Prager's False Equation

[fletch]

I can hope people implacably opposed to gay marriage would open their hearts to the feelings and aspirations of gay and lesbian folk.

I think if you are trying to convert the 'implacably opposed' you are wasting your time. A good portion of the US is prepared to accept the notion that gay couples have the same legal benefits as straight couples. The hang-up is on the word 'marriage.' There has to be a definition of the term 'marriage.' The question is, what is that definition going to be and who decides. Right now, the choice seems to be between the union of 'a man and a woman' or the 'union of two persons.' But why is that necessarily the only choices? On what grounds do you propose to exclude incest and polygamy from the definition? If marriage becomes 'the union of any number of people for any number of reasons' it loses its value entirely. That is what much of the principle opposition to gay marriage is based upon.

I do recall what Ayn Rand said in a question and answer period on the subject of homosexuality. Whatever her personal and emotional revulsion was at the time (1971), whatever her personal moral judgement, she did not support the abridgement of gay people's rights to bed whom they chose -- she supported repeal of sodomy laws. She saw no reason for the state to have business in the bedrooms of the nation.

I dont think you will find much, if any, disagreement on that point on this forum, and certainly not from me. I will say as an aside, unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't see how homosexuality can be viewed as immoral. The moral deals only with what is subject to voluntary choice. Homosexuality is not something that I view as open to my choosing. I cannot, for instance, decide that tomorrow I am going to start liking guys. I do not chose to be attracted to females, I just am attracted to females. There was never a point in my life where I made such a conscious choice. So for me, anyway, the morality or immorality of homosexuality is not an issue. I would be interested to know what "psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises" lie at the root of homosexuality that cause Rand to view it as immoral, however.

[DavidOdden]

A good portion of the US is prepared to accept the notion that gay couples have the same legal benefits as straight couples. The hang-up is on the word 'marriage.' There has to be a definition of the term 'marriage.' The question is, what is that definition going to be and who decides.

The word "marriage" does not need to be given a popular redefinition, it needs a simple legal tune-up. The fact is that there are certain legal benefits extended to legally-married couples which are denied to others. This can be simply resolved by a change in the laws regarding the legally-recognised institution "marriage", to eliminate the requirement that the parties be one man and one woman. The alternative of ad hoc redrafting each and every specific law and regulation that is related to marriage to effect a single uniform change would be absurd both practically and conceptually (because it would treat as unrelated scores of instantiations of one and the same fact -- it would disintegrate the concept "marriage").

If you have a religious principle that requires you to shun unions between members of the same sex, then you can create a new concept of marriage if you need, but you don't even need to create a concept, you can simply specifically identify the marriage as a "Straight, Catholic marriage". Immigrants can create whatever specific marriage concepts they want to if they need to identify a marriage that follows the clan rules of the old country, or whatever more specific cultural restrictions there are that one might want to impose on a marriage.

The concept of marriage doesn't need to be changed in any way, what needs to be changed is the law of marriage, so that it is more closely aligned with the concept. Thus the concept "marriage" is instantly applicable to two guys or two gals, as much as it is applicable to one of each. Similarly, the concept of "arms" is applicable to revolvers and breech-loading rifles, and to firearms with rifling and not just balls and single-shot muskets, under the Second Amendment. Of course many people have not thought seriously about the concept "marriage" to understand what it actually refers to, and commonly it is simply viewed as a trivial legal formality set by arbitrary legislative fiat. The solution is for the government to become maximally disinvolved in matters that are not the concern of government. Given that the government has asserted a concern, the legal concept should be as broad as possible.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Question: This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?

Answer: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.

What is the source of this quote? I've checked the Lexicon, The Objectivism CD-ROM, and a friend checked the book Ayn Rand Answers and I can't find it. Was it during one of the lectures presented by either Branden or Peikoff in their lecture series Q&A?

A friend of mine did find the following quote in Ayn Rand Answers:

What is your view of laws prohibiting homosexuality and bigamy?

All laws against homosexual acts should be repealed. I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults. Laws against corrupting the morals of minors are proper, but adults should be completely free.

Bigamy is a different issue. If a man wants a relationship between two women, he does not need the law to sanction it. But the state should have standards about what it considers a legal marriage. The law should be uniform, and there are good reasons why in most civilized countries marriage is a monogamous institution. If a man wants a wife and another woman, he doesn't need the legality of bigamy if he's open about it. Bigamy laws concern cases in which a man has two legal wives, in two different cities, and leads a double life. Here are good grounds, legally and morally, to prosecute him. [FHF 68]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Besides, the idea of a "psychological immorality" is intriguing, since psychology deals with the subconscious, which is not open to direct volitional control. In "The Psychology of Psychologizing" of The Voice of Reason she makes it clear that having a psychological problem is not immoral, though, of course, she recommends overcoming a psychological problem, she also recommends not acting on a psychological problem, but rather facing the facts consciously and acting accordingly to overcome a psychological problem (though this is more implicit). She never comes out and says it explicitly, as far as I can tell, but the implication of her views of homosexuality seems to stem from her views of masculine versus feminine, and male versus female and that one being a male or being a female are obvious. In the second quote, however she says that homosexuality is not necessarily moral, but this leaves open the possibility that at least some homosexual relationships are moral, though she doesn't specify which ones. Of course, one could also say that a marriage between a man and a woman is not necessarily moral, even though it is perfectly legal and the contract is upheld by law.

Still, the morality or immorality of an act is not open to the purview of the government, so long as force or fraud are not involved.

[William Scott Scherk]

What is the source of this quote? I've checked the Lexicon, The Objectivism CD-ROM, and a friend checked the book Ayn Rand Answers and I can't find it. Was it during one of the lectures presented by either Branden or Peikoff in their lecture series Q&A?

Check 5.2.6 Homosexuality in the Biographical FAQ at the Objectivist Reference Center.http://' target="_blank">

[EC]

Question: This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?

Answer: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.

This is exactly my stance on the issue and NOT because "Ayn Rand said it" but because follows from the premises.

[fletch]

This is exactly my stance on the issue and NOT because "Ayn Rand said it" but because follows from the premises.

Care to expand upon that at all? Specifically, what premises are you talking about and why they lead where they do?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Leaving aside the psychological and moral issues, because the law ought not to concern itself with anything aside from the initiation of force and fraud, the issue of whether or not there should be marriages between persons of the same sex is fundamentally epistemological. One cannot always turn to the dictionary to resolve these issues, especially when one has a new philosophy that has not yet worked its way into the dictionary; but the definition in my dictionary of the term "marriage" is: "1) the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." [Random House College Dictionary 1973]. There is no mention of it being a loving relationship; and it is obvious in some marriages that there isn't a loving relationship, and yet they are still considered to be married. So, the philosophic issue is what is epistemologically essential to the concept of "marriage"? And if the meaning of "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman, what warrants expanding it to include such a union between two people of the same sex? I mean, it is totally possible for there to be that loving relationship (including sexual) between two people, without them being married, and they might be deeply committed to one another; though under common law marriages they can be legally considered to be married, I think, after seven years.

The philosophic issue when it comes to homosexual relationships is this: Does one expand the concept of "marriage" or does one come up with another term? For a while, the automobile was referred to as the "horseless carriage" until that became too cumbersome and they referred to it as the "automobile" or the "car." Likewise, the question becomes: Is the legally recognized union of two people of the same sex essentially different from the legally recognized union of a man and a woman? Was the "last generation" concept of marriage of being between a man and woman the horse and buggy age, whereby we have progressed to the point where certain marriages will be referred to as "gay marriage" and some will be referred to as "straight marriage"? And is there any epistemological need to differentiate between "gay marriage" and "straight marriage" in a similar sense that one had to refer to the automobile as "the horseless carriage"? And will "gay marriages" eventually be called something else anyhow, in the long run, just as we now do not refer to "the horseless carriage" but rather to "the automobile"?

I think that is the epistemological sticking point.

[EC]

Care to expand upon that at all? Specifically, what premises are you talking about and why they lead where they do?

No. I have no time to do your thinking.

[Jake]

This is exactly my stance on the issue and NOT because "Ayn Rand said it" but because follows from the premises.

My understanding is that for something to be judged moral or immoral, it must involve a choice. A person must have the opportunity to choose the moral or choose the immoral. Are you judging homosexual activity or homosexual desires as immoral?

If you are judging the desires as immoral, what pscyhological and/or physiological evidence are you using for your premises? I seriously doubt you have a defensible case that being physically attracted only to the same sex is a choice, or a result of other antecedent choices. If you think you do, I'd like to see it.

If you are judging only the activity as immoral, are you suggesting that the only moral choice for a homosexual is to abstain from sexual activity completely, or engage in it with someone to whom they are not physically attracted? This activity doesn't impinge on anyone else's individual rights, and I don't see how it harms the lives of the people who choose to do it (societal prejudices aside). Obviously, a child cannot result from such a union, but the Objectivist value of sex is not predicated on such a possibility.

One's revulsion of a sexual act is not a reason to call it immoral.

[fletch]

No. I have no time to do your thinking.

Funny, I wasn't asking you to do my thinking, but for you to explain yours. You wont mind, then, if I take your unwillingness to explain your position as an inability to do so.

[EC]

Funny, I wasn't asking you to do my thinking, but for you to explain yours. You wont mind, then, if I take your unwillingness to explain your position as an inability to do so.

I do mind, but my reasoning is scattered over many threads on this subject and I don't feel like rehashing them again.

[AMirvish]

Generally absent from this discussion has been the issue of children. Historically, whatever the religious coloration given it, marriage was very much concerned with establishing the relationship between two people because of the need to address the legal status of property and children, both of which could be highly interrelated (with respect to inheritances, divorce etc) . Property can be addressed in other ways, through purely contractual issues. The issue of children, however, is important because in disputes involving minors, the parents cannot necessarily be considered impartial and the children themselves may be too young to represent themselves (or to even understand the issues). Hence, the issue of state involvement in the definition of marriage, which would not otherwise be required.

Of course, not all straight couples have children and some straight marriages occur between people past child-bearing age, but the fact is that only heterosexual adults can produce children who are the biological product of both parents. Most straight people marry during the period in which they can have children and some do so specifically with the intention of formalizing a relationship for that purpose. All else being equal, that sort of relationship is quite distinct from one between two gay people, whatever other characteristics they may share, and this particular characteristic suggests that it constitutes a specific concept deserving of a unique definition and a unique status. Straight, but childless marriages, are in effect free-riders under this approach, but are appropriately covered by it because they are so otherwise similar.

Polygamous relationships, apart from the contradiction inherent in love being one's highest response to a value being applied in a romantic context equally to multiple partners, has historically created an environment fraught with abuse and exploitation, especially of children. It seems appropriate for it to be prohibited or at least denied legal recognition.

It's also worth noting that some societies (that of ancient Rome in particular) did have different classes of marriage, with different rules and legal obligations. These differences were not necessarily restricted to people of different classes etc, but rather reflected the degree of obligation (and severity of the legal consequences for breaching the marriage contract) the people involved wanted to assume.

[Jake]

I do mind, but my reasoning is scattered over many threads on this subject and I don't feel like rehashing them again.

I went through the trouble for you... I stopped at the big post on 29 June, since you requested that no one look further back, and I think this sums up the issue. For the sake of brevity, I have removed paragraphs in which you are not stating your case.

I am just going to respond quickly and generally once, to all who are calling my position on homosexuality "irrational". Either, men are born tabula rasa or they or not. So if one claims to be an Objectivist and except that fact, they can NOT also except a strange form of genetic determinism that states that one's innate sexual desires can be in contradiction with one's gender. It is not "irrational" to state the fact that for an entity to volitionally act opposed to one's identity, in this case a man (and all that implies--including an attraction to the opposite sex) is a deep contradiction. Could it be true that one's early development lead to one's "feelings" of homosexuality. Absolutely. But this does NOT negate the fact that he is still acting contrary to his identity as a man. This is NOT "homophobia"-- an irrational fear or "hate" of homosexuals-- but a statement of fact.

This is all I have to say on this subject and represents my current convictions in its regard. I don't wish to pointlessly argue with people that I will never agree with because I think that there premises are fundamentally flawed when it come to the origin of homosexual behaviours... so please refrain from trying to draw me into another pointless debate.

One last thing, I respectfully ask that members refrain from quoting several years old postings of mine on this subject that don't fully and accurately represent my current views on this subject.

Morality is not genetic, and actual moral principles are not things you're born with.

This is at the heart of my views regarding the immorality of homosexuality.

The first one. I think it is a choice. And a choice that doesn't coincide with man's unity of body and soul.

Don't need any. This is a pre-scientific matter of--first, man's metaphysical nature, second his means of knowledge of the world or epistemology, and finally a moral judgement based on the previous two facts. Science can only find evidence that will prove those things (assuming that they are correct). If it seems that science is contradicting rational philosophy--then it is the scientific "interpretations" that should be thrown into question first.

Interesting.

Do you assert that, given enough volition, a man could change his sexual orientation?

Much like aesthetics, do you hold that orientation is a response to core values?

Yes, absolutely. But more--it is part of a man's nature to be attracted to the opposite sex.

As I understand it:

1) You say homosexuality is immoral because it is against man's nature.

2) You say this is a philosophical fact, requiring no scientific proof.

Philosophy is based on the perceptual, conceptual, and volitional nature of man, those things which are self-evident, nothing more. Any other aspect of man that is to be called part of his 'nature', is subject to scientific inquiry. Your view that heterosexuality is a metaphysically given aspect of man is indefensible. Philosophy cannot tell you anything about the innateness of a person's sexual attractions, any more than it can tell you how much sleep or what kind of food a person requires; only psychology and/or biology can.

A moral judgment must be made in the proper context of relevant scientific knowledge. It is morally good for most of us to exercise, because this helps us survive. If someone has a bone or joint disease which makes the cost of exercise greater than the benefit, it would be evil for that person to exercise.

Why, if you "don't wish to pointlessly argue with people that I will never agree with", have you continued to post your opinion on the matter?

[EC]

As I understand it:

1) You say homosexuality is immoral because it is against man's nature.

Correct.

2) You say this is a philosophical fact, requiring no scientific proof.

I am saying that science cannot be used to obliterate the law of identity.

Philosophy is based on the perceptual, conceptual, and volitional nature of man, those things which are self-evident, nothing more.

That males and females are different and compatible is self-evident.

Any other aspect of man that is to be called part of his 'nature', is subject to scientific inquiry.

"Scientific inquriy" can NOT negate the law of identity. If it seems to then the interpretation of the data is in question, not the law of identity.

Your view that heterosexuality is a metaphysically given aspect of man is indefensible.

Of course you can say that since you find that it's okay for the law of identity to be violated when it comes to man's nature. Why not say that the defense of a position is "indefensible"? I guess A can become non-A if science finds "evidence" for it.

Philosophy cannot tell you anything about the innateness of a person's sexual attractions,

There's no such thing as "innateness of a person's sexual attractions"; it's a choice.

any more than it can tell you how much sleep or what kind of food a person requires; only psychology and/or biology can.

Correct. However, philosophy can tell that a man needs sleep and food to live. His body requires it. It's part of his nature.

A moral judgment must be made in the proper context of relevant scientific knowledge.

Really? And what's the "relevant scientific knowledge" required here? I didn't realize one had to be a scientist before they could pronounce moral judgment.

It is morally good for most of us to exercise, because this helps us survive. If someone has a bone or joint disease which makes the cost of exercise greater than the benefit, it would be evil for that person to exercise.

A bone or joint disease in NOT acquired by choice.

Why, if you "don't wish to pointlessly argue with people that I will never agree with", have you continued to post your opinion on the matter?

I don't wish my silence to be an implicit sanction of immorality; or, if when newbie's to Objectivism come to this site that they are lead to believe Objectivism sanctions the supposed "morality" of homosexuality-- when it clearly doesn't.

[JASKN]

I don't wish my silence to be an implicit sanction of immorality; or, if when newbie's to Objectivism come to this site that they are lead to believe Objectivism sanctions the supposed "morality" of homosexuality-- when it clearly doesn't.

The principles of Objectivism are compatible with homosexuality well enough. In fact, Dr. Leonard Peikoff himself has explained numerous times why. In a recent podcast, he states that he has received the question, "Can a gay person be an Objectivist?" so many times that he would answer it one final time and be done with it. He says there is no conflict, that homosexuality is "totally irrelevant" to being an Objectivist. You can listen in full in Podcast 14 at minute 4:30.

In essence, he says that philosophy has nothing to say about sexual orientation, but only sexual acts if the act can be shown to violate a philosophic principle. Objectivism neither sanctions nor condemns homosexuality, and as such, homosexuals should feel no guilt and are certainly not immoral in regard to their sexuality.

[EC]

The principles of Objectivism are compatible with homosexuality well enough. In fact, Dr. Leonard Peikoff himself has explained numerous times why. In a recent podcast, he states that he has received the question, "Can a gay person be an Objectivist?" so many times that he would answer it one final time and be done with it. He says there is no conflict, that homosexuality is "totally irrelevant" to being an Objectivist. You can listen in full in Podcast 14 at minute 4:30.

In essence, he says that philosophy has nothing to say about sexual orientation, but only sexual acts if the act can be shown to violate a philosophic principle. Objectivism neither sanctions nor condemns homosexuality, and as such, homosexuals should feel no guilt and are certainly not immoral in regard to their sexuality.

Of course, Peikoff didn't create Objectivism either, but it's creator did condemn homosexuality as immoral and disgusting.

[Jake]

I am saying that science cannot be used to obliterate the law of identity.

This is true, but I think you are misunderstanding the definition of “nature” as it is used in the laws of identity and causality. Regarding the law of identity, ‘nature’ means “the characteristics of the entity which constitute its identity.” An entity’s nature is inescapable. The only way a perceptual, conceptual, and volitional being (man) can escape perception, conception, or volition is by dying (i.e. ceasing to exist).

Your reasoning violates the law of identity by stating that:

1) It is man’s nature to be heterosexual (A is A), and

2) Man can choose to be homosexual (A is B through volition)

Here’s a bit of reasoning that is consistent with the law of causality:

1) Some humans are homosexual (factual premise), and

2) A person cannot choose to act against his nature (causality), therefore

3) Heterosexuality cannot be considered part of human nature. (conclusion)

Another interesting point, is that since perception, conception, and volition are metaphysically given to man, they are pre-moral. Those aspects of man are neither good nor evil, they just are. A man's choices can be morally judged, but not his nature. The law of causality states that nothing can act in opposition to its nature. A person can choose to act in a life-harming way, but you have not shown that homosexuality is harmful to one’s life in any essential way.

To prove that homosexuality is immoral, you would have to logically show that:

1) Homosexuality is a choice, and

2) Homosexuality harms one's life.

You have done neither.

You're not really arguing that it's wrong because it's against man's nature, not if you understand the meaning of "man's nature" and the laws of identity/causality. You're saying it's wrong because it is "unnatural", which is akin to an animal rights activist who says it's unnatural for an elephant to be in the circus.

If homosexuality is a choice, then it is a result of our volition, which animals don't have. So, why are there homosexual animals?

That males and females are different and compatible is self-evident.

“Nothing is self-evident except the material of sensory perception.” -“Philosophical Detection,” Philosophy: Who Needs It

When we speak of “direct perception” or “direct awareness,” we mean the perceptual level. Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident. The knowledge of sensations as components of percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later: it is a scientific, conceptual discovery. -Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

Similarly, much of the knowledge required to determine the nature of man is a scientific discovery. Part of man’s nature is that we are a combination of billions of eukaryotic cells. Our cellular structure is a characteristic of being human, it is something that we all must have, and no choice can change it – it is part of our identity. It is not, however, self-evident; it is a scientific fact. The law of causality states that we shall act in accordance with the nature of such a being. Causality is a philosophical, and therefore, a pre-scientific law, but determining every characteristic of man that defines his nature, beyond the self-evident, requires science.

Correct. However, philosophy can tell that a man needs sleep and food to live. His body requires it. It's part of his nature.

No, philosophy does not tell us that, science does – see above.

Really? And what's the "relevant scientific knowledge" required here? I didn't realize one had to be a scientist before they could pronounce moral judgment.

The relevant scientific knowledge is an understanding of the source of homosexual desires and the effects pursuing such desires have on an individual. ‘Scientific’ in this sense does not mean one must be a specialist in a scientific field, it means knowledge with a conceptual basis (i.e. beyond the self-evident or perceptual).

Since you quoted Ayn Rand on homosexuality, I thought I’d also include a quote.

I asked her privately (circa 1980) specifically whether she thought it was immoral. She said that we didn't know enough about the development of homosexuality in a person's psychology to say that it would have to involve immorality. -From an e-mail by Harry Binswanger to the Objectivist Study Group

Edited July 21, 2008 by Jake