What is the REAL objectivist view on homosexuality?

Posted by woodlema 8 years, 9 months ago to Culture
55 comments | Share | Flag

Thoughts?

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...

So according to Objectivism , sex is potentially moral, but what about homosexuality? The few times Ayn Rand spoke publicly about homosexuality, her remarks were disparaging. She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]).


http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ant...
Observe that today’s resurgence of tribalism is not a product of the lower classes—of the poor, the helpless, the ignorant—but of the intellectuals, the college-educated “elitists” (which is a purely tribalistic term). Observe the proliferation of grotesque herds or gangs—hippies, yippies, beatniks, peaceniks, Women’s Libs, Gay Libs, Jesus Freaks, Earth Children—which are not tribes, but shifting aggregates of people desperately seeking tribal “protection.”

The common denominator of all such gangs is the belief in motion (mass demonstrations), not action—in chanting, not arguing—in demanding, not achieving—in feeling, not thinking—in denouncing “outsiders,” not in pursuing values—in focusing only on the “now,” the “today” without a “tomorrow”—in seeking to return to “nature,” to “the earth,” to the mud, to physical labor, i.e., to all the things which a perceptual mentality is able to handle. You don’t see advocates of reason and science clogging a street in the belief that using their bodies to stop traffic, will solve any problem.


All Comments

  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 9 months ago
    There is no more an "objectivist" view on homosexuality than on any other fact of reality and of relevant sciences. In other words this is not an area for idle philosophical twaddle without regard to relevant facts and knowledge.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I'm not going to celebrate their unions or their biologically defects of sexual attraction. But I am going to deal with them as equals and I expect them to give me the same benefit. If they don't, I won't invite either the gay men or the lesbian women to my next weenie roast.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 9 months ago
    The rough sex scenes in the books, esp Fountainhead, make me think Ayn Rand would be open to people expressing their sexual desires however they please, as long as they respect one another's rights?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Exactly. Well said Zen. +1 The unintended consequences, or maybe not so unintended

    Personally I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors and I'm not interested in knowing either. I do object to being bludgeoned with peoples choices in many areas, including sexual orientation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Maybe it's just me. But there are some words that need no predecessors, since adding one implies an encyclopedia of variances.

    The Word Justice.. There never needs to be anything in front of it. Social Justice, Economic Justice, since that implies that Justice is not justice. Minority is the same. If you are not in a majority you are in a minority and I argue that every individual is a minority in themselves.

    Since every individual IS a minority, and NOBODY should get special rights, so in that we are in complete agreement.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "I doubt very much that medical professionals use the word "swish" in their papers. "

    They do...your statement was false. A=A
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by roneida 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As Ms. Rand so clearly wrote, "At whose expense??" The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker?? Who has to give up their rights for others preferences?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by roneida 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Somewhere in the vast universe, maybe from our moon visit, we came up with the unexpected surprise of AIDS. There are many pointed fingers as to who is to takr the credit, but I don't think the spread was due to pointed fingers. The origin of the epidemic and the spread was pretty well followed and documented. How much suffering, death and unbelievable expense did this cause/ ??
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know what you mean. My sentence intended to assert neither should get special rights.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The example I used is a classic example from Copi's Logic.

    Which is why it was quoted.

    It shows how essentially the same meaning could be colored by word choice.
    And, yes, the last one is an attack.
    That was the whole point of Copi's example.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ah, more word play to remove reason from the argument.

    In none of your citations was the word "swish" used as a double-entendre in reference to homosexuals.

    So, while you cited the correct combination of letters, you did not cite the meaning.

    Eg: "The car is red" - does "red" here refer to a testarossa (a sports car in the color red) or a trabant (An East German approved substandard car)?

    When you find a citation which uses "swish" as a knowing double-entendre, spoken as the author's own words, then you will have disproved my assertion and lent credence to yours.

    I'll wait...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And all of that is the result of our loss of the right to private property and the right to association.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I mistyped part of this. Should read "Homosexuals, nor minorities, ..." Hope that didn't confuse anyone with my intent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry but the last one is a political attack.

    If I changed my mind on an opinion, or evolved my opinion, or altered my viewpoint, or flip flopped, or did a 180 on my view are all the same.

    You last one implied I promised something.

    Now if I PROMISED, and made a VOW to stick to a view, then changed my mind, only then can you say I went back on my word, welched on my word, or whatever descriptor you choose.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Nothing...No default assumption at all.

    But let me assume the ridiculous.

    I will assume that every single person straight and gay, practicing this behavior prior to engaging, during and after always engages in a safe manner using condoms and disinfectants to assure a perfectly safe encounter.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand hated a lot of things.
    Hate is an emotional response, and as such, a subjective evaluation.
    For all I know, she hated Italian food - her personal likes or dislikes have nothing to do with Objectivism.

    Rand, however, did think that all manners of word play intended to cloud or color an issue were used specifically to remove reason from the argument.

    There is a very big difference between "safe anal intercourse requires extra attention to hygiene" and "...swishing your penis around in the other guys rectum, coating it in fecal matter, to[sic] you at least wipe it off before you 'do other things' with it?" or even "repeatedly entering and exiting, coating the penis in fecal matter?".

    "Blunt and straightforward" uses precise language.
    One version is precise, the other two are precisely colored.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So, not knowing that in advance without personal questioning, your default assumption would be...?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I guess that would depend on if they disinfected it first, during and after, wouldn't it?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Being PC or Politically Correct was a doctrine of Carl Marx, Communism. That was something Ayn Rand hated.

    I prefer being blunt and straightforward.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -3
    Posted by 8 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok, how is "repeatedly entering and exiting, coating the penis in fecal matter?"

    Is that any better? Does that change the actual mechanics, or the results?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo