "...attribute the core principles of Objectivism to encouraging 'selfish[ness]' as a means of 'happiness', even at the expense of one's own '...friends, family, co-workers, and church or religious institution.' ???"

In short, inasmuch as this individual has espoused (syn.) these opinions/ideals, I would appreciate additional elucidation on these matters from this individual's individual outlook so that I may better grasp their individual perspective.

After all, if the core of Rand's philosophy is about nothing else that could be so clearly, so easily perceived, it is about the pursuit/expression of one's individualism...is it not?!

Edited by -archimedes-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi -archimedes-

I don't think Objectivism was formulated for Homosexuals, just Man qua Man. Objectivism is the best philosophy for people, who want to live a rational life, thus to live in general. The point ultimately of my post is to discuss if "coming out" implies a higher level of individualism than resolving other personal conflicts. I had a chat with another OO member, and I have posted a few quotes from our conversation. He never really provided examples other than "coming out" as an atheist, which I agree can be difficult, and I would also agree that if someone makes such a conclusion on their own, that they probably are more open to Objectivism. Initially my statement was, I believe that Gay people can make an easier conversion to Objectivism especially if they have some guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it is not.

Are homosexuals more likely to be rational?

If you are a human being and you want to live you must use reason, but that does not mean you are always rational, that goes for any individual. As a group, are homosexuals more likely to be individualistic and therefore could they be more open to the ideas of Ayn Rand? I would ask, what is the root of individualism, does this not stem from ethics and epistemology? I do not think that just because someone states they recognize the importance of individualism vs. collectivism, to whatever degree they (homosexuals) do understand this, that means they will be rationally integrated. I might say the same thing about atheists. Hopefully I assume someone chooses to be an atheist, due to some rational reason, not because they have faith that there is no God. I would consider atheists, generally speaking as better targets for conversion to Objectivism over religious fanatics. I would consider them a better use of my time. Personally, since I've gone through "coming out" and I am Gay, I feel comfortable in talking to Gay people about the benefits of Objectivism as a philosophy for living on Earth. I see so many people that, have struggled with their identity, be kicked out of their families and homes even at a young age, it's not uncommon for them to turn to drinking and drugs, and become focused on all the wrong things. It takes effort to study Objectivism, to work on yourself, to learn to live more rationally. I think it's exciting to see the same positive changes occur in others, to see them become excited about Ayn Rand. And say, yes! This is how I want to live, how I should be living!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a group, are homosexuals more likely to be individualistic and therefore could they be more open to the ideas of Ayn Rand?

Individualism alone does not make it more likely for someone to have an affinity for a rational philosophy. Rather, I would say more open to ideas in general, of any kind. What an individualist will accept as true depends on other factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a group, are homosexuals more likely to be individualistic and therefore could they be more open to the ideas of Ayn Rand?

Perhaps it will be helpful if you think about other homosexuals that you know? Are they are more likely to ascribe to some form of individualism? Are they are open to the ideas of Ayn Rand?

My only personal experience on this matter is at a student club fair. A few individuals who were affiliated with the homosexual student group made a few critical remarks of Ayn Rand. I assume they disliked her because of her controversial remarks on homosexuality. Unfortunately, neither of the two individuals seemed interested in having the matter clarified. Evidently they have already made up their minds, possibly because of their disagreements with her political philosophy as well.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if homosexuals are more likely to be individualistic than other people. The vast majority of them simply seem to trade one collectivist group for another when they "come out", and there is nothing whatsoever individualistic about that. Yes, there are probably quite a few homosexuals who are individualistic, but I do not think the prevalence is any higher than among the general population.

And from what I have seen, one problem is that too many homosexuals who come from a religious background, tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater once they figure out they can't accept those ideas anymore, and end up tossing all values out of their consciousness... I do not think that *that* is something to be desired.

Having said that, I do have an immense respect for those people who have come out and who didn't take the easy way out of simply letting themselves be swallowed up by another collective. I just wish there were many more of them, and while there is nothing causative at work here that determines that all (or most) homosexuals end up in a far from ideal situation, that does currently seem to be the prevalent result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My only personal experience on this matter is at a student club fair. A few individuals who were affiliated with the homosexual student group made a few critical remarks of Ayn Rand. I assume they disliked her because of her controversial remarks on homosexuality. Unfortunately, neither of the two individuals seemed interested in having the matter clarified. Evidently they have already made up their minds, possibly because of their disagreements with her political philosophy as well."

Most Gay kids aren't educated about Ayn Rand, they go off of what they have heard. They probably jump the gun, without even reading anything she has ever written, just like many people do in regard to Rand. That doesn't mean that they would not consider it, if they are challenged. There are very few Gay people going to churches that declare that homosexually is evil and a sin. They instead go to churches that are more tolerant or embrace homosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if homosexuals are more likely to be individualistic than other people. The vast majority of them simply seem to trade one collectivist group for another when they "come out", and there is nothing whatsoever individualistic about that. Yes, there are probably quite a few homosexuals who are individualistic, but I do not think the prevalence is any higher than among the general population

I'd say Gays are stereotyped though the media, and they portray activist homosexuals as liberal collectivists. That diverts us from the topic I'm interested in though. I am more focused on the act of "coming out" per se. I think its more significant than just saying I like to color my hair bright purple, or other conflicts. I look for areas to find common ground, and work from there because I am interested in spreading Objectivism to as many people as I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say Gays are stereotyped though the media, and they portray activist homosexuals as liberal collectivists. That diverts us from the topic I'm interested in though. I am more focused on the act of "coming out" per se. I think its more significant than just saying I like to color my hair bright purple, or other conflicts. I look for areas to find common ground, and work from there because I am interested in spreading Objectivism to as many people as I can.

But it's not more significant than many other physical characteristics a person may possess. Being proud of your sexual orientation (whether it's straight or gay or bi) makes as much sense to me as being proud of being blond-haired and blue-eyed. Identifying yourself by your sexual orientation doesn't help anyone, because you're using something that is completely non-essential to your being as a way of defining yourself.

The insistence that labels such as this matter for who you are is one of the biggest problems I see within the homosexual community. Homosexuality will never be seen as something that's completely normal and trivial as long as people use it as a way of differentiating themselves.

And that insistence is much more powerful in the gay community itself than outside of it. In a similar vein as with capitalism: with friends like that, who needs enemies? It is one thing to have some Christian fundamentalist arguing how gay people are different and bad, but most people don't pay them any attention because they can see it's stupid. But when the actual victims agree with the anti-gay crowd that they are different they surrender the whole argument.

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am more focused on the act of "coming out" per se. I think its more significant than just saying I like to color my hair bright purple, or other conflicts. I look for areas to find common ground, and work from there because I am interested in spreading Objectivism to as many people as I can.

But it's not more significant than many other physical characteristics a person may possess. Being proud of your sexual orientation (whether it's straight or gay or bi) makes as much sense to me as being proud of being blond-haired and blue-eyed. Identifying yourself by your sexual orientation doesn't help anyone, because you're using something that is completely non-essential to your being as a way of defining yourself

I think these statements show that it is more important to focus on why an individual decided to "come out of the closet" than the fact that he did. On one hand, openly coming to such terms can be an immense display of intellectual courage. Under this case, it would require confidence in one's own mind, understanding that you must accept yourself for who you are and the recognition that it will not advance one's life to continue to evade the fact of one's sexual orientation.

On the other hand, as Maarten suggested, "coming out" could be largely motivated by a desire to join the collective gay community or to be rebellious for rebellion's sake.

My perception is that individuals who are in the former category are who you might wish to introduce to Objectivism. You have great reason to believe that those in the latter category will not be interested. This goes to show that when evaluating an individual in general (or in particular when deciding if he may value Objectivism), it is most important to judge the individual by his character. Given any potential candidates you have in mind, you probably know a lot more about them in addition to whether they have publically come to terms with their sexual orientation.

I hope that this helps!

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, as Maarten suggested, "coming out" could be largely motivated by a desire to join the collective gay community or to be rebellious for rebellion's sake.

I've never met any Gay people that fit in this category, in the nine years that I have been out. That doesn't mean they do not exist, but I think on the whole they are rare. I have met some people that seem to be confused about their orientation, and in general these people tend to be unique, or struggling to build their self-esteem to the point where they feel comfortable to come out, they may feel conflicted, or embarrassed. I'm not willing to say, they have displayed any acts of individualism one way or the other. I can only think of one or two people that I know of that might fit the "uncertainty" mold, and no I do not think they would be easy to convert. Attempting to understand the " sexually uncertain" could be more psychological than philosophical. I'm looking for good targets, easy conversions, I think my premise is strong considering my personal experience and at least in the sense that some groups should be more open to Objectivism over others. Ayn Rand chose to come to America because she believed that this country was/is the most consistent with her principles. I think she was correct. America has the greatest number of Objectivists as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think scientists are good targets for conversion.

This is a discussion for another thread. For starters, I admonish against assuming that all scientists are necessarily rational. An individual cannot practice science without first having a theory of the universe, a theory of knowledge and a theory on the validity of induction. That being said, if a scientists embraces bad philosophical premises, e.g. the metaphysics and epistemology of Immanuel Kant, then he will most likely be hostile towards Objectivism despite being a physicist or chemist.

Before proceeding with such an endeavor, I recommend investigating some of David Harriman's work on Kantian influence in Physics. See here and here. He also has a great lecture that is available for free on the registered users page of the Ayn Rand Institute. Registration is free.

Anyway, I am not arguing that scientists are bad, but I just wanted to inform you that there are bad ideas to watch out for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not really matter how many people you come out to; the quantity of people is contextual. It is important that one comes out to oneself and one's potential lovers. If you have good friends and family members, then it would be great to come out to them. A good test would be when you are actually in a loving relationship. Those people who care about you and are or were close to you may want to know a little about the object that contributes to your great happiness.

To the extent that your happiness is at stake in not coming out, is the extent that you should come out.

If you are famous, then it may not be the best thing for you to come out. A good famous person's privacy is a huge value to his or her happiness. Like a famous actor or male singer, who is adored by millions of females, it does not have to be a duty to come out. This type of man may never come out.

It all depends on who will and has the means to hurt you because of it. You're not going to put yourself in the position of a sitting duck when you are an angel and they hate you because of it.

Edited by AMERICONORMAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are famous, then it may not be the best thing for you to come out. A good famous person's privacy is a huge value to his or her happiness. Like a famous actor or male singer, who is adored by millions of females, it does not have to be a duty to come out.

Richard Chamberlain was exactly that. Only when his movie career as a major leading man was over did he come out.

JJM

Link to comment
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...