Objectivism and Homosexuality
Posted by BalphEubank 11 years, 5 months ago to The Gulch: General
With Maine, Minnesota and Washington passing legislation supporting same sex gay marriage, I thought we should revisit what Ayn Rand had to say on the topic: "It involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises .... Therefore I regard it as immoral ... And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. It's disgusting."
What do you guys think?
What do you guys think?
Sure you, me and Ayn Rand along with other individuals are entitled to have an opinion on if we think it's disgusting or awesome, like everyone is free to have an opinion on if surfing is disgusting or awesome, though in civil conversation it is usually better to keep matters of taste to yourself unless specifically asked. It only becomes a problem if some people start to think that their way is the only way and try to prevent others from doing something just because they don't happen to like it, usually using the government as enforcer.
As for gay marriage: Marriage is essentially a contract between two people. Again, it is not for the government or anyone else to concern themselves on what kind of contracts consenting adults choose to make.
The problem is that for some reason the government has decided to give special treatment to this one type of contract: taxation and certain social benefits work differently whether you happen to be married or not. This should not be, your relationship status should not really affect on how the government treats you.
However, as long as government gives special treatment to this one type of contract, then at least it should be equally available to everyone and people should be able to choose freely with whom they wish to make that contract, regardless of sex.
Let them do it. I don't live my life for them, or ask them to live theirs for me.
And since marriage is more of a religious sacrament than anything else, Government should stay the hell out of it. ALL of it. No forcing states to recognize gay marriage, no special rights/privileges for hetero marriage, Mormons should be free to practice polygamy if they want to go back to it -- all of the above.
Can you imagine trying to keep two women happy? Your honey do list would be never ending and you would have no time to yourself at all.
The FLDS church split off to keep polygamy around. They can have it, and quite literally they have every right to so long as no one is being forced into it.
I do think there are some that are forced into it after 18. Hard to prove that. I think it a rare case and not the norm.
I had a niece that married a guy from a polygamist group. I and her father were worried that he would lead her back into that group at some point. It has not happened and its been over a decade. I have met some of the brothers who do practice polygamy. Their wives work and they provide for the kids and are good parents. I find the whole practice revolting, but they seem to like it. In there case they are not stealing through legal means or marrying under age girls.
My wife has had conversations with my nieces husbands brothers wives and they indicate to her that its nice have another woman around to talk to, to work with and share things with.
My nieces husband died about a year and half ago. I thought then that one of her husbands brothers would make a move to bring her in as a third wife (both have two) but neither has. It has changed my perception of the aggressiveness with which these groups pursue there wives. There are those groups/individuals that are out there and force it, but most only do it when everyone is consenting, from what I have been exposed to anyway.
Anyway it averages around 1 case every 3 or 4 years. What it really runs like is a wave of 2-5 cases around every 15-20 years. When they find a bad group there is usually several cases brought against that group, then you don't see any cases for some period of time.
I was skeptical of it as you hear stories that they send young men out to get a first wife and bring in new blood to the compound. At least with the group my niece was around, it has no truth to it.
They do seem to generally marry within there own communities. I would think that this creates some genealogy circles rather than trees. Which has to become a problem at some point.
There are many of us who have no problem keeping two women -- or men -- happy.
If it's not for you then it's not for you. SOME people are actually monogamous by nature. We respect that, and it would be nice to see some reciprocation in that regard.
But a large number of human beings are not monogamous by nature, and should never try to be. It leads to broken relationships, heartache, betrayal, and all kinds of Icky Stuff.
I do have a problem with the guy or girl that gives the impression they are interested in a monogamous relationship but is being deceptive as they have no such desire. That also leads to .....
Your second paragraph is spot-on. The Polyamory community is adamant that everyone involved in a multi-partner relationship be completely open about all of zir other partners. In my own circles, we typically know all of the other partners and consider them friends.
Anything else is what is called "cheating," which I also find disgusting.
Regardless, this issue is a perfect example of application vs philosophy. Sexuality is not a philosophical primary, but an application. In this case, Ayn Rand's words are not part of the "cannon" of objectivism.
But I'm not really concerned with what other people choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms--so long as all involved are consenting adults.
I do, however, remain skeptical as to the motivation behind wanting legal recognition of gay marriage though. It seems to me that if one's relationship is desperately in need of government affirmation, then perhaps one might do well to consider the basis of that relationship...
Here is the problem with the marriage argument, and why I oppose gay marriage. If the law says that its discrimination to now allow same sex marriages then that opens up any religion unwilling to marry a gay couple to civil law suites for discrimination. This effectively removed the freedom of people like me to practice there religion.
Marriage and the civil union need to be separated. Everyone needs to have access to the civil union as a civil contract between two or more people of any gender who wish to share ownership of property and have various rights when dealing with incapacitation or making decisions for another person.
Marriage is a religious ordnance, and must be kept separate so that religions may be practices without threat of a discrimination suite.
All government forms then need to be updated to say civil union rather than marriage as marriage would have nothing to do with the government and be purely a religious rite as it should be.
I do not believe this will happen but my question is would it achieve the equality your looking for?
It is simply not relevant whether or not you're gay, or have a squick over it. And I wonder about anyone who feels the need to advertise same.
I don't get why people need a government or authoritarian to sanction on anything. It is really getting to the point where we will all have to file environmental impact reports and fees every time we fart. (oh yeah the carbon tax... damn!)
But you said:
"Personally, I'm not convinced by the evidence that is usually cited in support the "born that way" argument."
Fair enough. But may I suggest that you consider the dialectic and the potential contradiction in your premise.
First, I am presuming that perhaps you may be a theist / Christian and accept the epistemological premise that man is born into "original sin". I am making some assumptions to complete this idea. So If I am wrong I am happy to stand corrected.
The Dialectic is the opposite of "born that way". To take the opposite stance (your position that you are considering) requires some other explanation of one's nature -how they were born.
This suggests that all human beings are exclusively male and female and born perfect yet choose their imperfection by their sinful nature.
The contradiction is glaring: How can one be born perfectly intact, precisely male and female with no variations, that would require a choice in value judgment to express their sexuality?
One can not be perfect (I prefer heroic) and wicked (selfishly irrational) at the same time.
Also, reality demonstrates over and over again that ALL forms of statistical human behaviour as well as physical prowess and structure can be plotted on a Bell-Curve.
If your premise that is is a choice, or people are not "born that way" , then how do you explain Hermaphrodites and all the miniscule sexual variations humans demonstrate, in addition to the animal kingdom?
A trick of Satan?
Please don't get me wrong: I don't argue that being gay necessarily *is* a choice; I'm just not entirely convinced that it is not. Or, to be more specific, I do not know to what extent sexuality is predetermined by genetics.
To use a less divisive example, I generally prefer brunettes. However, I cannot say with any certainty that I was "born that way". While for all intents and purposes it seems *to me* as though that is the case, it is also possible that my preference has been largely--or even entirely--shaped by a combination of my choices and my experiences that occurred as a result of those choices.
Beyond sexual preference, we all have our personal tastes. Must all of these necessarily have a genetic origin?
I am willing to agree with your agnosticism on this issue of "choice".
When we examine behavior across animal species, in consideration of a bell-shaped curve demonstrating the statistical ratios, it at least follows deductively that there is something biological going on here.
However, without some kind of physical or genetic marker we are kind of left in a bit of a vaccuum pending evidence and scientific induction.
However, personally as I came to terms with this I was also coming to terms with my fundamentalist Christianity.
I was a speaking-in-tongues-holy-roller destined for George Fox Baptist college.
The problem was I actually studied my bible, the history and all the apologetics I could get my hands on, because I "JUST KNEW" Jesus must be real after the incredible emotional rush i had when I was "Born Again".
This is what totally launched me into deeply exploring philosophy, psychology, human behavioral evolution and the field of consciousness.
For myself, I have never had any attraction to the opposite sex. I did what was expected of me socially, dating, sex etc with women but it was a lie.
For myself there is an overwhelmingly powerful attraction to other guys. I remember it was viscerally compelling and I was terrified to talk to my parents. They gave me the standard "Yuck" and it is against God/Nature message.
They had to have known but died before I "came out".
I decided that if it IS a choice then it is my choice as long as it is rationally consenting, and trading the sexual values with another adult.
Without proof of a biblical God I will continue to reject and discourage Christian thinking.
If there is proof of a God he/it/she has some serious charges to answer to before proceeding to follow that mystical abstractions "values/morals".
I recommend Robert Sapolski at Stanford a lot on human behavioural evolution. He is THE expert in the field and the field of Primate behaviour as well.
There may be some subtle copmonent why you prefer Brunettes.
One more thing I need to point out for myself that throws an interesting wrench in to the familial nurturing theory is that I was adopted.
I grew up feeling like an alien and had nothing in common with parents. I still don't share anything in common with them other than bad the behavior traits they taught and later reinforced.
You'll notice, as you all draw me out I do wear my heart on my sleeve.. Oh well. I am who I ams and that's all that I ams!
Happy New year!
The thing is its your choice. The argument about born that way or not is a mute point. Even if people are born with it, its a persons choice to act on that. In the case of two consenting people that are not initiating force on anyone, act away on it all you want. You have a deserve to have that choice.
Glad you are doing what makes your comfortable and happy in your life.
The "born that way" argument is NOT moot (please note the correct spelling of that word). In fact it is salient. It's just that AFAIK it hasn't yet been scientifically established. Or disproved.
Yes, there are human beings worthy of denigration. Looters, moochers and parasites are at the top of the list.
Responsible gays (or ANY kind of responsible hedonists) shouldn't even be on the list.
I could give a few other examples as well of behaviors I find disgusting. Am I denigrating another because I do not like the behavior they have?
I also find raw fish to be a rather disgusting food. I have friends who love it. I skip lunch with them when they go for sushi. I tell them ick, how can you eat that? Its disgusting?
Am I also Denigrating them for there love of sushi?
I am expressing my opinion, nothing more nothing less, regarding a behavior. If you take it as denigrating, that is your choice to do so.
BTW I agree with you 100% on the sushi. But my partner loves it. So I keep my mouth shut about that, too.
I did not mean any offense to you or anyone else. I am sorry that it did.
I brought it up simply because I think my personal distaste for homosexuality will likely be visible even if I do not declare it. I would rather have it out in the open when discussing the issue. I also want my support for those who choose to live the homosexual life style, really support for there right to choose to be clearly evident.
Hopefully the latter came across as much as the earlier did with you.
-XR
And just to keep things fair, every time the subject of smoking comes around, I'll be sure to preface every one of my comments with, "Personally, I find your filthy, disgusting habit to be nauseating, but..."
If proven false, we can then move forward with the knowledge that gay-ness IS a choice, and decide what to do about it -- i.e., forbid it? permit it? license it? tax it? exile them to their own colonies? etc.
Rape and murder are usually acts of initiating force and should never be accepted in society because of this.
Being homosexual is usually an act of consent between two people, and as long as it remains so should be acceptable.
If we find that there is a genetic disposition towards gays so that makes it ok. Where does that logic take us if there is a genetic disposition towards rape, murder or other acts.
The genetic disposition towards something has no bearing on if the choice should be available to be that something.
It appears that you have made my argument effectively and much more concise. When a person argues predisposition as a moral argument where does it stop? It is illogical and not needed as an argument. That was my point.
we're trying this new thing. I am responding to the link above, because we hit the end of the thread. Ok, we're on the same page n regards to predisposition.
There is a correlation between gay men and a certain brain structure. Last time I checked, no cause & effect relationship had been established yet.
AR said that she no longer considered homosexuality immoral. This is the reason that the above quote was left out of _Ayn Rand Answers_.
Dr. Mayhew and Dr. Peikoff wanted that book to reflect AR's most up-to-date and considered thinking. They wanted it to reflect views that AR held at the end of her life. Also, one must remember that AR was talking off of the top of her head. She wasn't giving a considered, written statement. AR thought that the spoken word and the written were in two different categories in regard to setting down one's beliefs.
(I know the above because of direct conversations I had with professors Mayhew, Peikoff, and Binswanger on exactly this issue.)
In the end, homosexuality is an issue of psychology not philosophy. And Objectivism has nothing to say in this regard. Thus, there is no conflict between the two.
As to marriage, in a free society it would be a private contract that the state had nothing to do with except to recognize the registered contract.
That's not fair. Please do keep in mind though, I grew being picked on, tortured, humiliated and beat up for being "queer".
It is ONLY the religion of Christianity that has made this kind of abuse against others from Children, Gays, Blacks, mentally disturbed (possessed) so entrenched.
I am pretty tired of being called "Faggot" and it is tit for tat time. Christianity sowed this "tit for tat" response and as a helluva lot to correct before returning to the game table of cooperation.
The bible does not offer "spiritual advice" on dealing with geeks. But it is DAMN clear (according to emotionalized interpretation) that homosexuals are an abomination.
I am not going to let you apologize for the most evil set of philosophical principles that have ever been unleashed.
Why are you apologizing for Christians?
I really don't think the formation of Oxford or Cambridge or that twisted parasite "Mother Theressa of Calcutta" comes anywhere near of appeasing the debt of torture and abuse that the Christian Churches have righteously upheld for far too long. And it continues...
People are innocent until they invoke a particular philosophy to justify their wicked actions. If they do not, then they are born as "original sinners" which contradicts ANY creatures ability to survive!
I can trace the path of this crap, from Homer, through Dante, Virgil, Augustine, Bodin and many others not to mention Kant...
Look it takes a helluva effort to trace this stuff back and trace the philosophical effect of these ideas on the west and their evolution.
Again, I would ask you and the readers to research Human Behavioural evolution, Robert Sapolski and primate studies.
Philosophers tend to completely ignore reality -including most objectivists- when it comes to referencing the animal kingdom.
We simply do not see ANY behavior that approaches the twisted crap people can do to each other with the application of frontal lobe intelligence.
Also most people tend to take slices of history out of context.
Perhaps you or some reading this has an Iphone device. You have nearly as much computing power as the first CRAY in your pocket!
Not only that, it allows you to access the entire field of human knowledge and history from practically any point on the planet!
Now consider that the Gutenberg press.
It was not until its development that classics like Homer, Dante, Virgil, Plato, Aristotle etc. etc. etc. became available to those who could afford it.
The RCC held the seat (and continues to do so for hundreds of millions of individuals) of information and power. They created and controlled "grammar school".
If you wished to read Aristotle at that time you either needed permission from the RCC or a kings ransom to afford the book...
This remained the case although, print media dropped as techniques improved.
Now there is ANY information available thanks to the Net virtually for free.
Unfortunately, since people largely have never learned to integrate concepts, the net for most is a mystery of overwhelming contradictory information.
The application of rational philosophy cuts through the mystery. It does take effort.
We are at a time in history where we can no longer sit on our haunches and clutch the old traditions.
We must stop the appeasement of evil.
Christianity is inherently pure evil!
BTW: " I vehemently deny the holy spirit!"
My response to your last sentence above:
"Evil runs rampant when good men do nothing."
I wish to save the world. Therefore I will think.
We don't see this crap happening to horrific extent in history UNTIL the R.C.C. (roman catholic church) came on the scene!
Finally, the Roman Catholic Church is hands down guilty of some of the most despicable, sadistic acts that mankind has ever seen!
They are not alone but do to 2000 years of history, ignorance, and instillation that took advantage of the ignorant masses, they spread their death-worshiping philosophy to the entire world.
Yes, Blacks and Women, native "savages" like Hawaiians, American Indians, the mentally infirm, or any other that fit the bill as a viable host to mooch from.
B) I certainly never apologized for Christians...or anybody else....EVER!
You're barking up the wrong tree. And most of the barking is practically in a foreign language to what I speak.
Perhaps letting bygones be bygones might help move you forward. You can't change history...what's done is done. Life is too short...and all that.
I, too, find the term "breeder" derogatory and wholly unjustified. And is one of the reasons (among many) that I despise militant gays.
I am not asking you or anyone to pay for anything. I want the current mob-rule, might-makes- right mystics, Christians and Kantian reality disintegrating liberals that call themselves democrats and republicans to learn how to think and get the hell out of my way!
I am appalled at the growing rate of government regulation and strangleholds. I have always been a self-employed value-producer. I am a constitutional Libertarian in accordance with the Aristotelian path of philosophy from John Locke through me.
There is a fine distinction between reason and knee jerk emotionalism and the pseudo –deductive logic the group embraces as “common sense”. Notice how it is not called “common reason”. Remember there is a very old very hard wired emotional brain at play here.
First you started with a weak ad hominem attack, “Don’t think you’re so special”.
To make such an assertion must rest on a claim of superior knowledge. By default your violating your own moral standard of “special”. What is this superior knowledge then? God? You now bear the oneness of proof for that one… Good luck.
Interesting.
I KNOW that I am a totally unique cause and identity in reality. Do you? And the Universe has uniquely given me the ability to reflect on the universe and myself.
Did you realize that you do this too? We have something in common then don’t’ we?
Something exists and YOU KNOW IT. Therefore you and I and everyone else is moral before a value judgment can be made on an individuals actions across time.
All you have is the cause and identity and they cannot contradict themselves, therefore
A is A.
This can be the only concrete to build a moral edifice upon. Everything else requires mob-rule and revelation. Every step past identification of the first premise to act upon, requires an examination of that particular moment in time and the event associated to determine the broader abstractions of a “moral outcome”.
I am AS unique as the universe itself and so are YOU! If you are still hanging on to that persistent, threadbare bromide of “original sin”, then shame on you. If you embraced that, you cut yourself off from your own reason: the most abominable “sin” in my opinion.
The continuing disintegration of reason and embracing of anti-reason, anti-philosophy, and anti-man is much more profound and far-reaching effects then AIDS.
It will be very clear to those who wish to read my threads that me must learn what philosophy means, how to use and think critically. We were cut off from this moment literally until Google emerged with the Internet.
We have over 2000 years of indoctrination to undo. Time to wake up.
As rugged individualists, we have a common enemy. You wish to undo the damage they have done. It'll never happen. I wish to help them finish the job they started 2000 years ago. That's the only way to be rid of them.
My gripe, and it's minor, is gays always have to announce their oriententation and then discuss, debate, ,argue, quibble, and literally beat the subject to death. Then, if you don't get the satasfaction of 100% agreement you brand others as "right mystics, Christians and Kantian reality disintegrating liberals that call themselves democrats and republicans." It seems that gays are itching for a fight which rarely comes because most people are threaten by legislation that prevent them from saying what they have a constitutional right to say and believe. That's "The Argument from Intimidation" on steroids, and has left anyone that dare to disagree with you a sitting duck.
Before you "shame" me, I can assure you that I never accepted "original sin", and I'll never accept unearned guilt. I'm immune.
Would you be so kind as to clarify some of your terms above. I presume you are referring to Christ 2000 years ago? Or Aristotle?
You mentioned you wanted to help them finish the Job they started 2000 years ago? Who did you mean?
I don't want to make assumptions on your premise without understanding your position better.
I don't think you and I have any fundamental disagreements. I still don't know enough to make a judgement so I don't want to make any assumptions. I'm plenty guilty of that.
I don't get along with the Gay culture because of this suppression of thought they engage in.
I can't tell you how many times I have wanted to send one of these morons to the center of the sun while sitting at a dinner party.
I don't go to too many gay parties anymore...
Personally, I am doing NOTHING to suppress anyone's right to act stupidly.
In this arena it is interesting that when it comes to philosophy we are not allowed (lets say encouraged) to express an idea that contradicts another. All opinions are equal there are no absolutes.
However, I have a tremendous amount of expertise in the field of frequency doubled lasers.
If I tell someone they are using the wrong wavelengths to achieve the desired outcome. That would be accepted after a cursory examination of the system.
But when it comes to expertise in philosophy or critical thinking suddenly technique and skill are off limits in the subject! Cultural Mind-Control.
The course of my life has been seriously effected, impeded and marred by Judeo / Kantian philosophies. I am not getting into all that.
However, like all philosophers before me, including Rand, I do have my own axe to grind.
The trick is separating the emotions out so we are epistemological and metaphysically led to the good life.
Ok I think when you say "You", you are referring to "one" who is a generalized example of the Gay population? Its easy to misunderstand these things... I don't want to assume you're attacking me anymore.
I agree with you on the problem of "thought suppression" by legislation or cultural taboo like political correctness.
As far as money goes we are Shrugging. We now have almost all our products made in India.
That stops a considerable amount of mooching and looting...
We plan to leave the USSA.
Finally, I stand with Leonard Piekoff on the issue of whether it is hopeless to undo the damage. I think there is still a very small chance to save the country:
"If you saw you loved one far ahead, walking blindly towards the edge of a cliff, you would scream "Turn Back!" at the top of your lungs and run until your lungs were burning beyond any pain you had ever known.
Even if they were too far away and there was only the slightest chance you would not give up you would scream and run after them anyway for the tiniest chance to save them."
There are probably a couple hundred thousand of us, if that, who understand objectivism enough to articulate it.
Then there are less then 100,000 who can articulate objectivism and other philosophies and their implications on mans mind.
I believe I am in the top few percent. I believe I have the Key to the Yolk holding man in the cave.
It is almost impossible, but while my fellow man is still suffering I am going to keep extending the key until my hand is slapped away from the lock.
I am doing this for 100% selfish reasons because I wish to have the good life.
I hope this posts. It seems the moment I try to edit it gets completely galled up...
"I can't tell you how many times I have wanted to send one of these morons to the center of the sun while sitting at a dinner party." that will make a favorite line of the day.
the part about not going to gay parties anymore. what are those? I might understand , hey I'm going to a party made up of Objectivists. gay, to me, is a lousy adjective. it doesn't tell me much about you. but you did tell me your an optics guy. that's something we share. my husband used to do free space laser communication at McDonnell Douglas. He now writes patents for inventors, such as yourself. I'm assuming you invent. most engineers do. I'm glad to see you are shrugging. I am in agreement with you that means outside the US. I'd be interested to see you post something philosophical. As I said earlier, I don't like the Objectivism vs homosexuality thing. they aren't compare and contrast animals.
OK, just kidding. It is interesting and somewhat informative to just sit and watch, though.
Anyway, I've never been to an exclusively-gay party: among other things, I would never be allowed in. But I've been dragged to a number of sex-themed parties in which same-sex partners/seekers were the majority.
It has been interesting and informative to watch them interact. And a great relief to finally be among gay men who weren't constantly pestering/pressuring me for sex, which BTW is the reason why there is a great deal of animosity among young straight males against gay men.
Watching responsible gays who were acting like adults helped me a great deal in letting go of my hostility toward them.
If your husband is interested, I mostly developed Frequency Doubled YAG systems using KTP and LBO chrystals.
I left the industry before new doping methods and chrystals were developed to produce wavelengths between 420-490 nm.
Now all that is available in diodes that they are almost giving away in "Happy Meals".
Systems i built were a little smaller than a dishwasher. Now people are building equivalent systems about the size of a small shoe-box.
The field is approaching magic these days.
My interest is now in philosophy and Libertarian thinking. I am redirecting my career in this area.
I think it is more important for me.
My application was strictly entertainment like Rock and Roll shows. BIG SHOWS!
It appears you want to take out some anger on me when I am 100% against ANYONE coercing YOU to loose your values to my benefit!
I really don't know how to make that any clearer...
I think we are really on the same side but you appear (it just FEELS this way to me) to be psycho-epistemologically caught up in some kind of homophobic indoctrination. Probably Biblical based.
Science is nothing without prediction.
Therefore I predict and angrier response and an ad hominem attack.
I am curious as to why you are responding? Is it egoic glorification (that is partially true for me) or do you honestly wish to know the universe, your place in it and the truth about reality? (my absolute highest motivation)
I believe the latter is true and in perfect unison with the fact that man is NOT evil, as you are using your virtue and drive to seek information or change something, regardless if it is making you angry.
Thanks for proving that you ARE heroic by responding and that man is NOT a wicked sinful being.
I know most of you aren't used to people speaking this way. But I am not being cynical or sarcastic.
When I exemplify men (and women of course) I am deadly serious that I hold ones heroism in the highest regards.
this is the only sentence I understood. oh, and the Google thing- btw, google didn't come up with the internet. method of ranking search results. but I digress, can you sum all that up in a few sentences so us mortals can understand them? Since I don't buy that homosexuality is a belief system, I don't understand the basis of the discussion. I disagree with Rand on suggesting homosexuality is less than an ideal man. btw, I bet Frank was gay. I remember this interview with Charles and Mary talking about the closeness between Rand and OConner., but really all I got out of it was the closeness between OConner and Charles. This is just my theory. For me, it's the marriage deal. States changing laws that offer special provisos for some. My thing is call it something else. Marriage already has a definition. But I understand the importance of legal protections for couples and families.
Hmmm now I'm wondering about Frank... lol
I appreciate the fact that you hold a reasoned position on homosexuality. I didn’t get into too much of Ayn Rands personal life. I know that Frank was pretty disturbed by her relationship with Nathaniel Branden…. Thinking of it in your theoretical light seems rather interesting. Perhaps this is why Ayn thought homosexuality was “disgusting”.
Although, I recently watched some old media footage of the early gay movement and the most flamboyant and dramatically expressive were the centers of attention, over the “nice average guy next door type of gay male”. The media portrayed gays in a terrible light.
You’ll find I try to get right to the conceptual roots and build the necessary concretes (existence / consciousness) up through the abstractions (morality /ethics). These conversations tend to become sweeping generalizations if we are not careful. I will also point out the philosophical paths that lead one to “emotional reasoning” / heuristic and deductive reasoning as well as Aritstotellian logic and its supporters.
Some media examples: Al Franken, Bill O’Rielly, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh etc. are exemplary performers of Misintegration, deduction and heuristic logic promotion.
They all sound very reasonable, until you shine the light of epistemology on their deontological premises and their edifice quickly crumbles. Most people don’t know what epistemology is or what deontology is.
The entire problem is that people wish to hang on to their knee-jerk “yuck” reaction based on their feelings and an unexplored, unintegrated “philosophical hash”; then engage their mob to impede (or perhaps kill) an individual that doesn’t agree with – what’s the new word?- Ah yes, “Resonate” with his deductions…
My point regarding the Internet was really to mark the significance in intellectual emergence that was otherwise held back from all but the elite classes for over 2000 years. of Judeo-Christian indoctrination. Knowledge was very expensive to the average westerner until the 20th century. As such, the art of reason, integration and induction has never been instilled for the average westerner; only memorization and factual regurgitation of lists.
This left mans emotions detached from his intellect and value judgments. When man looses his own ability to judge he must rely on authority. This process has lead directly to the horrors we are experiencing today. And it was the same process that allowed the Weimar Republic to sway millions of intelligent people to sadistically and viciously murder their brothers and sisters.
This process was reached emotionally by the application of deontological (duty-centered) philosophies, not by “reason” but by a string of logical errors.
The problem is that premise of original sin. It was one of a number of “concept-killers”
Like ‘duty’ or ‘spirituality’, ‘divine rights’ etc. It has no basis in reason other than feelings supported by authoritarian confirmation or mob-rule.
For my post above, I wished to respond to itisntluck and his hasty generalizations of me as an individual and his broad-sweeping knee-jerk responses and slippery slopes, like Aids etc. lumping gay people in more “us and them” derision. I think if he reads my posts he’ll discover that I am more conservative than a conservative. This is MY life –not Gods, and Not the States.
For the record I think my partner and I are the only Gay objectivists and I am probably in the top 3 % of those who understand and can articulate the philosophy.
Unfortunately, that leaves us in our own little bubble of diametric opposition to the majority of the extremely, liberal democratic-mob-rule gay community.
We just ended a gay friendship over the anti-conceptual premise of duty-centered ethics.
I will not support, defend or befriend anyone who believes I have a metaphysical duty to anyone other than myself and my loved-ones under shared agreeable terms.
I will defend all of your lives up and to the point when you demand the sacrifice of my intellect, virtue, time, energy, values or property to be redistributed to another without my consent.
An individual can only reach ethics and morals by choosing to live here and now as “there is no argument that can take a man from this world to a supernatural, superior realm” somewhere or: Mysticism
I think itisntluck is pissed as hell over being mooched, looted and parasitically bled dry. I am too. I know that if battle lines were drawn, I’d be on itisntluck’s side.
It’s too bad that things I see things so black and white but we are desperately running out of time until the west collapses. We simply do not have the luxury to engage in moral grayness, debate meta-ethics and embrace political correctness and coddling people’s feelings.
Our time is running out.
I wish my social studies teacher in HS would have offered up baseball (he was a coach even) instead of movies on evil south africa. Maybe then, the whole world might have questioned whether Mr. Mandela was a saint or a murderer.
It is only because I have had confrontations (draconian harassment) with the police then later stating a few choice sentences and risking contempt in court.
I am not very compliant...
The place this all has to start is when a child is about 3 and starts asking, "Why?"
We need to explain and help them integrate 'Why' rather than "BECAUSE I SAY SO!"
Just be really totally inflammatory I think Mother Theressa is one of the most despicable characters humans have ever witnessed.
She was a mooching, looting, parasitical "neo-cheater" extraordinaire... But then again so is the Roman Catholic Church (or any Abrahamic institution)
The ideal man has many faces
Sinful (misintegration)
"I don't care what you say, God told me my wheat will grow in clay!"
I Use the word "Evil" when reality is ignored and then faked to take any value from another:
"You better accept Jesus and Tithe or your gonna die!"
...so why can't WE re-redefine it to suit OUR purposes? HELL YEAH!
Personally, my partner and I could care less about these ridiculous social titles, but we are certainly the exception to the rule. Obviously, most of us here seem to agree the Government should NOT be involved with this whatsoever.
The biggest problem I have in our collectivist culture are the explosion of regulations, taxes, tariffs, fees and legal disarming that is making it very difficult for my partner and I to live and produce any values.
We are making plans "to Shrug"...
This has NOTHING to do with being gay. It has everything to do with suppression of the individual rights and protections we should all enjoy.
What two people do behind closed doors is their business. I'm even for partnerships or civil unions. However, do I support gay "Marriage", in the commonly understood Christian sense? NO. Why? It's a sacrament from God. Not mine, not any church either. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Got a problem with it? Complain to God. Don't believe in God? That's fine too, but don't boo-hoo to me about laws established by Him. There are many passages in the Bible but here's one that really stands out IMO: 1 Corinthians 7:2, " But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." For anyone who believes Christians are "bad" or "not tolerant" of the homosexual "lifestyle" here's a couple of other nuggets of info to ponder:
Even Mohammed, Islam's prophet said, "When a man mounts another man, the Heaven's quake." Oh, in Iran, the Gov't (Shariah Compliant BTW) HANG gays in the street. Keep these things in mind before the bashing of Christian "intolerance" starts. Finally, Yuri Besmenov (now-deceased, defected, former KGB officer) said, 'Whenever sexual orientation becomes political (implying homosexuality) that's Communism'. Not an exact quote. But I will post a link so you can see/hear for yourself.
Yes, I'm aware of the dumb asses in Christianity who abused their position in the church and went about forcing people to convert to Catholicism or Protestantism under the threat of death, the burning at the stakes, drowning, etc, etc. I encourage you to find out what was the driving reason why the Pilgrims left England. It wasn't because of some Entrepreneurial idea.
Among other reasons, where did George Washington get the hope to take on the worlds most powerful military? If you read his journals and other papers he wrote, you know the answer.
Ultimately, Christianity is the Foundation upon which this country is dedicated (George Washington's dedication at the Church near Ground Zero in NY) because he knew without it, America would have never been. I don't see how in this case, Christianity did severe damage.
This response belongs in a different area, but I needed to retort your last comment.
Nice Red Herring. We are not discussing murder by governments and dictators, we are discussing the Objectivist view of homosexuality.
But since you brought it up, let's not forget that Mr. Hitler had the active support and help of a certain very large Christian denomination.
So you can add that to the mix of all of the other logical fallacies contained in your "Actually, it's the lack of Chistianity," put in your pipe, and smoke it. Or whatever other bodily orifice pleases you.
And Christianity (as practiced by the Western Church, I'm exempting the Orthodox folks from this accusation) HAS done a great deal of damage to the human race, just as any shame-based system will. It's inherent in the nature of a system that "begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice... [and,] as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof."
Gee, I wonder where THAT quote came from? hee hee
Within all that you have explained above, it boils down to human justification for human behavior, which can frankly conclude anything is moral since no moral absolutes exist in such a system of thought (secular humanism).
I'll answer your question, even though it wasn't me of whom you asked it: Yes.
Yes, there are moral absolutes, as outlined in, oh, a little tome named Atlas Shrugged (you might consider reading it someday) and Ms. Rand's various nonfiction works.
And none of which has anything to do with the scientific FACT of evolution.
Oh, tell me what logical fallacy I have committed, I ask please.
You won't find me attacking or being condescending (purposefully). I consider all of you valuable as created by God and since His Word matters more to me than anything else, it naturally will drive my comments, responses, and questions.
It shoudn't take 10,000 words to make a simple point...
Well, I am likely in the 1/10 of 1% out there that still believe in moral absolutes and that those absolutes come from an immutable, righteous, loving God who loves us enough to tell us what is right and wrong without equivocation, through His Word called the Bible.
In His Word, homosexual behavior and actually any sexual behavior which is a deviation from that exercised between a man and a woman in a covenant, lifetime relationship (we call marriage), is sin. Sin implies that there is a correct way of thinking and acting for all situations and when you deviate from there, you sin against God and are accountable, regardless whether you like it or not.
Therefore, although extramarital sex (I mean all sex outside of marriage) is definitely encouraged and accepted now days, it is just as wrong as homosexuality.
The primary reason that this is sin is that it completely undermines the institution of marriage and the family, both established by God prior to the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden some 10,000 years ago. Married couples have a difficult enough time functioning properly together and rearing children as a family without the complication of extramarital sex.
Man was not created to related sexually with another man and God's design in nature spells that out well. Oh...you may think it works, but pragmatism is not basis for principle.
Again, this is simply what the Bible says and I believe it.
I indeed regard it as an abomination and a mental weakness.