Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Effects of Gay Marriage

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am quite aware of that, Featherfall. I have already given my answers.

Well, your answers were inadequate. Before you go, I have to admit that nobody addressed your first post, so I'll give it a fair shake. You asked us to read the introduction of a book by a mister Firehammer (which sounds like a really gay name, but I digress at the risk of being accused of employing an ad hominem attack):

I defy anyone to to read the intro section and tell me where Mr. Firehammer is making false statements regarding Ayn Rand, Obvjectivism, and her thought regarding homosexuality.


I read all of the opening passages available on amazon. None of them address homosexuality. Everything available there is pretty standard support for the "closed system" position and Rand's stance on Libertarianism. To the extend that mister Firehammer addresses Objectivism as a closed system and Libertarians, he is correct. But what we have available on Amazon can't lend support to your arguments here and you still haven't defended your position to the satisfaction of the people you're trying to convince; maybe you're assuming that we have more knowledge of Mr. Firehammer's book than we actually have?

It occurred to me that none of your posts are appropriate to this thread. They really belong in that Goliath of a thread that addresses the morality of homosexuality - your posts don't really address the effects of gay marriage.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am quite aware of that, Featherfall. I have already given my answers.

Actually it would be nice for you to stop evading reality here.

I have asked you two legitimate questions in good faith that you have completely ignored.

The first of the two several people in this thread expressed an interest in hearing your answer as well, it was brought up frequently enough that I can't believe you just didn't see the question.

Believe what you want to believe and dislike what you choose to dislike but your evasion of legitimate questions asked as a result of your statements is unseemly and calls into question your seriousness about the topic as it pertains to Objectivism.

Are you on this post simply to bray like a mule or to have your assertions scrutinized while you do the same to those of others?

Unless it is the first answers are called for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madkat, if you read my post I was speaking about biological function identifies an organisms (human) sexual nature - not fully behavioral as you claim. Ayn Rand did not project the idea that rape, killing, looting, etc were natural to humans, that is the malevolent kantian view of the universe which is not in line with Objectivism. Ayn Rand and Objectivism teach a benevolent universe concept where evil, pain, and suffering are not the norm.

And if you read my post I'm trying to demonstrate your equivocation on the concept of "nature". You wanted to argue the biological route so I'm showing you where that leads. All of the behaviors I described are capable of increasing a person's fitness by increasing their numbers of surviving offspring and suppressing their competitors in said enterprise. From the standpoint of "nature", that is all that matters. If I leave more descendents than you, in evolutionary terms I "win". Now, that has absolutely no bearing on whether I will live a happy, fulfilling, purposeful life. That is an entirely separate concern and that is why we have philosophy. By the way, the biological functions are not separable from their behavioral uses, which is something I believe you agree with but are trying to have it both ways at the same time by saying that the construction of our bits implies certain behaviors to be proper but then other behaviors that you find distasteful but are equally "natural" are not proper.

I hate to pile on but there are several other posters' questions here you haven't answered. Please stop flinging jargon like "Kantian malevolent universe premise" and such and actually address the arguments being made and you will get more respect.

By the way for other folks who are wondering why he continually quotes the Firehammer book to support his side, I am not certain but if I had to guess it is because Firehammer attacks Chris Matthew Sciabarra's scholarship of Rand and Sciabarra is either gay or holds Oism as being sympathetic to being gay or something. I believe Sciabarra is also a libertarian but please take that with a grain of salt as I haven't read him much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, your history in this thread goes as follows: Makes controversial claims, receives requests for proof of claims, evades or ignores requests, receives further requests, replies nonsensically, receives predictable replies to that, insults the opposition's intelligence.

You're on a kind of roll.

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that he paraphrased some parts of the Firehammer book that he didn't completely understand, and when he was asked to explain he didn't want to review his premises. I sense a little platonism in Firehammer, but I don't want to give that man one red cent, so I won't be buying his book to explore further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, too busy for too long, no time to come online recently, but I have been thinking about this issue. ultimately, whilst I have strong views on the importance of role models, the more I think about it, the less it seems to justify preventing gay people adopting children when there is no hard evidence of significant harm done to children - especially when gay couples also have the option of IVF or surrogacy and so many children are deprived of role models through other circumstances (death, divorce).

Look, bottom line is, all children need and deserve a loving home. If you really care about kids, and I believe you do, you would be advocating for the streamlining and simplifying of the adoption process, making private adoption easier and reducing corruption in the system, than questioning the merits of gay adoption.

I agree entirely, though only gay adoption is relevant to this thread, which is why I only raised this issue :)

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.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...