The Rattigan Society

Miscellaneous Topics
1

I was looking through the Objectivist sites listed on Yahoo! and found The Rattigan Society listed among them. The summary listed for them on Yahoo! stated their goal is to raise visibility of gay and lesbian Objectivists. Upon visitng their site, however, I find that they have very little to say about who they actually are. One article seems to endorse the films Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life and The Passion of Ayn Rand equally as well as a book by Chris Matthew Sciaberra. Yet, in their links section, they link only to ARI and not TOC.

I was curious if anyone else knows anything about the philosophy of this organization. Are they tolerationist or not?

2

I am new to Objectivism, but the whole premise of the society seems to smack Objectivism in the face. It seems if they are buying into collectivism by taking pride in their sexuality instead of themselves.

3

Their website is at http://www.rattigan.net/ for those who are interested.

4

I am new to Objectivism, but the whole premise of the society seems to smack Objectivism in the face. It seems if they are buying into collectivism by taking pride in their sexuality instead of themselves.

How do you figure that is collectivism any more than a society of Objectivist lawyers (which there is one)?

5

How do you figure that is collectivism any more than a society of Objectivist lawyers (which there is one)?

Because a society of Objectist Lawyers would exist to further Objective law. You make it sound as this society exists for the purpose of promoting homosexual Objectivists. I ask you why a person should be promoted just for being homosexual. If they had things of value to say they would be promoted regardless of their sexual orientation. Should there be a society for black Objectivists? White Objectivists? Objectivists with foot fetishes?

6

A society is not necessarily always for promoting something. It may just be for meeting people of one’s kind. Don’t be too quick to cast out condemnations.

7

A society is not necessarily always for promoting something. It may just be for meeting people of one’s kind. Don’t be too quick to cast out condemnations.

He did say in his original post that the purpose for the society was to raise the visability of gay and lesbian Objectivists. I would have no problem if it was just a social club.

8

Fine, even if this society has a specific aim, what’s wrong with it (raising visibility of gay and lesbian Objectivists)?

9

The problem I have with it is that it puts value on being gay or lesbian. I look at a person for the indivual that they are, not who they sleep with. Have them raise the visability Objectivism, not a certain subgroup of it. What if I started a group that’s specific aim was to raise the visability of strait Objectivists? There would be no purpose to it, because being strait does not add anything of value to your beliefs, the same can be said of gays.

10

The problem I have with it is that it puts value on being gay or lesbian. I look at a person for the indivual that they are, not who they sleep with. Have them raise the visability Objectivism, not a certain subgroup of it. What if I started a group that’s specific aim was to raise the visability of strait Objectivists? There would be no purpose to it, because being strait does not add anything of value to your beliefs, the same can be said of gays.

Consider it like this: you’re an Objectivist. You want an Objectivist for a mate. There aren’t many Objectivists around (a few, but not hordes, and they’re scattered all over the place). Generally the solution is to advertise.

Now reduce that number by 75-85% (I forget what the general percentage of homosexuals in the population is. I’ve heard anything from 1 in 9 to 1 in 4.) If you’re going to advertise you need a neon sign.

I see nothing wrong with getting together in a group to assist each other in mate-finding and discussing philosophy. I doubt they’re exclusive . . . a straight Objectivist would be welcome in the philosophy area, it would just cause some confusion if you weren’t expecting to get hit on by members of the same gender.

Oh, and a strait is a narrow body of water that connects two larger bodies of water, btw.

11

The problem I have with it is that it puts value on being gay or lesbian. I look at a person for the indivual that they are, not who they sleep with. Have them raise the visability Objectivism, not a certain subgroup of it. What if I started a group that’s specific aim was to raise the visability of strait Objectivists? There would be no purpose to it, because being strait does not add anything of value to your beliefs, the same can be said of gays.

I will concede that my example of the Objectivist lawyers was not a very good one. However, I can think of several reasons why I, as a gay Objectivist, may want a society of gay Objectivists to fall back on: namely, the opportunity to meet like-minded people for dating.

Let’s face facts: it’s easier to find love when you’re straight than when you’re gay. If you’re attracted to a woman and you’re straight, all you have to do is tell her you’re interested and she’ll either reciprocate or tell you she’s not interested (if she’s honest). In a perfect world, that would be how it would be for gay people as well. However, I know from personal experience that we live in a world where many people are irrational and telling the wrong person that you’re attracted to him can get you killed. (I was an editor for a small e-zine a year ago when just such a thing happened. My colleague and I were the first to report on the story.)

The alternative right now is cruising gay bars, gay coffee shops, gay clubs, etc. Frankly, the majority of people I have seen there are people that I would not want to be friends with, much less date.

Of course, there’s always online personals. That’s like finding a needle in a haystack, though.

So, I’m looking for a solution to my dilemna. When I saw the Rattigan Society, I thought that it might be my solution. However, I refuse to give my sanction to a group until I find out more about them. Thus, my question.

Edited because I forgot to capitalize one of my 'o’s in Objectivist.

12

As I have stated earlier, if it was purely a social club it would not bother me. It is the fact that its stated goal is to “raise the visability of gay and lesbian Objectivists”. It is the fact that it puts value upon someone’s sexual orientation. Instead of focusing on the philosophy, which is the more important thing, they focus on their orientation.

13

As I have stated earlier, if it was purely a social club it would not bother me. It is the fact that its stated goal is to “raise the visability of gay and lesbian Objectivists”. It is the fact that it puts value upon someone’s sexual orientation. Instead of focusing on the philosophy, which is the more important thing, they focus on their orientation.

The problem is you may be reading too much into the word visibility. That may be part of my question that needs to be answered: how do THEY define the word visibility?

14

As I have stated earlier, if it was purely a social club it would not bother me. It is the fact that its stated goal is to “raise the visability of gay and lesbian Objectivists”. It is the fact that it puts value upon someone’s sexual orientation. Instead of focusing on the philosophy, which is the more important thing, they focus on their orientation.

It is a purely social club, a social club for gay and lesbian Objectivists to meet. I put a great value on my sexual orientation, but I happen to be in the majority being heterosexual. If I wanted to meet an Objectivist female who was also heterosexual, I would have as much trouble because they are already “visible”.

15

The problem I have with it is that it puts value on being gay or lesbian.

You here are suggesting that values are intrinsic, which is a philosophical error, and a profound one. Values only exist in relation to valuers. A gay club puts a value on being gay. A value for whom? There’s no heaven in the sky where values float around, so that when and this new value appears in a cloud of smoke, this new value of being gay or lesbian, it interferes with all the other values out there. That’s not how the world works. Does the club for gay Objectivists put a value for you of being gay? If yes… it may be something for you to think about in private… but that’s outside the scope of this thread.

16

The problem I have with it is that it puts value on being gay or lesbian. I look at a person for the indivual that they are, not who they sleep with.

This is a bit off topic, but I think who we sleep with has a lot to do with the individual we are.

17

This is a bit off topic, but I think who we sleep with has a lot to do with the individual we are.

Actually, who we are has a lot to do with the invidual we sleep with.

18

Yes, who one chooses to have sex with does say a lot about that individual; but it’s not based on the other person’s gender, it’s based on who that other person is as an individual.

19

As a gay Objectivist, I have to agree with Red. A society to raise our visibility is not a bad idea. I guess the thing you are having a hard time with, WI, is the WHO of that. Who would you be raising visibility for? Obviously, its reaching its target audience, OTHER gay Objectivists. As gay men, we often find in most groups we tend to be “gay first”. I’m not a Democrat Gay. I’m a Gay Democrat. That distinction is made by other people (besides being grammatically correct). People SEE us as gay first. And when we ARE something else, the others like us are not always readily visible. Therefore, I go back to my original point. With WHOM are they trying to raise visibility?

And as a side note, if you READ their website, it doesn’t say they are trying to raise visibility. In fact, it says “The Rattigan Society was founded in the 1980s to bring together gay and lesbian Objectivists for friendship, romance, and activism.”

Just because we are Objectivists and Individualists should we not band together for common goals?

Would you, as an Objectivist not join a cause to preserve a goal/belief you share with other Objectivists?

I think you show your ignorance by thinking that “Gay” was the first goal of the group. But, to pass judgement without researching shows even more.

Just my two cents.

20

It is the fact that it puts value upon someone’s sexual orientation. Instead of focusing on the philosophy, which is the more important thing, they focus on their orientation.

My take on this is that they are not trying to place a positive value on being gay so much as they are attempting to counter the negative value attributed to being gay by some people. One part of their site said that they weren’t trying to gain “special” rights for gays, simply “equal” rights.