Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation

REVIEWS - DISCUSSIONS (SOLO - REBIRTH OF REASON)

These discussions took place in 2002-2003 on the original SOLO site. They are archived; below is a reproduction of the dialogue from the original five-part series published in The Free Radical. 

Objectivism and Homosexuality, Again - Part I - Discussion

by Chris Matthew Sciabarra
I have been especially impressed with SOLO's credo that "acknowledge[s] that Ayn Rand made mistakes; that she did not address some philosophical questions needing to be addressed; that she was wrong about some matters of considerable existential moment, such as homosexuality." It is this last issue, in particular, that has always provoked some of the most virulent responses I have ever witnessed in Objectivist circles (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (11 messages)

Josh A.

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 0

Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 12:59am

Peikoff proposes the following theory: that sensitive and thinking young men may not be able to fit into the cultural stereotype of the macho male and, hence, they remain "fixated" to the point where they "need and want the approval of other males."

I find it interesting that Peikoff identified this as a problem with the "young men" in question rather than with the culture that created the situation.

This is why most "gay rights" are really gender rights, individual rights we all will have, once we demand them.

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 1

Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 1:05pm
Peikoff seems to get all of his ideas from the Jungians and post-Jungians. Do you think he really wants to be a Jungian perhaps? Tongue in cheek. I suggest if you are interested in these ideas that you read R. Hopcke's book Jung, Jungians, and Homosexuality. What is very odd I find is that Peikoff seems to be retracing the steps that the pioneers of Jungian psychology made three decades ago!! Get with it dude!! But if he really means that he cam up with the projection hypothesis independently and wants to copyright it or something like that, then I feel sorry, really sorry.

Jung already said at the turn of the century (that's last century) that he "felt" that homosexuality betrays a significant immaturity or under development on the part of the analysand (the puer) His concept of the puer was taken from Ovid "Metamorphosis" and used by his disciple Marie von Franz, who developed the idea in her book Puer Aeternus (Golden Boy). Eventually Jungian psychologists moved away from this hypothesis to the place where Peikoff is now. Observe that both Branden and Peikoff had both been at the original puer stage at an earlier time in their careers (at least Branden was in Romantic Love)

Don't you think that politically that gives straight men and women the upperhand if they can sit and spout stupidities in print and perpetuate mythologies that have been exploded long ago? They would have done better to stick with Aristotle who developed a theory (albeit brief) in the Nicomachean Ethics 1148b 15-19a 20 and at Problemata IV 26 where he distinguishes between the naturally pleasurable from what is pleasurable without being naturally so. I mean really at least the issue of nature is fundamental to the legal practice that continues to dominate the issue.

Again Aristotle would say to these pseudo-psychologists like Peikoff: forget the inside of mens heads, judge them by their actions!! I fing Jung immensly rewarding for one reason: because I am an artist and I like to play around with his ideas because they are interesting and because they shed alot of light on the many directions and variations of human existence. I would not, however, go about telling people that they are suffering from some kind of mental malaise because of their homosexuality. It just doesn't make sense to speak about such things without absolute assurance that you are right.

G.E. Moore developed the "naturalistic fallacy" exactly to counter this kind of thinking. The error of tautological thinking, i.e. "why do the fittest survive?" "because the fittest survive" The same thing goes for Peikoff's idea. You might ask him "why do homosexuals need and want the approval of other males Mr Peifoff?" he might answer "because they do". At least the Jungians upgraded their thought with neat little names.

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 2

Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 10:14pm
I wonder if a culture can really create a situation Josh, or if it is individuals who have to accept or reject "the sum total of individual accomplishments" that is culture. I wonder how much power we have to invest in resisting "the culture that created the situation" and if it is more or less than the power we have to change ourselves to resist "fixation" on other males, if such a thing exists. Personally I think that theory is bull crap and its explanatory power ends as soon as I encounter someone who is gay and doesn't recognize that kind of experience at all. I think that there is such a thing as looking too hard for the reasons why something is the way it is. For someone who believes in metaphysical pluralism and that only individuals exist, I find it fascinating that Peikoff should be troubling himself with the question "why homosexuals exist" instead of focussing on the more pertinent question of how they exist. As far as a social transformation, I agree with Jung that there is no such possibilty, that personal transformation must precede any change on a higher level. I know that sounds a little drastic kind of like Spencer's "there can be no freedom until all are free", but for sustaining such a cultural ideal, wouldn't it be necessary that all the people be virtuous? How does one make a virtuous society out of people who are not virtuous? Sounds paradoxical? It is. That is why Libertarians can't come up with a satisfactory roadmap either.

Because Peikoff's first question is the wrong one, and really can't be answered, it follows that the second one can never be satisfactorily answered either.

Marcus

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 3

Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 3:28am

I'm only speaking for myself but I strongly identified with Peikoff's theory.
I'm 18 and I'm undergoing psychotherapy to discover my sexual orientation, right now I'm confused.

Matthew Graybosch

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 4

Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 11:56am
Not to be flippant, but why are you going to a shrink to figure out if you like men, women, or both? Wouldn't the best way to figure out one's orientation be to experiment and decide from experience what is most pleasurable?

sciabarra

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 5

Tuesday, June 3, 2003 - 4:59am
It's amazing how certain articles crop up again on SOLO HQ!

I would only like to say to Marcus that the observations of some (such as Nathaniel Branden) that there are many "homosexualities"---I'd go further and say there are many "sexualities"---is valid insofar as it is simply ~wrong~ to use a "one size fits all" explanation. The constellation of factors that go into any unique individual's expression of sexuality are immensely complex and deeply personal, and I wish you the best of luck in trying to figure out who and what you are. My only (nonprofessional) advice would be ~not~ to get so hung up on the labels. One of the central messages of Objectivism is its commitment to individual authenticity. Be true to yourself. Don't disown what you feel and don't moralize yourself into a spiritual or physical prison.

I should also mention that a separate SOLO monograph, which revises and expands my five-part series on "Objectivism and Homosexuality," is currently being readied. We will post information on this as it becomes available.

If you'd like a simple link to ~all~ five parts of the series, check out:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/homosexuality.htm

Peace,
Chris

Belladonna

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 6

Wednesday, June 4, 2003 - 8:17am
We each make personal choices based our own value judgments. Our own. Not others. What is of value to one, is perhaps not of value to another, but I have always upheld an individuals right to choose for themselves, (so long as it does nothing to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others). Not to do so would be immoral. I find it hard to believe that personal sexual preference is an objectivist issue or up for debate at all. Would one debate a personal choice of green over blue, apples over oranges, mountain view or seaside? Interesting series sciabarra.

Newt

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 7

Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 5:52pm
It's funny that Leanard Peikoff, the official commander and chief of Objectivism, can say that objectivism has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. How can a philosophy not have anything to say on any subject? It's philosophy. Ayn Rand taught that philosophy was the groundwork on wich men approach every subject, every subject they may encounter in life.
This is what, I think, reveals Objectivism to be truly a political sect and not what it claims to be.
I've seen this before in other ways. Official objectivism hardy ever has anything new to add, not applying a philosophy to ever broader and broader topics. They stick to the same old stale topics, which true, none of which have been solved and so shouldn't be abandoned, but Objectivism seems to be something like a building that will only cover certain particular territory, and simply stops there, with no explaination.
Well, excuse me, but a philosophy is meant to cover the entirety of man's existence. It's really not a skyscraper built within a few square blocks of life - leaving all the rest of mankind to itself.
Ayn rand taught this herself, at least in words, if not always in her actions (like a true objectivist apparently). I mean didn't she say "The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life."? Well, is that true or not?

Linz

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 8

Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 3:47am
Newt - remember that SOLO does not represent "official" Objectivism. It *aspires* to represent Objectivism as it might be & ought to be. That includes dragging Objectivist homophobia (including Peikoff's hypocritical condescension on the subject) out of the closet & exposing it to the light of reason. Chris Sciabarra's five-part series on the matter has substantially achieved that. Soon we'll be publishing it, revised with significant additions, as a monograph. Don't hold your breath for "official" Objectivism to applaud. Expect a sheepish silence.

Newt

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 9

Monday, July 21, 2003 - 12:08am
Linz - I didn't forget. I was criticizing ideas that have come from the number one "offical Objectivist", the "intellectual heir himself", Peikoff, and my point was how could he possibly not know better?
How could he forget that "objectivism" is supposedly philosophy, and as philosophy there can be nothing in mans life that falls outside it's province. He does know that and he makes it clear he does in the book he wrote covering "objectivism".
Ayn Rand couldn't have been clearer on the idea herself, of that nature of philosophy, and she too, to her credit, DID take a stand on homosexuality, however "unfortunate" it might have been. She at least took it as serious as anything else though.

abatie

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 10

Friday, December 5, 2003 - 10:55am
Rand viewed homosexuality as a moral issue, based on her implicit assumption that it was a consciously chosen behavior.

Regardless of chosen or not, how can it be immoral? Who is harmed by two people loving each other, or even just having recreational sex?

==
Objectivism and Homosexuality, Part 2 in a Series: No discussion

==
Objectivism and Homosexuality, Part 3 in a Series - Discussion

Tuesday
April 23, 2002
ObjectivismThe Free Radical
Objectivism and Homosexuality: Part 3 in a Series
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra
The current installment of this multi-part series on “Objectivism and Homosexuality” is a “Horror File” in and of itself in that it documents the depressing experiences of gay people in their dealings with self-identified “Objectivists.” (Read more...)

Discuss this Article (41 messages)


kza

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 0

Monday, May 6, 2002 - 11:37pm
Seems to me like the way homosexuals used to get treated by objectivists is similar to the way in which objectivists treat fans of drum n bass and rap music.

If objectivists hold true the basic rules of life and existance, I can see how homosexuality could be incompatable. After all, mating is based around the notion of a breeding pair.

However the love of freedom overrules this, and I consider both homosexuality and drum n bass and rap music all to be compatable with objectivism.

Or is it a matter of degrees. I know objectivists tolerate drum n bass and rap as personal choice, even though its "frowned upon" as being (arbitrarily and subjectively) less beautiful than classical and opera.

Is it the same with sexuality? Do they merely tolerate homosexuality, preferring hetrosexuality as being (less arbitrarily) more "life affirming"?

Or are both somehow equal? I would like this to be cleared up.

Jeff Landauer

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 1

Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 5:26am
I think the issue is why someone holds a particular value, not what that value is.

If a person likes Rap because of flawed premises or a malevolent sense of life then it is not "OK" to like Rap. It is against ones Objective interests.

There are a few Rap songs that are funny or entertaining, but as a genre, there's not much to like. I seriously doubt that a big fan of Rap is philosophically healthy. If someone told you that they loved Jackson Pollock paintings, wouldn't think that there was something wrong?

On the other hand, I think the idea that sexual orientation is a choice has lost almost all its credibility. It doesn't seem to me that it tells you anything about a persons philosophical premises, so I would say that you can't put these two things on a continuum.

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 2

Wednesday, May 8, 2002 - 2:02pm
How has sexual orientation, as a choice, lost credibility? What you seem to be saying is that sexual orientation is genetically programmed, and probably becomes dictated to the individual during/after puberty. Wouldn't such an 'attraction' theory also suggest that I (having the straight gene) would be sexually attracted to all women? What exacly is the deterministic excuse for things like sexual animalism(?)? I'm sure there's a statistic for that too in the animal world.

Joseph Rowlands

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 3

Thursday, May 9, 2002 - 12:25am
Hey Russ,

Do I understand you to be making the claim that you could choose to be attracted to men? Or that you choose which women you are attracted to? If that's not the case, why do you suggest it's true for other people? Why would you assume that homosexuals have the ability to choose who they're attracted to, if you don't. If you do have that ability, let me assure you that you have a very rare talent. I've never heard of it being even possible. Personally, I'm stuck being attracted to some women, and not others. I don't get to choose.

Also, let's clear a few things up. The gay men I've met are not attracted to ALL men, just as you're not attracted to ALL women. So even if there is a "gay gene" vs. a "straight gene", it obviously doesn't decide everything.

And as for the lost credibility of the choice "theory", it may have something to do with the fact that it's just not true. Go talk to some homosexuals. They'll tell you it wasn't a choice. I assume, being on an Objectivist site, that you know that the arbitrary has no credibility. The statement that it's a choice is arbitrary.

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 4

Thursday, May 9, 2002 - 7:56pm
Joseph,

Yes i'm stating that I could choose to be attracted to a man. Granted it would take a while for an attraction to men to become as 'wide-spread' as my attraction to women currently is. Choice is not arbitrary; however, what seems to be arbitrary is your statement that you are dictated by your genes to be attracted to a woman, or women, you've never seen.

Something that you didn't advance on in your post is my statements on animalism(?) and other types of attraction. The idea dictation through an animalism gene seems even more arbitrary. Attraction through gene also cannot answer the questions about species being attracted to other species. For a real (my animals) example:

My springer spaniel (sp) had been raised by himself--no other dogs after birth and a short period after. When it was bought and brought to my house we had two cats. Time goes by... The dog is now attracted to both of my cats, and seems to have an attraction for one more than the other. We try to breed the dog as he is of pure breed, and he showed no obvious attraction to the other dogs--this doesn't prove anything for certain, but raises some questions as to why a dog would try to have sex with a cat on a frequent basis but not even attempt while being introduced with other dogs for long periods of time. The point is that attraction by gene cannot answer this question. This in fact would seem to cause an evolutionary problem for the lower species (who would rely on much instinct), in the natural selection process.

I personally believe that many Objectivists are using the gene vs. choice, in the context of sexuality, as a method to create harmony in the movement. Why? I don't see a rational reason, as I don't think that homosexuality per se is immoral. Though I haven't given very much thought to how homosexuality relates to Objectivism. However, I can see how most of the homosexual culture is contra to Objectivism.

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 5

Thursday, May 9, 2002 - 8:04pm
I will try and clean following posts of mine. The above should have been written better. I guess I'm just used to writing in other web-based forums where the presentation of ideas don't really matter.

Joseph Rowlands

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 6

Thursday, May 9, 2002 - 9:22pm
Hi Russ,

I don't think choice vs. genes exhausts the possibilities. You seem to be saying it's either/or. I have no information on what, if any, impact genes have on attraction. There could be any number of environmental factors. Also, there could be some role for your concious choices. If you mentally associate different looks with attitudes, personalities, etc., you might be less or more attracted to someone than before.

But let's clarify something. Even if your mind impacts who you are attracted to, that's far different from choosing. Just as your ideas can help shape your emotions or sense of life, it is not automatic. If I choose to be happy after a loved one just died, I will fail. Is this the level of choice that you're talking about?

I've been told by gay men that they were ashamed of their attraction to men, and tried very hard to be "normal", without success. I'm inclined to believe them. If that's true, then the word "choice" is not appropriate here.

As for your animalism, I'm not sure what the question here is. I don't think you're suggesting that animals have free will, so are choosing to mate with another species out of love. You may be attempting to argue against a gene explanation of attraction, but I never said I believed it was gene based. Did I miss something?

I think this really comes down to the meaning of the word choice. I have the choice right now to get up and put a load of laundry in the washing machine, or I can wash the dishes (among other choices). I can choose either. I claim that I do not make this kind of decision about being attracted to women. It's not a flip of the coin, whatever I decide to do today, choice. Do you agree with that?

And that is the essence of the sexual orientation question. Is it a conscious decision, which people can change at will? Or is it something you have no influence on? Or is it something you have some, but not complete control of? If the last, how much control do you have.

As I've said, if you can control who you're attracted to, it's a rare talent. I've known of gay people who want to be straight, and straight people who wanted to be gay (to fit in at art school). They were unsuccessful.

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 7

Friday, May 10, 2002 - 9:37am
Joseph,

Gene vs. Choice is the only possibility. You have to remember that even though there could be environmental factors, one still has to act on those factors. Obviously a five year old would be impacted a great deal by environmental/social factors, but all of his decisions are still decisions enabled by free will. Either genes program your attraction, or choice does.

If you are asking if I think that emotional reactions can be changed in an instant I agree. However, as I'm sure you'll agree, individuals have the choice to change their emotional reactions by changing their values.

That's unfortunate that those men were unable to accomplish a goal they set out to do. I wonder where their motive to change their sexual orientation came from? That could have harmed or helped their success.

My questions and statements on animalism asked and stated how it related to sexual attraction. You seem to not know what animalism is. Animalism is an attraction certain humans have to animals. Actually referencing my dictionary, I should have been using the term bestiality. I guess it's a growing fad in the subversive culture.

As for my reference to lower species attraction to different species I gave a true example of a dog and two cats. I wasn't trying to show how a dog has the same volitional faculty that a human has, but how the dog wouldn't be attracted to cats if his attraction was programmed by genes.

As I said before, I agree that you cannot become straight, or gay, with one thought or action; and it's not like doing laundry. But I do believe that homosexuals do have the opportunity to change their sexual orientation. Although, I see no reason why a homosexual, especially an older person, would want to try and do this.

Upon hearing your statements about how 'you' have no choice of the women you are attracted too, and how I could be a possible super-man, I went out and tested my capabilities :) In a computer lab there sat in front of me a women that I was indifferent too. She was a little chubby and very short (I'm 6'4). I started to think about her characteristics, excluding some, and believe it or not, within minutes I was attracted to her. She probably can see me looking at her, so she looks at me, and I get more attracted--I even thought about going to talk to her. It also occurred to me that your statement raises a lot of questions about sexual relationships. For example, how many relationships do you think would be happening right now if attraction was deterministic?

Elizabeth

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 8

Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 12:43pm
Russ,

Wanted to respond to a couple of your points from your last posting.

The first concerns beastiality. You seem to think that because some people choose to have sex with animals, that being homosexual or heterosexual is also a choice. I think there are some key differences that you have overlooked. First is the difference between finding a mate whom you are compatible with, whom you have feelings for, and basically finding a way to "get off". I have a feeling that if you meet people who have sex with sheep, horses, etc., none of them are in love with the animal or plan to pursue any relationship. The animal is an alternate means to using a hand or a piece of machinery. If you view beastiality as proof of choice in sexuality, you have to add anything that can be used as a sexual tool into that list. And since you claim that it is all choice, then when you look at a beautiful girl, a hideous girl, a guy, your dog, and a blow up doll, all have equal potential for being your next "mate".

Your second example is about the girl in the computer cluster. Again, there is a difference between making yourself slightly interested in a girl, guy, etc., but what would happen if you started talking to her and she was a complete moron? Could you still make yourself attracted to her and pursue a relationship? What if she had sores all over her body or whatever it is that you just can't take. "A little chubby" can be overlooked if she has other features that you like. But if she has absolutely none, I don't think that you can make yourself like her. Just because you could get yourself to have physical relations with her, doesn't mean that you could make yourself attracted to her no matter how hard you tried. Could you do me a favor try the same test with the guy that is sitting in front of you? Look at him for a while. Forget that he's a guy (like you forgot that girl was chubby). Do you have any desire to go up to him and meet him/ask him out? There's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't have the same desire to ask him out if you claim that you have the potential to both be gay if you chose and you have the ability to choose who you like.

I am curious, too. Are you currently married? Would you object if I prearranged a marriage for you where you never got to meet the person beforehand and I got to pick if you married a boy or a girl? Do you have that much confidence in your ability to choose who you like and your ability to be gay if you wanted to be?

And lastly, your dog. Most dogs who haven't been socialized from birth (as yours hasn't) will never get along with other dogs. I am assuming that since he has these urges that you haven't gotten him neutered (which btw would take care of this for you and would be a nice thing to do if you haven't already). Is that correct? So all that is left for him is the cats. He can't relieve himself. Since he is unable to be around other dogs, the only way that he can think to get some satisfaction is by his dominance over the cats. It's probably not his choice, but a last resort.

-Elizabeth

Jim Peron

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 9

Tuesday, May 14, 2002 - 1:32pm
In reading the posts here there seems to be some confusion between one's sexual orientation and paraphilias. No individual is attracted to all the members of the sex they find attractive. There seems to be a combination of things, similar to imprinting, which attacts one to specific types of people.

A man who is straight may find he is unusually attracted to women with thick ankles or who have dark hair or any other trait. That he is attracted to women implies his sexual orientation is heterosexual. His orientation is not that he's attracted to specific women just women. The specific part is what sexologists refer to a fetish or paraphilia.

Some men find fishnet stockings a big turn out (they look awful in my opinion). That is not a sexual orientation. It is a fetish.

If you like members of the opposite sex you are heterosexual. If you like members of the same sex you are bisexual. What types of men or women you like is not a sexual orientation but most likely the result of impressions you had about these types of people as a child.

What this would mean is that while sexual orientaiton may be genetic (I think it is) the sexual fetish is really the result accidental imprints as a child.

Michael T

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 10

Friday, May 17, 2002 - 4:53am
The word attraction means "something that attracts by arousing interest or pleasure". With this definition, there are two actions that we need to examine. One, the person that presents an image of attraction, and the other, the person that is interested in that image that is being presented.

Now let me start with the person presenting the image.(Physical or emotional image)
Presenting an image, a self image, we do all day. In fact we have many self images that we portray every day.ie. When you are around the kids, you protray an image of a father. When you are amongst your employees you are the boss.etc.
It is like a mask that you wear and you decide which one is most suitable for the given circumstance. This usually happens quite naturally. The question is, why do we do this? Probably to fullfill our needs within, so that we can live happily.
In order for a homosexual person to attract a partner, he will need to portray a self image of homosexuality. There is a need within him to be loved by a male.
However, I do believe that this self image can be manipulated in order to achieve certain results, and to satisfy certain needs. ie. If you brake up with your girl that you've been dating for six years, it won't do you any good to project an image of a 'looser' for the rest of your life, because you will not find another partner. By changing your self image to a confident attractive male, you will probably attract someone else.

The other person that is interested or attracted by an image presented, seeks such an image, because there is a desire or need within him to be happy.ie. The child seeks a fatherly self image to feel secure. The employee seeks a boss's self image of confidence and leadership.
A homosexual person seeks an image of another homosexual in order to fullfill his needs and to be happy.
However on this side, I do believe there is also a choice. You may be intersted in or attracted to a few self images. This is where you get to choose. Once chosen, you get to see the real person behind the self image. If you don't like it, you need to choose to move on.

In Russ's case, with the computer lady, he may have chosen to approach her, even though her self image was unattractive. ie. he forced himself to approach her, because there was a need within him to prove a point. Upon getting to know her, he may have been suprised to find an image of attraction that would make him eternally grateful for making that choice.

In the previous examples you are questioning attraction. You should rather change your angle of thought and stop the argument. The question should be: What are the needs that you seek to be happy? Why are you seeking those needs to be happy? What are the needs within you, that makes you a homosexual?

Reuben P. Chapple

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 11

Tuesday, May 28, 2002 - 10:54pm
Gay objectivists seem to be obssessed with sexual self-justification when it is something that shouldn't be a factor for any objectivist.

Objectivism presupposes that everyone has a right to go to hell in their own way, so long as they do so with other consenting adults, and do not infringe on anyone's personal liberty in so doing.

However, in an objective sense, I see little justification for the assertion that homosexuality is a "normal" lifestyle.

Male homosexuality could aptly be described as a pathological sexual addiction, one predicated upon youth, physical beauty, fleeting sexual encounters and always looking around for the next bit of fresh meat.

Why is it that all the gay men of my acquaintance seem forever unable to find the meaningful permanent relationship they all claim to want?

Why is everyone they meet somehow "not right" after a while?

How many gay men have been in a committed monogamous relationship for more than five years? Next to, if not nil, I think you'll discover.

Those who haven't done so should read "Sexual Ecology" by gay activist Gabriel Rotello and ask whether the sort of piggish sexual gluttony detailed in its pages is not a flight from commitment and intimacy symptomatic of deep psychological wounds in the childhoods of those concerned. Rotello, of course, ducks the question totally.

Is reducing sexual interaction to the expulsion of surplus bodily effluvia in a public lavatory amidst the reek of anonymous excrement without having even spoken to the other party or learned anything about them evidence of a psychologically and sexually healthy individual?

Why are many gay men (acknowledged by Rotello) in apparently "committed" relationships driven to continue this sexually compulsive behaviour on the side?

In an objective sense, sexual addiction of the type described is surely evidence of deep pyschological disturbance for anyone, gay or straight, as are certain sexual practices.

Are the practices referred to in Rotello's book as widely prevalent among sections of the gay community mentally (or physically) healthy and normal?

Why are activities like fisting, scats, mud sports and water sports are so widely practised in certain gay subgroups? Is this evidence of a healthy sexuality?

I think not.

Gay activists tell us that sexual addiction and bizarre sexual practices are due to "internalised homophobia" and the fact that society refuses to accept homosexuality as normal. Arrant nonsense. The more accepting society has become of homosexuality, the more extreme gay sexual behaviour seems to have become.

Not all gays are sexually compulsive (although percentage-wise far more gays than straights seem to be). Even less engage in hard-core sexual practices, which a small minority of straights also get into.

But whatever one's sexual preference, sexual addiction, fisting, coprophagia, coprophilia and micturation on one's partner have little to do with human intimacy and can only be symptomatic of massive self-disgust and self-hatred.

I accept that a minority of people [1 - 3 percent according to recent research] prefer their own gender sexually (for whatever reason) and that this is normal for them. I do not believe that they should be persecuted or ostracised for exercising that preference, as long as their sexual relations with other adults are not coercive.

I do however have grave objections to gay activists manipulating public debate and trying to tell me that what is "normal" for them on a personal level ought to be "normal" for everyone when it clearly isn't.

For 97 - 99 percent of people, "gay" is not a "normal" expression of sexuality. I place no moral judgement on it, but how can homosexuality be objectively "normal" when it is biologically redundant behaviour?

Homosexuality can't even be a naturally programmed form of population control when for most of human history we eked out a precarious existence and needed all the progeny we could get. It is simply something that has always been a sexual preference for a minority of individuals and therefore "normal" only for its practitioners.

I also have a problem with the more evangelical gay activists (with the connivance of anti-family leftists) selling homosexuality as a viable sexual alternative to kids in our schools .

As Joe Sobran says: "How bright do you have to be to work out the consequences of inserting a life-giving organ into the poop chute"?

Joe's right, in both a physical and spiritual sense.

Most objectivists and libertarians are happy to extol the spirituality of a beautiful piece of music or a wonderful architectural achievement.

Yet they cannot see that human behaviour has spiritual consequences (No, Im not a God-botherer, but an agnostic). What occultists commonly refer to as "the right-hand path" symbolises light, health, growth and life. "The left-hand path" on the other hand symbolises disease, ignorance, decay and death.

An act of heterosexual intercourse is therefore a celebration of life due to its potential to create life, while the anus is an organ of excretion, not procreation.

The bodily waste expelled from the anus has had all the life extracted from it. It is dead, not living matter. In a spiritual sense, sodomy is accordingly a celebration, not of life, but of death.

Matt Ballin

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 12

Tuesday, May 28, 2002 - 11:18pm
Yikes.

Well, putting aside the nonsense, I do wonder if anybody can answer the question about why homosexuals so consistently fail to engage in rewarding long-term relationships. Or isn't that true? I won't lay claim to a great store of knowledge on the topic, but I get the impression that such is the case...

Oh, and Mr Chapple -- regarding your last two paragraphs -- can I take that to mean that wearing a really dependable condom turn straight sex into a celebration of death, too? And that masturbation is a celebration of production, since the fingers are organs of tool-manipulation? (no pun intended, OF COURSE.)

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 13

Monday, June 3, 2002 - 4:39pm
Ha! Mr. Chapple is rather too serious about these matters! What on earth has micturation to do with anything at all? I am a gay male and I had to look the word up! What if Rand micturated from time to time? Would she be morally inferior? Incidentally can one imagine the fierce creativity she must have exacted of her bed partner? Ugh. What if she practiced Kama Sutra? Can you imagine going to bed with the author of the Fountainhead and not getting a little leak? I think rather, a watershed.

Mr Chapple seems to hold the rule of thumb that Johnny had better not spill or he will be banished from the Kingdom of Enlightenment. This chap thinks it is better to spill than to fester. And what if a gay male were to drink a gallon of water before making love to his partner. If he micturated and his partner took some gross indecent pleasure in the whole thing, what would come of it? Would this be "be symptomatic of massive self-disgust and self-hatred"?
Well, that is what paper towels are for.

I agree with Mr. Chapple that most gay relationships are not eternal. In fact, most of them can't even outlast a baseball season. Actually, they usually last a few years and then the partners move on. I do not believe that this is necessarily a "gay trait", and I know that it is not true in all cases. It seems more a general condition of modern society. It is only "wrong" if you value long term commitment above the "five year plan".

My last relationship with a man lasted only six years. Whew, I got past the fifth one. Seriously, I wish it could have been longer, but it was not right for us because he wanted to explore "other options". I didn't approve of his new lifestyle but I had to accept it because I couldn't, nor did I desire to change him. I learned that you cannot change people, but I did not learn that my experience has anything to do with the fact that I am gay.

You have to view gay relationships in their own context, not in the context of heterosexual relationships. You also have to view them diachronically because they have evolved over the centuries. You have to allow for diversity and difference within society. I am thinking of Mill's call for "variety not uniformity" or "human development in its richest diversity". I agree with Linda Dowling's thesis in Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford, that the rise of homosexuality in Victorian England (culminating in the trials of Oscar Wilde) came about as a response to the classical liberal views of men like Mill.

I don't think many people (including Objectivists) would want to go back to the way things were when fags were used to burn witches or "Mollies" were strung up in the public square. But I shudder to think that the rudiments of those actions and the premises, on which they are based, are still held by people who claim to be rational.

I don't think in those terms. I think that Rand was wrong to condemn homosexuality without knowing much about it. In fact Rand's assertion that homosexuality is morally evil and disgusting says more about her way of thinking than it does about the topic itself. She certainly was not being rational when she made such statements in public and had them published. It may be argued in her defense that the historical context in which she made her remarks was a time of increasing national irrational fear of "commies", "civil rights activists", and radicals for all sorts of social reform. In the 1950's there was a purge in Washington DC in which anyone suspected of being homosexual was dismissed. I think Rand often merely reacted to what she heard or read in the news. She should have just stuck to philosophy or literature instead of wasting her time venting over "cultural rot".

In the nature-nurture debate over the origins of "homosexuality" it would probably be better to understand that the social and biological factors that determine a persons sexual evolution cannot be and should not be "re-programmed" or "re-designed". It was immoral for Objectivists to try to engage in such useless activities. You cannot change the past nor can you change the nature of a person. As Rand once said quoting Francis Bacon: "nature in order to be commanded must be obeyed". She believed strongly in separating the "metaphysical" from the "man-made" and emphasized that reason allows us to distinguish between the two. She celebrated the motto of AA, desiring the wisdom to know the difference between those things that can be changed, and those that cannot.


The correctness in Objectivism lies in its emphasis and concentration on rational self-interest and the nurturing of self-esteem. You don't have to be an Objectivist to explore that. As a philosophy Objectivism certainly provides the tools to begin thinking in that way. For this reason I think it has immense value for gays who have been trained to think in terms of the collective. There have been many books recently published by gay males that are trying to direct other gays away from the "club scene" to other more rational self-promoting lifestyles.

Can a gay person be both gay and an Objectivist? Yes. Can a gay person lead a rational life in an irrational society? Yes. Remember Rand did not emphasize "normalcy", she always spoke of rationality. Rationality has no sex or sexual preference. If Objectivists believe that one thing has anything to do with the other, then they are thinking just like the Queer theorists who argue for a "queer epistemology" or a "straight epistemology". If you think I am joking, read Eve Sedgwick's The Epistemology of the Closet. Sedgwick, the mother of Queer theory lumped Foucault, Derrida, Thomas Kuhn and Szasz together as examples of alternative approaches to “ethical/political disengagement” from objective epistemological categories. Introducing neat little expressions furnished by “a plethora of ignorances”, Sedgwick presumes that we can objectify ignorance and categorize it. ("Epistemology of the Closet" p. 7).In the end the only thing she successfully proves is her own ignorance of epistmology.

Mr Chapple's view that 97-99 percent of people don't think gays are "normal" is absurd. What people? If he is referring to 97-99 percent of those living on Temple St. in Salt Lake City, I think maybe yes. If he refers to 97-99 percent of the homosexuals in Nazi concentration camps forced to wear pink triangles, I think they probably believed that they were not leading normal lives. The statement that everybody thinks a certain way proves nothing at all. I think perhaps 97-99 percent of all Nazis believed anyone who was not an "aryan" was not normal. Incidentally they probably would have applauded Mr. Chapple's assessments. No I do not believe dear Mr. Chapple is a Nazi, I think he should perhaps revise his cognitive assessments.

Just for the record, Mr. Chapple is not my ex-boyfriend! HA

sciabarra

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 14

Tuesday, June 4, 2002 - 5:39am
I am delighted to see healthy discussion of a long closeted issue: the issue of how homosexuality and homosexuals have been treated in the Objectivist movement. I'm honestly delighted that my series is provoking this exchange, and look forward to the day when exchanges of this sort are rendered obsolete. I suspect, however, that as long as there is prejudice and homophobia, such discussions will continue---even within a philosophy that is ostensibly designed to eradicate the irrational.

Just a couple of points:

1. Why is it that every person (invariably, every MAN) who objects to homosexuality and to the so-called "gay lifestyle" also, invariably, exhibits an OBSESSION with the gay MALE lifestyle? Methinks thou dost protest too much!

There is an enormous amount of diversity within that "gay male lifestyle," even though it is probably true that men, ON AVERAGE, have a more difficult time of sustaining long-term relationships in a gay MALE context. There are probably a lot of reasons for this: some legal, some cultural, some sociological---who knows, maybe there are some biological and evolutionary reasons too. One thing is pretty clear, at least to me: it probably has a lot less to do with GAY men than it does with MEN in general. Rand herself argued that we needed to fight the emotional repression and psychological consequences that result from certain culturally-defined gender roles. There haven't been a lot of studies in this area, but I'm fairly certain that gay WOMEN probably have more stable and longer-lasting relationships than straight couples OR gay men. Ah, the virtues of lesbianism!

2. Just for the record: Hear, Hear to Lindsay Perigo for his editorial today, June 4th. I couldn't have said it better.

Hope all of you enjoy the final two installments of the series.

Peace,
Chris Matthew Sciabarra

Jim Peron

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.

Post 15

Tuesday, June 4, 2002 - 2:16pm
Gee, Mr. Chapple thanks for making it so clear about what it means to be gay. Seems I've been getting it wrong for some time now.

I didn't realize that I was supposed to have fresh meat so often. Stupid me sitting in a committed relationship for about 7 years (ooops, I forgot that was a figment of my imagination since Chapple the gay expert says such things don't exist)

He does imply that gay men he has as "friends" (sic) seem forever unable to find a meaningful permanent relationship. Well obviously the gay people he knows aren't too picky in their choice of friends.

And since everyone we meet is somehow "not right" after a while I've learned that in the morning I'll have to tell Sean he's not right. Of course his response will be: "You never think anyone is right unless they agree with you." (Are we talking about the same thing here?)

That committed monogamous relationship of ours is next to nil. I'm not sure where nil is but it must be in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg since that's were we live.

I didn't get Rotello's book either -- which may explain why I'm so confused at what I'm supposed to be doing. On the other hand even if I had read it I can assure Mr. Chappell that I wouldn't do anything in a public lavatory in South Africa -- including the main functions for which they supposedly exist. These places in Africa are not the nicest of places. I did try to use one once in an airport in Nairobi -- big mistake. It was at the end of a long passage way and the lights in the airport were not working. Hence the hall and toilet were pitch dark. Having been stuck at the bloody airport for hours I really had to go so I thought I'd chance it. Once inside I realized that no matter how my eyes tried to adjust it was pitch dark and I couldn't tell where the urinals were. That didn't bother me until I realized the voices talking in the loo belonged to others who couldn't tell in which direction the urinal was either. At that point I figured I'd rather hold it in then risk having my leg mistaken for a ceramic appliance.

I also must confess I didn't know I had surpluse bodily effluvia. I always thought an effluvia was part of the female anatomy. But then I have no experience in that department. Of course I guess I don't have experience as being a gay person according to Chappel either.

No fisting and definetly no scats. I don't know what "mud sports" is and never heard of the term. I'm not into water sports but then I've never been athletic. My dictionary doesn't tell me what a coprophagia is so I can't deny it catetgorially since I haven't the slights idea what it is. It sounds Egyptian to me. Micturation is another practice of which I am woefully unaware. Mr. Chappel on the other hand seems quite the expert on bizarre practices which I have never heard of. (Do you think I was missing something?

I was once an evangelical gay myself but now I'm an atheist. I also found it unnecessary to "sell homosexuality" since there is no shortage of people wanting free samples. Good thing he quotes such Far Right religionists like Joe Sobran -- a source unusual for Objectivist wisdom to say the least.

I do know that Mr. Chappel seems woefully uninformed on the bulk of ideas regarding the evolution of human sexuality. But that's his privilege. After all his expertise in fetishes and weird sexual practices no doubt makes up for it.

Jim Peron

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 16

Tuesday, June 4, 2002 - 2:25pm
I would like to add a comment for Matt. I highly recommend the Evolution of Human Sexuality by Symonds if you can find it.

When one is talking about gay male behaviour (in broad general terms) you should ask yourself if you are talking about gay behaviour or about male behaviour. Men have more sex than women. Straight men are more likely to cheat on their wives then straight women are likely to chear on their husbands.

GGay couples tend to have more sex than straight couples who tend to have more sex than lesbian couples. Why? Because men tend to have more sex than women for biological reasons. Thus a male/male couple will have more sex since both partners are male and a lesbian couple will tend to have less because both are female. And heterosexuals will fall inbetween since they are mixed.

Straight men would certainly act more like gay men if they had an easier time convincing women to cooperate.

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 17

Tuesday, June 4, 2002 - 8:06pm
I wanted to continue the discussion of Objectivism and homosexuals, but I think it preferable to speak from now on of "gays" rather than "homosexuals" simply because the word "homosexual" only emphasizes one single attribute of the entire experience. We are "gay" in the sense that we share certain aspects of our life experience which other people can identify with. The term gay has been used to describe people who are not exclusively "homosexual", but "homosexual" or "homosexuality" is almost always used in reference to the clinical or scientific description of the kinds of sexual behavior in which we engage. This is by no means an exhaustive definition of "gay", and I am painfully aware of the many ways in which the word can be misused. I nevertheless object to the term "homosexual" on the grounds that people like Mr. Chapple can be comfortable in referring to "homosexuals" as sexual perverts, and have the full force of clinical history on his side. My references to poor Mr. Chapple in the light of Nazism were not altogether nice, but I wished to emphasize that this particular "style" of thinking was characteristic of the Weimar period in Germany and grew dangerously popular as the Nazi's came to power. Notice how he equivocates and doesn't seem to distinguish between "gay" and "homosexual". I think that gay is a better term because in the discussion of Objectivism it leads Objectivists and neo-Objectivist to be more precise about the subject matter. There are more aspects to gay life than he seems to want to acknowledge, and this is also characteristic, I think of the Objectivists in general.

I previously mentioned that gay must be understood contextually. I actually said diachronically, referring to the way in which gay relationships have evolved through the centuries. In ancient Greece there was no concept of "homosexuality" or "gay". Males who engaged in sexual acts with one another were referred to in various ways. I would refer anyone interested in the topic to Dover's classic work Greek Homosexuality. It is an objective study not to be missed. One of the topics discussed there is Aristotle's writing on "homosexuality". Again Dover's book was written before the rise of "gay" activism, so he refers to it in the clinical sense I mentioned earlier. Apparently,in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores the difference between those pleasures that are a result of natural inclination and those, which grow by way of habituation to become as it were of second nature. Throughout there is not to be found any explicit condemnation of homosexuality, neither is there the faintest hint that such topics should be considered in the light of morality.

We may move on to speak of the "same-sex marriages" John Boswell discovered among the Romans, the Byzantines, and the Europeans of the Middle Ages. Incidentally, it was Boswell who in his research opted for the term "gay" because he saw the enormous variety and difference that was an essential characteristic of the gay experience through the passage of time. I don't mean to bore those who are not interested in the history of gays, but I think I have made my point that the term itself is much more expandable as well as flexible.

In the light of the discussion of how gays are treated by Objectivists,like Sciabarra, I find it curious, that they cannot discuss such a topic without fomenting or describing it exclusively in terms of "irrationality". In the history of psychology there has been a gradual evolution from the exclusive treatment of "homosexuality" as a perversion, to a more objective view of it as a full life experience. Alot of this has come from Jungian psychology. Although many Objectivists probably would not read Carl Jung, his earliest ideas about homosexuality are exactly the same as those N. Branden held in The Psychology of Romantic Love (1980). Both originally held that "homosexuality" was the result of a "blockage on the pathway to full maturity" (Branden, 94) or an "underdevelopment of character” (Jung). Both gradually shifted their stance on it as they matured as psychologists. Peikoff decribes Jung as "burrowed in the subconscious" (The Ominous Parallels), but I find the the most ominous parallel to be Peikoff's amazing similarity with the early Jung. Unfortunately Peikoff did not evolve over time but remained entrenched in dogmatism.

Rand also seemed to want to trap the "homosexual" in her net of Dionysian recklessness. This is a fatal error. It has tended to force Objectivist homosexuals toward psychological inversion and prevented transformation through her philosophy. Indeed transformation is the goal she desires for each of her Objectivists. Her novels, when read, transform the reader psychologically and culturally regardless of the individual's sexuality.

Can anyone write why they may object to the use of the term gay, and prefer homosexual after what I have written? I am interested in opinions because if we wish to fight against the oppression of gays within Objectivism, we need to define our terms, and stake our grounds.

Trinity

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 18

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 4:06am
Just a little note on what Russ said about his dog humping the cat.

Your dog humping the cat does not mean that your dog is a catosexual. It only means that in absence of other dogs with whom to form a pack, your dog percieves the cats as part of his pack. But since cats are not pack animals and fiercley independent they are not likely to subject to your dog. You dog humping the cat is only a way of the dog trying to be "top dog" and subjecting the cat. The fact that he only does it to one cat would suggest that this one is more resistant to his assumed leadership of the pack.

Another example would be our own dogs. My mother has 2, one male one female and my brother has 2 as well, again one male and one female. Now, my brother's male dog is a huge Doberman who mounts his "bitch" when ever he can (she is sterilised). Yet when the Dobe and my mother's much smaller Pointer get together it's either a really ugly fight or the Dobe mounting the Pointer. The Dobe is not homosexual or bisexual. This behaviour never happens with dogs we might meet on our daily walks and whom he wouldn't consider part of his pack. It is purely wanting to be "top dog" in his own family. That is also why so many dogs hump the legs of their owners. You will never see this happening with a dog who clearly accepts its human as its leader.

Again, that your dog shows no interest in breeding with other dogs does not mean he is a catosexual. It only means he never learnt to interact with other dogs.

Trinity

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 19

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 4:16am
Actually as an afterthought, the cat who allows your dog to hump her/him probably is LESS resistant to his aspirations of leadership. Cause a cat usually would just slap a dog for trying such a thing. Mine certainly would with our dogs and they are both careful of her claws as it is, as they seem to come out as soon as they even look in her direction.



Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 20

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 12:37pm 
Hey Guys, is this discussion about gays in Objectivism or am I wrong? I don't really care whose dog gets the most pussy. I don't mean to sound rude, but gays in Objectivism is an issue that is very much in need of discussion. Chris Sciabarra has highlighted some very crucial issues that may be explored further. In Total Freedom, Sciabarra discusses Rothbard's embrace of cultural conservatism, which I think marks alot of what happens within Objectivism as well. If I am correct in my assessment of Sciabarra's outline for what he calls "Liberty plus", his dialectical libertarianism is primarily a methodological approach and an essential tool for critical thinking about "freedom" and "dialectics". What we are engaging in on this site is more than a discussion of cats and dogs. It is about Objectivists and gays, and I for one, am ready to pull my claws out and go at them.

I wanted to respond to Mr. Chapstick's assertion that "Male homosexuality could aptly be described as a pathological sexual addiction, one predicated upon youth, physical beauty, fleeting sexual encounters and always looking around for the next bit of fresh meat." Is he horny or what?Aside from the poor sentence structure, there is an unspoken animosity about beautiful things: 1) youth, 2) physical beauty, 3) sexual encounters, and 4) fresh meat. Notice how Mr. Chapple seems to want to protect these things from a certain something, or a certain someone. Witness that this is how cultural conservatism operates. It is a deliberate and calculated appeal to FEAR. He wants to promote fear in the minds of gays and in the minds of those who are attempting to discuss such topics rationally.

There is nothing rational about fear, with the exception of the case for its role in survival. Fear stagnates the mind. I can see it operating within Objectivism. Ronald Merrill, Barbara Branden, Sciabarra, Tucille, and Jeff Walker, have all described the many ways that Objectivists have been know to terrorize each other. The fear I read on every page of David Kelley's "Truth and Toleration" is the recorded struggle of a brave man fighting off the irrationality in Objectivism. Kelley deserves an award for his COURAGE. Sciabarra's detailed struggle to promote real scholarship on the life of Ayn Rand is another battle against the irrationality of Peikoff.

Objectivists have been known to put people on trial. There is nothing that gays loathe more than being judged for something they don't want or need to justify: their sexuality. As Chapple so ably commented before he started contradicting himself: "Gay objectivists seem to be obssessed with sexual self-justification when it is something that shouldn't be a factor for any objectivist." Of course he meant that no Objectivist should be gay. So why do we need this site then? I congratulate this site because it promotes COURAGE. It is wonderful that we can be proud of our FREEDOM to discuss OUR differences and OUR similarities with Objectivism. Earlier I mentioned that I would not call gays "homosexuals", in keeping, I will not call myself an Objectivist or a Randian either. I guess while on this I will be a Perigonian, in honor of our Oscar Wilde loving deliciously entertaining host. I also relish the abundant presence of males on this site: "It's raining men Hallelujah!" Oh, Trinity, are you male or female, or all three in one? By this time I think Mr. Chapple has gone back to the chapel, so we may continue to be as secular as we like.

Trinity

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 21

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 1:16pm
I am very female. And the comments about cats and dogs was very much in keeping with this thread on homosexuality. Homosexuality was compared to one guy's dog apparently fancying the cat cause he wouldn't breed with dogs proposed to him yet tried to hump the cat. The person compared his dog weird behaviour to that of homosexuals. Although I am straight that comparison irked me. Hence my little note on how what the dog did had nothing at all to do with sexuality.

I am sorry if my being female and straight makes me less welcome on this thread. But I also think that many gay people "ghettoise" themselves by making their gayness into an issue where and when, to me at least, it isn't.

If being Objectivist means to be an individualist and to recognise one's human nature, then whether the individual's nature is hetero, bi or homosexual, it would be UN-objective to not stand by that.

Trinity

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 22

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 4:00pm
Absolutely Trinity, I agree with you on the ghetto mentality of many gays. If I said anything to offend you I apologize right away, that was not my intention. Actually my intention is to provoke thought and reaction. I want to get people stirred up. Sometimes, like Socrates (a slightly older gay) you have to be a gadfly and accept the fact that others might take offense.

I actually think you have a beautiful name, unlike mine, and YES of course straight females are most welcome here. I can't fathom how bleak and empty this world would be without females. The only one to be 86ed so far was Chapple:) As you can probably see from the thread most of the males here seem to object to any kind of pigeon-holing and prefer to be considered first as individuals. The fact that we happen to be gay indeed does not define us BUT we still have to encounter society. In this case that social context is Objectivism and the context of Sciabarra's discussion is the way Objectivists perceive homosexuals. My argument previously was that because of the cultural conservatism that is characteristic of many "hardcore" Objectivists, the tendancy is to perceive gay life in terms of sexuality alone. They do not entertain the thought that gay people have made enormous contributions to American and international culture throughout history. Rand defined culture as the sum of individual contributions. She probably would not have countenanced anything like "gay culture" because she seemed to think such movements might ossify into traditions and not yield much benefit. I agree. I think that Rothbard was also right in his belief that institutions tend to become problematic when they gain political power.

I certainly wouldn't want to see Objectivists of the ARI type gaining political power. Those Objectivists in my opinion display too much of the "follow the leader" type of attitude. Peikoff recently stated that his solution to the "arab" problem should be to blow up Iran, the seat of Shiite culture. I shudder to think that Peikoff also despises gay culture, and can only imagine what he would offer up as the Final Solution.

How can Rand in the interest of art praise Michelangelo as a great sculptor, and then call gays irrational. It just doesn't make sense. Isn't that a fact/value conflict? My answer: she probably didn't realize that Michelangelo was gay. I wonder what she would have thought of Aristotle if she were to find out that he enjoyed an occasional side of "fresh meat". What would she have done if upon visiting a museum she drew close to a Grecian Urn and found Aristotle chasing a little Attic boy through the woods.:) Uh-oh

Trinity, there is also a rational explanation for why gays started moving to ghettoes like Castro in San Francisco. They were being persecuted by Americans and felt like being around people who were like themselves. The first time I went to San Francisco I didn't even want to go to Castro myself. I stayed at the St. Francis because I wanted to see where Oscar Wilde took tea. I don't like ghettoes per se but it is really amazing what you can find on an occasional stroll through the souk.

As I said before I do think that there is something more to being gay than "homosexuality". I think there is more to Objectivism than cultural conservatism. What else could have prompted Sciabarra to like Rattigan or Lindsay Perigo to enjoy Oscar Wilde? (Sorry guys) I am not saying that they chose them because of sexual reasons but I am speculating that there is something appealing about being fond of a great artist and knowing that they are also gay, if you share that. Does that make sense?

Trinity

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 23

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 5:35pm
I too love Oscar and I went especially to see his grave at Père Lachaise in Paris.

I can understand what you are saying about gay people flocking together at Castro. But I think you are doing an artist injustice if you like him better cause he is/was gay.

I like to joke about my typical female behaviour too at times. Such as hating my bum and always worrying about my weight. But deep down I KNOW that this is ME. I am not that way because I am a woman but because I am me. I would find it downright odd if I therefore preferred women artists on the basis that they too worry about the size of their bum and the numbers on their scales. It would somehow diminish their work.

It could be argued that gay men have a more feminine side to them than hetero males. I don't know if it is true or if that is generalising. My gay friends have certainly more style and savoir vivre than any of my straight male friends. But the reason why I admire them is because they are simply people with style and savoir vivre. What ever softer and more nurturing side they have they attribute to their character rather than their sexual orientation. This strikes me as right and good.

And in that vein I think great artists are human beings with a talent for art and not gay artists.
I know how frightening peer pressure can be since I lived through it as a teenager. But now I am grown up and I will not bend to it. And neither should people who happen to be gay and who have discovered the great gift that is objectivity. You are A Man, A Human Being. You happen to like the same gender over the opposite. You are not A Homosexual or A Gay Man. Do not help intolerant and narrow minded people diminish your humanity by identifying chiefly with other gay men rather than just with humanity itself.

All the best,
Trin

Cameron Pritchard

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 24

Wednesday, June 5, 2002 - 11:10pm
Anthony's posts have been a joy to read. Yes, cultural conservatism is alive and well in the Objectivist and libertarian movements. If Objectivism is to be a radical philosophic movement it must utterly purge conservatism out. And here's one place to start: that pinnacle of conservatism, the idea of "family values". Family values are no more than a smokescreen for authority-worship, tradition-worship and collectivism. They teach that the family (that is, a certain kind of family – the nuclear one) is the basic unit of society and that society and the state ought to protect it. So the heterosexual "norm" attains legal privilege (and still has it - why won't the state recognise gay marriages?). Further, they are a product of a cultural context in which a very historically specific social arrangement (monogamous, life-long marital relationships) are termed "normal" and anything else is still widely seen as perverted or at least not matching that ideal. This is despite the fact that the heterosexual marriage ("till death do we part") and its resultant sexual behaviour is quite aberrant if we look at the behaviour of the rest of the animal kingdom (as the homophobes love to do). Why are life-long relationships considered the ideal? People grow and evolve in stages throughout their lives. People change. The person who is right for you today is unlikely to be so ten years down the track. And so there's nothing wrong with couples enjoying time together at that stage in their lives when they're right for each other, and then moving on later. The fact that gays tend to recognise this (and increasingly straights too) and move on from relationships when their needs are no longer being met is a very good thing. It's actually more natural, healthier and recognises that relationships are means to an end: individual happiness. They are not something we're duty-bound to prolong in the name of procreation or service to society.

I am anti-family values. I'm not anti-families. What the family values conservatives call families is a very specific form. I come from a so-called "broken home" (note the pejorative adjective there - what's broken about it?) and have a large "extended family" and was always given the utmost love. Gays are part of families. We're not seeking to undermine them. What I *am* seeking to undermine, and what I think all Objectivists should join me in challenging (but too often don't), is the unchallenged supremacy of "family values" - a fundamentally religious and conservative notion employed by both right and left for electoral gain and social control.

Trinity

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 25

Thursday, June 6, 2002 - 8:26am
I am not sure I can agree with you on all this. First of all there are several types of animals who mate for life and secondly I believe that love is not or should not be just about my needs being met at one point or not. That is a big part of it, granted. But I do also see loyalty and mutual support as such a part. Loving someone to me means to make them part of what I call my family of the heart.

My natural family and I have had our differences but there is no doubt in my mind that they are of value for the rest of my life and that I will do my utmost to hold on to the relationship I enjoy with them. Maybe I am lucky with the people who make up my family or maybe I just recognise that they are worth trying to work through differences.

The same goes to the family of my heart. Maybe what I "get out of them" is more at one point of my life than at the next. But this does not mean that I then suddenly would consider them not worth the effort to work through things. Of course it can happen that at one point the differences become so big that all you sanely have left is "to divorce" them. But I could never reach that decision lightly and without putting effort into the situation at first. I am loyal to my affections and could never forget what character factors drew me to that person in the first place.

So call me a conservative if you like but when it comes to romantic love I would see the man of My Choice even more worth an effort than anyone else in my life whom I could not choose (as much).

Marriage vows to me mean that this man has become so dear and important to me that I want to promise to try my best to share myself with him, do my best to support him, have his best interest as much at heart as my own and that I will not only nourish and support him in his efforts but that I will try my best to do so even when times get tough. In return I expect the same promises from him of course. I do not expect a promise of "forever" but I expect the promise to try because I seem worth it to them.

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 26

Thursday, June 6, 2002 - 11:39am
Cameron I agree with you that "family values" is a knotty issue. It is a real onus to gay men who find themselves negatively protrayed in the pages of "conservative" or "neo-conservative" virtue-value criticism. I have in mind specifically the "neo-conservative" Gertrude Himmelfarb (wife of Irving Kristoll-nacht) whose book about the degeneration of morality is loathesome stagnation on every page. In my opinion she makes a mockery of the word virtue when she tries to tie it in with "family values".

Trinity, notice Cameron does not berate the concept of the family unit. It is specifically the tendency to attach the concept of virtue, or value, with the tribal unit. That, to be frank, is utterly appalling, and it smells rank with musky ethnicity and "Muscular Christianity". There is no sense in removing the focus of value from reason (or rationality) and placing it on a concrete such as the bloodline or a bad relationship that "shoulda coulda worked". That is what characterizes the proponents of the anti-conceptual "family-values". They are patriarchal, authoritarian, statist-elitist snobs who want to dictate morality from the papal throne. Like the Moonies, they want a sea of marriages. YUK. As a boy I remember seeing a picture of a Sun Yung Moon mass marriage madness in Manhattan. Three billion beautiful blonde brides dressed in white, three billion gorgeous grooms dressed in black. They all press into a 30 x 40 conference hall in some dismal 3* hotel in lower Manhattan. For the advocates of "family-values" it is quantity over quality. As an iconoclast I would smash their tower of Babel wedding cake, jump on the Reception table, strip down to my g-string and go at it.:) Yuk the Moonies. White weddings are for Victorian Anglicans.

I agree with Rand in her assertion that, "value is that which one acts to gain and keep, virtue is the action by which one gains and keeps it". (Braunschweiger, Oops Harry Binswanger's AR Lexicon:521:)) Marry values with reason and your mind will soon be orderly and healthy. If tradition may be likened to a garden, I say cull the lilies and roses, then burn the weeds and chaff. Cameron is showing his true colors as a follower of Rand's philosophy. It is to her benefit that she thought far ahead of her time on these issues. I think if she were still around she would be out with us guys. I certainly would hold her dollar broached fur coat while she boogies on the dance floor.:)

For what I just said I shall certainly burn in an ARI Objectivist hell. Their conservative approach is neutral and effete in my opinion. I do think that Objectivism increases libido and makes one hot and horny not meek and mild. Incidentally, to quote Dante: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of crisis maintain their neutrality."

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 27

Friday, June 7, 2002 - 6:40pm
Trinity:

I've not been keeping up to date with this discussion. I thought it ended on May 10th, hehe. I believe you missed what I was saying. I was not saying that my dog was 'catosexual' or whatever, I was simply saying that my dog was attracted to cats, which is true. You are probably right that my dog hasn't learned to interact with other dogs, and I pretty much implied that in my discussion with Joe on sexual attraction. The fact is that my dog has a sexual attraction to cats, and other things.

If you follow the discussion you will see that
we were discussion sexual attraction, and how it relates to 'nature,' or volition; whether sexual attraction is defaulted upon birth, or is a consequence of choices--for an animal, the available environment would be the prime factor. You touch upon this subject with the statement: "If being Objectivist means to be an individualist and to recognise one's human nature, then whether the individual's nature is hetero, bi or homosexual, it would be UN-objective to not stand by that." By this statement you take the 'nature' stance; however, this is a contradiction of something you previously said: "Again, that your dog shows no interest in breeding with other dogs does not mean he is a catosexual. It only means he never learnt to interact with other dogs." You ought to be able to observe the contradiction. First you say that the dog has never been exposed to the right environment, and therefore cannot act on its instinct to mate with a dog; I'm sure if exposed long enough though, something might happen. Then you say that the dogs genetics should have automatically determined the dogs sexual attraction, despite never being exposed to the said environment.

*btw, I was not trying say that homosexual men act like the dog in my example, as you seem to think I was doing. I was using an example of a lower lifeform in which actions are based on animal instinct, and genetics. One can assume that if sexual orientation were determined via genetics, then an animal such as a dog should not act contra, and there could possibly be a problem in getting a *homosexual gene* via natural selection.


With that said, I'll say again that I see no reason why Objectivists should have a problem with homosexuals as long as they participate in romantic relationships. If anyone has a reason, feel free to share it.


Russ.

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 28

Friday, June 7, 2002 - 6:44pm
Anthony:

Yes this discussion is about Objectivism and homosexuality. Sexual attraction has very much to do with sexuality. Wouldn't you say?

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 29

Friday, June 7, 2002 - 7:23pm
Anthony:

I would like you to share with me what this cultural conservatism "hardcore?" Objectivists have is. What is it? I like to look clean an nice, am I culturally conservative? Yes Objectivists tend to look at gay life as it relates to sexuality. Why? Because gay life IS sexuality. No, most Objectivists don't entertain the thought that gay people have made enormous contributions to American and international culture throughout history. Why? Because an Objectivist shouldn't balkanize success in the manner in which you speak.

Also, why did you, out of ignorance, grill me on my posts on sexual attraction, and then show your ignorance about Leonard Peikoff by bringing up distorted statements on the war on terrorism, which has nothing to do with homosexuality?

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 30

Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 2:33am
Russ thank you for offering me the privilege to respond to a few of your questions. Those addressed specifically to me would include the following:

1. Doesn't attraction have very much to do with sexuality?

I don't remember ever having said that attraction did not have anything to do with sexuality, I merely stated that I myself am not interested in the humping habits of the lower species. Neither do I think that it relates directly to the questions regarding the way in which, if I may be so bold, culturally conservative Objectivists alienate gay people. As you see I said "It's raining men, Hallelujah", and not "It's raining cats and dogs, or bombshells."

2. You would like me to share with you what it is that I personally perceive as cultural conservatism (hardcore) within Objectivism.

Ah, again this touchy prickly subject. Russ no one wants to be considered culturally conservative. That is why they grab their hat and coat and head quickly for the door when they realize that those around them are not. That is precisely what Mr. Chapple did, and I think he is a cultural conservative, and rightly headed for the door. You on the other hand, I suspect, are merely aggressive and not culturally conservative. But I am being unfair because I have not said what it is yet.

In The Objectivist Newsletter, Rand stated that "Objectivists are not "conservatives". We are radicals for capitalism..." (AR Lexicon: 95)In order to define conservative we must first define radical. Rand tried to do so, albeit not exhaustively. I suspect she was too busy living it. She did however state that "radical" means "fundamental" by which she meant "moralist" and as you know her concept of morality refers specifically to rationality. My advice to you, does not issue from the mouth of REASON, or from the godess of rationality, whomever you may think that is, but from common sense: "El que vive en casa de vidrio no debe tirar piedras" (Cervantes), or "He who lives in a house of glass should not throw stones"...to be more specific, if that is what you require for your libido to function, THINK RATIONALLLY FOR THE FIRST TIME. Look outside of yourself Russ there is a whole world of people, will you value life objectively, or will you confine yourself to judgment ex temporae or ex cathedrae. That would be, intrinsicism. It is your choice, make it.I think I have made my point abundantly clear.

3. Are you (Russ) culturally conservative because you like to look clean?

No Russ, no more than a gay man might be considered irrational, or immoral, or disgusting, because he is clean, attractive, well-dressed and successful. That is precisely my point, being clean does not mean that you are not also culturally conservative. I draw your particularly inconsequent attention or dis-attention to what we in the USA call "Log Cabin Republicans", of whom I suspect you know nothing at all. They are gays who cling to conservative ideas and embrace among others, AYN RAND!! Drawing from your personal hygiene avoids the question of cultural conservatism altogether. Try to go at something larger than what you personally presume important.

I will infer the rest of your questions to be:

4. Isn't gay life mostly or primarily about sexuality?

Absolutely not!!! We gays, are not primarily sexual creatures, no more than my mother and father. Unfortunately,in your infinite and highly PERSONAL wisdom we seem to prefer rather dog-like or canine behaviour, since that is the only reference in which you can speak. You, unfortunately, are not objective or polite by any sense of either term. You seem to think that reality, unlike what Ayn Rand confirmed, exists in Russ. Maybe you subscribe to some other reality, it is certainly not objective or empirical.

5. Why should Objectivists celebrate the cultural contributions of gay people, wouldn't this be balkanizing success?

Balkanization refers to the former Yugoslavia, which unfortunately does not even begin to describe the ways in which you portray it. Context has some reference here. Maybe you should stop using Ayn Rand's terminology and acquire some of your own. Maybe you might say, and I hate to give my opponent a hint, "I use Rand verbatim because I cannot think outside of the context in which she spoke", that, my dear, is cultural conservatism. It is the inimitigable, unpardonable crime of using the ideas of others to further ones own success.

6. What has Leonard Peikoff's attitude toward the war on terrorism have to do with homosexuality?

I think the context of my argument shows that clearly enough. In the interest of politeness I apologize if what I have said gives particular offense to anyone, and will therefore say no more of my opinions regarding Mr. Peikoff. If you wish to know in what way I think Mr. Peikoff's opinions on homosexuality relate to other opinions he holds on terrorism I would be glad to do so, but this will not occur on this site. In keeping with my prior congratulatory remarks about the COURAGE that this site promotes, I see quite clearly that not all of its participants encourage boldness, to say nothing of rationality. My private opinions about the subject in question will no longer appear here.

KG

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 31

Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 5:42pm
Anthony,

Excuse me for the tangent, but why is ‘Balkanization’ exclusively a Rand term? I’ve seen it used a lot outside of Rand.

Kernon

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 32

Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 7:22pm
Kernon I'm beginning to think that all of the tangents are my own:) You are quite right that many people use the term "Balknization" to describe different phenomena (Oops that may be classed as PURE KANTIAN terminology):) At least Trinity had a different term for gay socialization. She said, quite correctly mind you, "many gay people "ghettoise" themselves ".

To balkanize, according to Webster's dictionary, (finally quoting something other than the Ayn Rand Lexicon) :) is "to break up (as a region) into smaller and often hostile units." We might think that Balkanization refers to this political meaning. Rand's much cited and much quoted essay "Global Balkanization" refers to this term in order to describe something other than its original political context. She broadens the definition to include all sorts of activities that people do in social situations. She mentions the glorification of ethnicity as one example. She said "if you see one group of people jumping up and down and clapping their hands, you have seen them all." I think alot of field anthropologists would have smiled at that bit of wit.

Now the fact that I said that many Objectivists refuse to credit gays for successes they have achieved in the advancement of civilization suddenly launched Mr. Russ on a tirade. He seems to hold the opinion that if I were to say "X person, a wealthy and highly successful woman or man happens to be gay", I am suddenly "Balkanizing success", which, by the way, we Objectivists SHOULD NOT DO. But again, I do not think that I was doing that, and in keeping with what I said in a previous post, I am not an Objectivist but a "Perigonian", from the Isle of Perigo, where we quote Oscar Wilde out of context, because we can.:) I also previously stated to Trinity that I did not especially like gay ghettoes. I did give a rational explanation for why many gay males make the Hadj to Mecca and never come back. I said also that an occasional stroll in a souk can be a delightful experience. Now I suppose somebody will tell me that I think all gays are Arabs, and build a theory on that "plethora of ignorances".

Regretfully I will not be keeping up with the site as much in the next few weeks as I am moving to NY. No, I am not going to move to Christopher St. in Greenwich Village and balkanize or ghettoize myself! :) I will be in Long Island. I should hope not to be burned in effigy during my absence:) And yes, I do have an affinity for little yellow smiley faces.

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 33

Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 8:48pm
Oh, I forgot to say, I am flying Aero Chihuahua with Sra. Martinez for protection, and I shall have my laptop with me just in case any of you decide to get saucy.:)

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 34

Saturday, June 8, 2002 - 10:56pm
Anthony:

Quite a lot of typing. It's unfortunate that you didn't have much to say. I don't plan on getting in a cursing, or name calling match as I can find more important things to do. I will point out though, that you did not elaborate how Objectivists are culturally conservative, and that breaking up success into race, class, gender, or sexual orientation is 'balkanization' no matter how you cut it.

**btw, I've never read "Global Balkanization." For someone who is so deeply devoted to reality and empirical evidence, you sure know how to make unjustified remarks on my character and intellectual integrity.

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 35

Sunday, June 9, 2002 - 12:24am
Oh, I forgot to say, I am flying Aero Chihuahua with Sra. Martinez for protection, and I shall have my laptop with me just in case any of you decide to get saucy.:)

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 36

Sunday, June 9, 2002 - 10:16am
First you speak of my ignorance, never substantiate anything you say, and then tell me you have better things to do. Like what? Like grab your hat and coat and run for the nearest exit?
For the most part you’re incorrigible one, might I add, "saucy"- I will not omit sassy. You’re just the sort that is so able to recognize that the categories you mention: race, class, gender and sexual orientation, in fact are somehow significant to you although you previously stated that they were inconsequential. Might I add, typing is not a bad thing, Rand seems to have done quite a bit of it herself. How unfortunate that your lack of typing has even less to say.

Why don't you then, find better things to do, such as, might I suggest, find a way to spread Objectivism to the gay community. That, by the way, is the challenge that Sciabarra's work implies. If, as you say, gays are all about sex, and have little or no ability to be rational or volitional, then I can see why you might scurry off. Oh, but you came back again to post. Why?

You have not once answered a single question I have posed. And yet, in your inflated egoistic way, you continue to compel me to answer your own nagging questions.

I never said that YOU had integrity. Yet you seem to infer it from what I have "typed":) Notice how, in my voluminous posts I quote references while you only shoot from the hip. No, I have never said you have integrity, neither have I said that you lack such a quality. Instead I have said that you seem to think that because you are clean, and by the way, I have not smelled you, but you think that I have implied that you are culturally conservative. Well if you are as humorless, colorless, and odorless as your writing, then I don’t think I should taken any notice of you at all. Now I will go on to clear up that mess I created by my statement that cultural conservatism exists, indeed plagues Objectivism.

I have my own horror file. I think “hardcore” Objectivists, in general, give off bad vibes. I live in Arizona where there are quite a few Objectivists. This happens to be what Americans call a “conservative” state. The Objectivists in Arizona tend, on the whole, to adopt the same priggishness; I wouldn’t even call that morality. I have been to several different groups, but on one occasion I took a friend to a meeting and they made fillet mignon out of her. I had to hear her comments about “the way they treated me” all the way home. She didn’t even share the cab fare. After that dreadful experience I will never take anyone to an Objectivist meeting again, unless, of course, the meeting is about Objectivism and not conducted by Objectivists.

I think Objectivists rather reflect Rand’s own tendency to define culture by what it is not. They do the same for art. If you want me to be clearer, I mean they tend to say “culture” is NOT this, and it’s NOT that, and so on down the list. Furthermore, they have a tendency to copy one another. If the high priest of Objectivism decides that this month we will honor Rostand, Schiller, Victor Hugo, and teedle-wink music, then that is what everybody does.

Can you elaborate on your previous comment “ I can see how most of the homosexual culture is contra to Objectivism.”? Are you attempting to balkanize on our failures without mentioning our succeses?

Cheers

Trinity

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 37

Monday, June 10, 2002 - 11:29am
Well Russ, cato-sexual was an invented word of mine, I do apologise if the meaning was not as clear as I assumed. I thought it fits a dog that you say is sexually attracted to cats.

And as far as my comment on your dog's lack of interaction with other dogs goes, no, there is no contradiction that I can see. After all, if you never had any interactions with other humans you might not know how to approach them either- presuming your lack of social skills wouldn't just make you jump on the first female you see.

Plus, dogs are pack animals and live their life according to a sort of hierarchy just like wolves do. If a dog never knew other dogs he might well have a difficult time to know where in the hierarchy of dog-life he might feature cause that is usually determined through puppy play.

And yes I WOULD say that any type of animal (including humans) has a gene that would make him or her attracted to only their own species and that this does not fall under volition. (I would venture to say that Catherine the Great was not so much an exception to the rule as just really sick!) But if you really think that an attraction between the different species of animals (including humans) is down to volition, then go out and see if you could fancy that pretty orang-utan lady at your local zoo.

As for your last comment, I think it is a shame for anyone not to seek true romance over just sex. No matter if they are gay or heterosexual. Hypocritically enough though you hardly ever hear such outrage over a promiscuous hetero male as you do over a gay males.

I suspect that many homophobes dance around the issue that is really making them uncomfortable about gay sex, which is sexual practises. Many of these same homophobic males though would not think twice about suggesting that same practice towards their girlfriends or wives. (And just in case any of you do not know what I am talking about I shall say it now: anal sex.) Which makes me think the issue really is that those homophobes think how horrible it would be to be on the "receiving end". So would that mean it's ok if it's a woman who uhm... "gets it" but not if it's a man? And if so, why and why not?

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 38

Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 2:13pm
Meaningful discussion on this forum about ending the irrationality of homophobia throughout the Objectivist movement has indeed ended as I thought. It's time to grab my hat and coat, and run for the nearest exit.

RussK

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 39

Tuesday, June 11, 2002 - 10:50pm
Meaningful discussion on this forum about ending the irrationality of homophobia throughout the Objectivist movement has indeed ended as I thought. It's time to grab my hat and coat, and run for the nearest exit.



Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 40

Wednesday, June 12, 2002 - 10:45am
Thank you Russ. I still think there is meaningful discussion here. I was just about to make another argument, this time for the "subversive" role Objectivists may have within academics, specifically with regard to Queer Theory. Although for the most part, Queer Theory seems to be emphasizing "differences" that exist as they relate to human experience, there is a way in which Objectivists can contribute to the forum. One of the strongest arguments that Queer Theorists make is that the "traditional canon" excludes writers from different backgrounds. Rand is a victim of this exclusion. Why is she not included in the canon? Perhaps because she goes against the grain. Her blasting of such anti-concepts as "tradition" and "family-values" along with a list of other items, would make her a radical not a traditionalist.

I recently had the opportunity to take a course on the Victorian novel in which we discussed, among others, George Eliot. Someone wrote a post on the electronic Webboard, about similarities between Rand and Eliot to which the participants responded with scathing remarks about Objectivism. Someone out of ignorance, actually posted that she was an "eighteenth century rationalist philosopher" :) Mind you the same people who refuse to discuss Ayn Rand are willing to discuss Lacan, Foucault, and Derrida!!

Why? Rand like these others was strongly anti-traditional, anti-conservative, and equally political. I think the problem lies in the fact that her followers, for the most part have refused to comment on the application of Objectivism to literature for FEAR of being ostracized. I am by no means ignorant of the many Objectivists who have and continue to apply Objectivism to academic questions (I have in mind Mimi Gladstein, Sciabarra, Cox, Khamy and Torres, among others), nevertheless those who do so openly and courageously, encounter the cultural conservatism of many Objectivists as well as the frigidity of the academy.

Now can you imagine what a GAY OBJECTIVIST might say about the canon? Can you imagine what a traditionalist or a student of deconstruction might say about a Gay Objectivist? My opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that Objectivism should clear a space within the "movement" for discussion of gay experience, after all it does exist. If Objectivists were to univocally embrace GAYS, they would probably attract a huge following within the academic world, and THAT would be subversive. Objectivism can provide gay people with the tools that are necessary for reforming the academic world from within. But Objectivism cannot ossify into an institution, a tradition, or a cult. It must remain fluid, promote open discussion, and allow for difference.

Sorry so long-winded. Care to comment?

==
Objectivism and Homosexuality, Part 4 in a Series - Discussion

Lona

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 0

Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 11:12pm
“The growing signs of change…” could that be? Did I not, just ten years ago, have an ashtray on every table? (For those too young to know, this was a small dish with cigarette shaped rests in which to place ashes and cigarette butts. These were sold in every store.) And now do I not open the door for the offending addict, through rain, sleet or heat of sun, and boot him out to smoke alone and friendless. The smoke bothered me not when I sat with six friends who were all ‘lit’ up. Now, ten years later, I can’t bear the smell on someone’s clothes. What could have changed the majority’s (my) attitude from full ‘arms out’ acceptance to narrow ‘boot out the door’ intolerance? Good question, and can the same be used to change the majority view, of homosexuality as a perversion, to sexuality as a ‘free expression’ of sex in any form?
The seventeen year old son of one of my best friends ‘came out of the closet’ a few months ago. My friend cried for weeks, not in judgment of her son, but in fear of what life would deal her ‘baby boy’, and though she never said, I believe she cried for her own lost dreams. She’s better now, though still sad, and is in the process of changing her dreams for him…one day at a time.
I believe the greatest warriors in the battle of change are the families that, brought up to be prejudiced, suddenly find themselves the parents of a retarded child, the grandparents of a child of another race, the moms of a homosexual child. These families through their own empathy take on the war. Like a mother bear, protecting her cub, these are fierce fighters. Big problem! Each fights their own individual war when the real war is huge and encompasses the whole of prejudice.
How can a homosexual that has known the backlash of prejudice still ‘hate blacks’? How can the black man look down on the homosexual? How can they both be repulsed by the mentally ill man screaming on the street corner? Why should society change their views if the oppressed become the oppressors?
Is it humanly possible to eradicate prejudice? My mind says ‘no’ but my heart says ‘yes’. One day at a time

Note: I am just a beginner as far as knowing what Objectivism is about. I had never heard of it a year ago, and now because my son is attempting to live by this philosophy, I am keeping an open mind, and taking baby steps, one day at a time.

Robert Speirs

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 1

Thursday, September 12, 2002 - 6:05am
I can't abide this division of people into "gay" and "straight". I don't feel these categories are honest. Why do people create roles for themselves? Honesty is what attracted me to Objectivism in the first place. The feeling of many Objectivists that homosexuality is, somehow, "not right" stems, I believe, from the dishonesty of homosexual role-playing, including the imitation of heterosexual romantic love, which is itself a created construct. Nowadays this insistence on the normality of homosexuality goes so far as to make demands on the government to subsidize and sanctify a form of marriage that doesn't take account of the real differences between the homosexual and heterosexual life as practiced today.

In ancient Greece, homosexuality was seen as a subset of human desires, not as an identity. A man could have a wife and family and have an attachment to - usually younger - men. Today, that situation would be seen as dishonest. Just the opposite, I believe, is true. Until people stop pretending that homosexuality is just inverted heterosexuality, suspicions will attach to any declarations of "gay" identity.

Derek McGovern

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 2

Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 9:27pm
Robert: Can you clarify what you mean by this statement:

'The feeling of Objectivists that homosexuality is, somehow, "not right" stems, I believe, from the dishonesty of homosexual role-playing, including the imitation of heterosexual romantic love, which is itself a created construct.'

What "dishonesty" are you referring to? What do you mean when you say that heterosexual romantic love is "a created construct"?

The impression I get from your comments is that you believe it is wrong for homosexuals to live together in a monogamous relationship, but OK for a married man to have a homosexual lover on the side!

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 3

Thursday, September 19, 2002 - 10:00am
Hi Derek!

I think I know what he means because I have seen this debate alot. There are many who view the Ancient Greeks as a model for modern homosexuals to imitate or to uphold. The Ancient Greeks, as Speirs correctly points out, did not have the same dichotomies we have. Notice how in the nineteenth century men like Oscar Wilde (and quite a few of his circle) called themselves "Uranians", were deeply influenced by the Greeks and were usually immersed in Hellenic Studies, i.e. Oxford. BTW: "Uranian" was one of the terms they used to describe themselves, and it was taken from the Greek God Uranus who had children without a female being involved. I mention that only to show how indebted they were to the Greek "sense of life".

Aristotle is famous for his observations on human habits, and one of special interest here is his assessment of the difference between mating habits (which is natural) and habits that are not natural (such as same-sex). HMMM Could Aristotle be the originator of the modern notion that homosexuality is not natural? Possibly, the PARTICULAR DIFFERENCE is that he did not associate any moral judgment to natural facts. IOW he did not say that because men have sex with one another (and he even described what gays recognize as "tops and bottoms") they are immoral! He said that reproduction was the more natural because it produces life. Notice Aristotle does not say that straight people are MORAL, NORMAL, or anything like that. He said that a particular kind of sex was natural in that it led to reproduction.

NOW it wasn't until much later that the descendents of Greek thought began to add moral categories to sexuality. The discourse about "nature" that the Emperor Justinian included in the new Codex outlawed homosexual practice BECAUSE it was not natural THEREFORE immoral. They had come along way from Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks, they were Christians.

The idea of romantic love is not Greek. It is an heritage of Latin tradition. Although you have Greek stories like Pyramus and Thisbe or Hero and Leander, they are not quite as intense as Romeo and Juliet. They are myths. Notice the root of "romantic" is derived from Latin. The idea that the Objectivists have (or at least N Branden had in his earlier book on Romantic Love) is that it is superior because it brings all kinds of "advanced" human capacities into a relationship, a unique bond between two people (usually male-female) and a glorification of that relation as superior and profoundly moral. The Ancient Greeks would say HOGWASH. They didn't even treat women with respect. OOH this is going to bring up all kinds of questions:) It was not until after the fall of the Roman Empire that Western culture (now I mean Northern Europe) began developing what we call "romantic love" or a meeting and mating of two souls, i.e. Abelard and Heloise. Branden would go beyond even that and really get so intense with Rand that love almost reverted back to Platonic love. Imagine that.

Finally, why SHOULD modern gay people adopt the strange customs of "romantic love" when they feel more comfortable using the pattern(s) of Ancient Greece like Eros, "Platonic love", etc.? If "romantic love" is a pattern set by and for straight marriages (notice how all of the traditional symbols include male-female never or at least rarely same-sex) why should gay people adopt such forms and concepts? And why should the form of "romantic love" be viewed as a higher species of the genus love? I am sorry I agree with my favorite Maened Camille Paglia, that is, I side with the pagans. BTW: I have Greek blood too LOL

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 4

Thursday, September 19, 2002 - 10:04am
Btw Derek I side with you on other things, and I love your articles, but I find Speirs argument in his comment intense and very provocative. Hopefully we mere mortals will one day know more about these wonderful things.

Anthony teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 5

Thursday, September 19, 2002 - 10:20am
BTWA:

Speirs, why should gay people not adopt some of the aspects of Ancient Greek love and integrate them with elements of modern "romantic love"? I do not wish for anyone to think that N Branden himself has not evolved his earlier arguments, Just for the record, I have read various forums where he has come out clearly on posts as a completely benevolent and supportive gentleman. He was at one time a major voice in Objectivism but it would not be benevolent of us to say that an Objectivist can NEVER evolve because they all bound, like Athena, directly from the head of Zeus. HMM isn't that a Greek myth?

Derek McGovern

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 6

Friday, September 20, 2002 - 1:06am
Thanks, Anthony! It'll be interesting to see whether the redoubtable Mr Spiers returns to answer our questions.

BTW, I'm most flattered that you like my articles. :-) Feel free to e-mail me if the mood takes you.

Joseph Rowlands

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 7

Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 3:12am
Anthony,

Interesting stuff. Am I right that when you talk about "platonic love" and "romantic love", you're talking about the forms of the relationships? Or are you also saying there's a difference in the emotion.

As I think anyone who's ever had a crush on someone would know, the feelings you can have for someone can be extremely intense. It tends to block out other potential relationships. The other person is constantly on your mind, and you lose your desire for other people. I don't know how long this phase can last, but this kind of intensely directed emotion is powerful stuff. I can't imagine emotions have changed since the Greeks, so I have to assume that it existed then. It seems odd that this wouldn't have SOME impact on their relationships.

In this sense, "romantic love" (if I understand your terminology right) fits in well with these kind of feelings, because the love is so personal and intense. I can't see this kind of feeling in a society of "platonic love". Maybe I'm not creative enough. Or maybe the emotion wasn't considered important? Or maybe you're using it in a very different sense then I'm aware?

Of course, when you talk about "romantic love", I get the impression you're adding a lot of baggage on that idea. Specifically, you say romantic love "is a pattern set by and for straight marriages". I can't imagine what you're referring to here, but I wonder if it's an essential? Sounds almost like saying Capitalism is whatever the US practices. Maybe you can clarify what you mean by romantic and platonic love, and then describe why romantic love seems to bias "straight marriages".

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 8

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 9:52am
Hi Joe!

These are very good questions that you ask and I certainly don't want to sound like the last word on an area that comprises so much contention and variance. I do however know that the concepts that evolved over time with regard to Greek (hereafter Gk.=Greek) myths have been in fact highly "modernized" by which I mean they have been stylized to meet the needs of modern social constructs. This is in fact quite readliy demonstrable of many modern concepts, if we take for example, your own use of the term capitalism. There is quite a mythology surrounding IT and you know if you study it historically, that it has undergone quite an evolution as entertained by economists and mythologizers alike. Look at the way capitalism has been distorted by its enemies and supporters.

The idea of Gk love that I was referring to has a very elaborate background. I say that "romantic love" is certainly not a Gk concept. They had a concept called "hieros gamos", sacred marriage (whence our hierogomay). In mythology there are many examples of hieros gamos of which one in particular, the marriage of Zeus and Hera, demonstrates the union of CREATIVE PRINCIPLES. Hera is the protector of house and hearth (the primordial myth of the woman's place) while Zeus is the paterfamilias, in the sense that he is protector of something like an extended family. There is no reference here to "romantic love" in the modern sense. In the hieros gamos, the Gks celebrated a ritual in which a male and female principle would be chosen to represent this union of creative forces. It was (in modern parlance) a one night stand in which the community celebrated the principle of a sacred marriage. To mention "romantic love" in the context of Gk studies would be an anachronism. The foundations of Gk male/female unions are fertility, sexual compatibility, suitibility, and even economics (cf. Xenophon's ch. on "Vice" in Oeconomics). I would think emotion is somewhere in there but not the exclusive force.

In the fifth century, when much of Gk culture was unified, there was a great variety of forms (or what you referred to as forms)of love. Aristophanes poked fun at the idea of same sex unions. Why? Because Gk males could engage in the male/male act but, they were expected to reproduce. The union of two males in a relationship was not at all what we today would call a "gay relationship". It constituted a highly prevalent form of relationship, but it had MANY varieties. The concept of "Platonic love" is found in its philosophic form in Plato's "Symposium" and is deemed, in the end, the highest form of love by Plato. Again it was not a "romantic love" at all, it would be a misprision to even consider it in this light.

Also if you consider a society such as that of the Gks., it is so different from Christian (Northern European) society, that at times it hardly appears related. One of the central concepts that underlies "romantic love" is the presence of a SOUL, and perhaps even a concept of CONSCIOUSNESS (which possibly came into philosophy in the modern sense, through St. Augustine). Rand speaks of this in ITOE and was very reluctant to attribute it to previous history. I would think that a modern concept of consciousness would have some importance in "romantic love" of the Objectivist kind. Without a strictly circumscribed area of precise dilineation and concept formation you cannot come up with the concept of "romantic love" that Rand's philosophy promotes. In fact I would challenge anyone to even find an explicit treatment of same sex ROMANTIC LOVE anywhere in Rand's writings. We are treading on new ground when we speak of an Objectivist version of same sex romantic love.

In 1994, the late John Boswell, a scholar of same-sex unions in the ancient world attempted to show (Same-Sex Unions In Premodern Europe) that in the Middle Ages both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches sanctioned and sanctified same-sex unions. This is a very controversial topic. Camille Paglia criticized the study for reasons including Boswell's scholarly methods. It is very possible that some degree of Ancient Greek love and Christian notions of the union of souls was present in these same-sex marriages. Branden defines romantic love as "a passionate spiritual-emotional-sexual attachment between a man and a woman that reflects a high regard for the value of each other's person." But how can you have a concept of value without a concept of consciousness? By introducing "values", "mutual outlook", "sense of life", and "individualism" into the discourse, Branden moves away from the set notions of love in Western traditions. I think that there is some legitimate case for understanding adulterous relationships in his concept of romantic love because it is SO individualist. Would you call Romeo and Juliet individualists in the Objectivist sense?

Branden's book (The Psychology of Romantic Love, 1980) almost reads like an unspoken apology for adultery if you know the full context and then approach it from a traditional "romantic" point of view. I am almost tempted to say that Rand and Branden represented (for a brief period of time) the highest category of romantic love. HA imagine that! In my opinion Branden wrote a great apology (in the formal sense), but he should have reflected a great deal longer on what he meant by it. The enormous fluidity in his notion attempts to subsume the entire history of Western tradition WHEW. You can even see Gk concepts integrated into it, but who was Zeus and who was Hera? Rand may have played both roles at one time, as well as Branden. That is why I think that homosexual love or gay love COULD be included in Objectivism because it involves an enormous amount of CREATIVITY and a statement of INDIVIDUALISM vs TRADITION. Perhaps even an act of defiance ("coming out")In fact I think that Stonewall flows naturally from the tradition of LIBERTY. I view it as an evolution not a revolution. A series of events with contracts as well as some violence. As you will see I am very defiant and resist handing over GAY LIBERTY to Marxist Liberationists who want to appropriate GAY for the collectivist movement(s). They tend to see GAY exclusively as a revolution, or a series of acts of violence that ignores contractuality completely. You will see what I think of that in my forthcoming article on Richard Goldstein's "Attack Queers".

As far as casting modern gay relationships into a traditional concept of "romantic love" I agree with Speirs that it is far too constricting. "Romantic love" minus the heavy tradition, possibly. Joe, you and Derek are pushing ME in that direction:) I like the idea, but it has to be evolved carefully and consistently. Again I do not wish to appear as an authority on it (yet), and I know that it is a groundbreaking area of research. Five years ago could you have imagined an article like what Sciabarra wrote appearing in an Objectivist context? An installment? This site is exploring a new universe in my opinion. A giant step for mankind. I think I will write article on it. There are two levels in which this can be examined. First, it is important as you and Derek stress, to analyze same-sex, same-sex unions, gay relationships, etc. within the larger CONTEXT of human experience(s). Secondly, it is valid to isolate it scientifically (empirically if you like) in order to determine its constiuents or essential components. Please allow me your further thoughts and reflections, I value your ideas very much!

Ken Gregg

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 9

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 10:40pm
As long as I have been around objectivist circles (and that began in the mid-1960's listening to NBI lectures in the Los Angeles area), there have been gays involved. Rosalie Nichols was a burgeoning objectivist intellectual (I have to admit that I was attracted to her before I was aware that she was gay and was a friend of hers for many years thereafter--I lost contact with her around the late 1970's) wrote several pathbreaking essays at the time on Indian rights to land (she was a Miwok Indian) and the contradictions within objectivist and Rothbardian property theory regarding American Indians.

She wrote quite a bit of excellent poetry and authored a number of essays on homosexuality from an objectivist standpoint, largely in the periodical edited by her called LESBIAN VOICES. I think that there is a lot more that was in the undercurrents in objectivist circles than was openly admitted. Certainly in objectivist circles in the Los Angeles area, there were bisexuals and gays who were pretty much open about their orientation. Perhaps the most prominent of the objectivist gays was Roy Childs, Jr.

Just a thought.
Just Ken

Joy Bushnell

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 10

Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 9:38am
Wow! Interesting reading here and lots to think about.

Anthony, I'm looking forward to your promised articles on this topic! *grin*

One intriguing point that was brought up, by Robert Spiers I believe, is that a sexual orientation isn't an identity as such. I'm not sure what he meant by what he wrote, but I am interpreting it as the fact that humans all have the potential and will in their lifetime probably enjoy many different kinds of sexual, romantic, and platonic love with partners of either sex. I don't think there is this strict line of gay or heterosexual and I don't think a sexual orientation defines who we are personally. There is a function and reason for all the forms of love that we recognize today. They are all different and serve different purposes in our lives at various times.

I'm probably grossly oversimplifying the entire issue, but it's always seemed simple to me. LOL!

Anthony, you brought up another interesting point I haven't considered -- I'll quote two bits of what you wrote:

" To mention "romantic love" in the context of Gk studies would be an anachronism. The foundations of Gk male/female unions are fertility, sexual compatibility, suitibility, and even economics (cf. Xenophon's ch. on "Vice" in Oeconomics). I would think emotion is somewhere in there but not the exclusive force."

My first thought was that the foundations you bring up in fact do bring up powerful emotions. Those items you mention -- fertility, sexual compatibility, economics bring about the emotion, and it can be very strong, even highly exclusive force!

Later on, you went on to say that:

"Also if you consider a society such as that of the Gks., it is so different from Christian (Northern European) society, that at times it hardly appears related. One of the central concepts that underlies "romantic love" is the presence of a SOUL, and perhaps even a concept of CONSCIOUSNESS (which possibly came into philosophy in the modern sense, through St. Augustine)."

Here we get to why those forces bring about such strong emotion -- the ability to place value judgments on the relationship. I think I'm not saying this well. LOL!

Because we are conscious, reasoning creatures (okay, some of us are :), we get postive feedback from our emotions when we adhere to reason, seek and pursue our own highest values and this includes in personal relationships. The sexual attraction, compatibility, happiness come about from seeing (valuing) what we see in a potential partner which can include their fertility, looks, economics, way of dealing with the world.

I'm definitely looking forward to more on this subject! :)

Joy :)

Joseph Rowlands

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 11

Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 10:41pm
Hi Anthony,

I'm getting the impression that when you talk about "romantic love" vs. "greek love", you're referring to the type of relationship that was promoted as good. Sound about right?

So you can think of marriage as a bringing together of two souls in love, or you can think of it as an arrangement where two people can raise children, share resources, and cooperate intimately in life. Or maybe, should we marry for love or money?

It's interesting that you think the greek love is more compatible with being gay. I say that because we can see two views of marriage even in our culture. One is the romantic view, where you should do anything for love, and if the love dries up, you get out. And then there's the traditional marriage, where you must stay together even if you don't like each other, for the sake of the chidren, propriety, security, or whatever. Of these two, the traditional seems to be more closely linked with the greek style of marriage. The marriage isn't mainly an end in itself, but a means towards other ends. It's also similiar to arranged marriages in some countries.

As an aside, it's interesting that the "traditional" forms of marriage often have a duty-based ethic backing them up. Yes, you may not like the person you're with, but live with it anyway!

So why would same-sex relationships now be more like this greek version of love? It seems if anything, the romantic style of relationship is the one that would be most compatible with a same-sex marriage. It says love is the end, and nothing else really matters in comparison. There are no duties, no "proper" roles, etc. Although I guess there are relationships halfway inbetween.

The only thing I can think of is your point about the concept of consciousness or soul. The whole "soul-mate" thing. Are you suggesting that homosexuals don't generally accept that belief?

As you can see, I'm still not sure what the baggage attached to romantic love is that's incompatible with same-sex relationships.

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 12

Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 3:53pm 
Joe,

Thank you for asking so many questions. I do realize that I have not yet defined what I mean about "romantic love" and I want to go back there. You brought up the question of emotion and whether or not it is the same today as it was for the Greeks. Now you are getting closer to what I originally meant by understanding the way Greeks thought of marriage. Bisexuality was more the norm in Greece. Greek men took boys in their care and nurtured their minds. They also had sex with them. Scenes of intercrural and anal sex are found in Greek painting. These activities did not in any way prevent these men from engaging in sex with their wives as well. Today this would be considered horrible by many. In fact we are not too far beyond the ideas of the Victorians. Oscar Wilde was a "Greek" in this sense. He was married and had two children by his wife Constance, and yet he was drawn to a young student at Oxford (Lord Alfred Douglas) with whom he had a relationship. I suppose that some of Oscar's notoriety is due to this "Greek" pattern which modern people (especially Victorians) find uncomfortable or conflicting. It would seem quite contradictory from the point of view of romantic love as well. One of the characteristics of romantic love is exclusivity.

It is no good to speak of emotion in the abstract. If emotions are not directed toward something then it is hard to measure them and gage their intensity. When someone asks you if you are a passionate person, you may be right to ask "passionate about what?" In romantic love, the intensity of the emotion is much stronger because the love is directed at a single individual. If someone were to say that they love everybody the same way, aside from being a Mother Teresa, you might think that this person's claims were untrue, certainly not romantic. Now if these things are true and the emotion is more intense in romantic love, then it may be stated that the Greeks did not share this degree of emotion in love. This is not to say that the Greeks were not passionate or did not have emotions, but because they were differently aportioned, they were probably less intense.

Now I still stick to my idea that romantic love came into western society at a much later time. It did come AFTER Justinian's Codex outlawing same sex as a Greek vice of ancient pagan times. Those laws remained in place for the majority of Western history. I would assume that in general all forms of romantic love and union up to modern times were coded by heterosexuals. I am not saying that there was never a same sex union with passionate intensity, I am saying that most same sex unions in Western societies were closeted because they were illegal. When Rand wrote about romantic love she did not consider the homosociality of her male characters as latently homosexual. In fact I think in her journals she explicitly denies this kind of relationship as a valid inference. In this sense I think she was very wrong and even ignorant (unaware) of the intensity of homosexual monogamy. In fact I find Ken's comment (above) about gays in Objectivism very interesting.


Again I stress the idea that romantic love (which includes the sharing of values) needs some concept of the unity of consciousness. In Homer's Iliad you find he had no single word to characterize consciousness. He uses psyche, thymos, and noos indiscriminately. You can see this in Aristotle's writing as well. It may very well be the case that Christianity (St. Augustine's "Si fallor sum") laid the foundation for a modern sense of love (that soul-mate thing you spoke of).

Now when I speak of Greek forms of love, I am conscious that I am treating it as a historical group of facts. I think Speirs was right to say that the Greeks did not view their same sex activities as exclusively identity forming. I do not agree with his idea that all modern gay relationships merely ape heterosexual relationships. The heaviest "role playing" was in Greek man-boy love, which incidentally was very identifiable. Modern gays who self-identify in fact present a huge range of creative relationships. Gays do not receive a manual on how to be gay when they are born. If some of them rely on heterosexual relationships as a model, there is nothing wrong with that.

Speirs seems to think that because gays "role play" and ape heterosexual relationships, that they should not be sanctified by the government. He also said subsidized by the government, which I don't think should happen anyway. In Athens man-boy love was crucial to the formation of young men into citizens and thus played a great role in their society. It did then have some identity and I would not share Speir's view that it had NO identity. I do agree with you Joe that gay relationships have the potential for romantic love and I guess you're right about the baggage compartment being overweighted. The baggage is tradition, the law, and social prejudice.

I'll say one more thing. Before the abolition of slavery, any given white man and any given black man could have considered each other as equals by nature. They may have felt like brothers, identical in their sense of life and recognizing that the only difference was a bit of hemoglobin. It was law, custom, tradition, and social prejudice that bound one of them in chains. Today the law has gays chained up as well. A straight man can be my friend, my equal, and share my sense of life, even my bed, but one of us is not completely legal.

Boo

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 13

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 9:52am
All of this information was very interesting. Thanks for posting it, it has helped me with my law project about whether homosexuals should be a able to marry. A lot of incite and information. I hope on day homosexuals will be more excepted throughtout the world

Hippie

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 14

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 - 10:09pm
"How can the black man look down on the homosexual?"

I ask myself (as a bisexual) this question every day. It makes no sense to me how black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans can be against homosexuality--as they often are. It's irrational for anyone, but for someone who has experienced prejudice, first-hand to later use it against another category of people is absolutely absurd.

Rob kissypoo

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 15

Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 9:30pm
Thanks for the article Chris. I'll see you down at the gay bar next week. Don't forget to bring the KY jelly ;)

Reginald Firehammer

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 16

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 4:31am
Lorna, Robert, Derek, Anthony, Ken, Joy:

How can the black man look down on the homosexual?

Because the black man is black by nature. It is not a chosen state, and, therefore morally irrelevant. Homosexual behavior is chosen, as all human behavior is chosen. It also happens to be contrary to human nature, and since it is chosen, it is also morally relevant.

When a person decides to live rationally, avoiding self-destructive behavior, choosing not to be controlled by their desires but to be in control their desires, like those for drugs, or sex, or any of the other passions men use as excuses to behave irrationally, they have a right to look down on those who do not.

Regi

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 17

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 3:32pm
Regi, that's just short-sighted and sloppy. I'm usually apt to give you the benefit of the doubt when you come up with stuff like that, but THIS one is just sad.
Here's why:

1. Homosexuality is manifestly NOT "contrary to human nature" or it would not occur in every culture, time-period, and religious/ideological segment, that has ever been studied. Homosexuality can no more be 'contrary to human nature" than it can be to ANIMAL nature. (same-sex 'mating' occurs quite frequently among many animals, as has been amply studied. I'm NOT trying to draw a direct parallel bewteen human and animal 'sexuality' -- but YOU seem to be:

What I assume you are referencing, by your short-sighted 'contrary to human nature' idea, is the notion that human 'sexuality' is innately REPRODUCTIVE in function, or purpose. False. Reproduction is (at most) a 'potential side-effect' of the human sex act. Observe that humans are fundamentally different from most other animals, in that we do not have a definite "breeding-season". OUR females and males CAN (and do!) have sex even during their "non-fertile" times. Humans (unlike most other animals), are "sexual" in a qualitatively different way: we are not stimulus-response 'breeding machines'. What we are, instead, are beings possessing a volitional consiousness.
Thinking Rationally is (in case you yourself have forgotten), acknowledging -- AND acting in accord with -- the facts of Reality. As such, your provincial "homosexuality is contrary to human nature' argument is more befitting the delusions of a fundamentalist Christian (who accepts the idea of "celibacy' as a human ideal, and tolerates the sex act ONLY in the confines of a church-sanctioned marriage, and SOLELY for the purpose of breeding the next generation of slaves.)

I can tolerate many things: but sloppy argumentation is NOT one of them. Come on, Regi, attempt to make the claim (implicit in your stance on homosexuality) that the sex act itself should only 'rationally' be undertaken for the purposes of BREEDING (and just debase us to the level of the lower animals, while you're at it.)

Ah, I feel better now.

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 18

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 3:50pm
Further:
The idea (coming from Aristotle, sadly), that homosexuality is somehow "un-natural" because it doesn't produce life -- is pretty stupid. Aristotle was mistaken about very many things, but he DID give us a decent ground-work (and we should all remember that.)
Here's a few examples of where Aristotle went disastrously wrong:

1. defense of slavery, on the grounds that some humans had "lesser natures" and were therefore not to be allowed 'full citizenship".

2. The notion that the Ideal State must act POSITIVELY to 'help' it's citizens achieve the "good life". (This idea has been REALLY influential in Leftist circles. can you say "welfare state?")

3. Aristotle (like most ancients, sadly), looked down on 'men of commerce". He saw traders and other 'businessmen' as somehow lower/less noble than (say) warriors or "statesmen" (government functionaries.)
Now, you can pretty much see how Objectivism and Aristotelianism are diametrically opposed on certain topics. Let's just all admit that Rand's opposition to homosexuality was a bout of uninformed/misinformed irrationality (probably stemming from bad information.) Rand's sexual premises seem to consist of "dominance of the man" who "conquers a woman worthy of being possessed". She talks WAY TOO OFTEN about "ownership" of one party by another (albeit in a metaphorical sense.) This is a disgustingly priggish notion, and is unworthy of somebody as consistently lucid as she way. (Of course, there were other gaffes, as well.)

Homosexuality is no more "un-natural", than any other human act. (I am, of course, using "nature" in it's correct -- broad -- sense...the sense that Francis Bacon intended when he said "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
A false dichotomy between the "natural" and the "artificial" is the basis of the Environmentalist delusion.

We need to be REALLY careful, lest we repeat the disgusting mistakes of others. ARI is already too close to Christian Fundamentalism, in it's actions, for my taste.

vertigo

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 19

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 4:04pm
Quote: "Homosexuality is no more "un-natural", than any other human act."

Is it morally good, though? If not, why choose it?

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 20

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 7:33pm
The question "is homosexuality morally good" is invalid, for the same reason that the question "is killing morally good?" As Rand so eloquently stated, moral value is CONTEXTUAL -- a "good" can only be judged in relation to WHOM, and for WHAT, it is 'good."
For example, being immersed in water continually is "good" for fish (and other water-breather animals.) It would NOT be 'good' in relation to air-breathing life (such as humanity.)

We can see a few things from this idea:
1. "good" cannot be judged out of context, and will only be absolute WITHIN a given context. IF the individual human life is the standard of value, then the issue of "morally good" comes down to what is good FOR HUMANS?

2. Human "sexuality" (as has been amply demonstrated by psychology, and Objectivism itself), has MORE meaning than mere reproduction. In fact, "breeding" only rarely comes into the picture at all.
Sexuality (ideally) is "a physical process in the service of a SPIRITUAL NEED." It is an act of pure pleasure, by which the individuals involved reaffirm their love and valuation of their own lives, and a response to the "highest values" demonstrated by the other person.

As Objectivists, we would all (Even mister Firehammer) admit that we humans are qualitatively different from the lower animals: we are capable of rationality (or at least far MORE rationality than has ever been demonstrated by other animals.) We do not have a specific "breeding season" which restricts our sexual acts to a 'reproductive' cycle, etc.

Now, BEING as we are qualitatively different than the lower animals, we should NOT expect humans to be bound by the primitive, animalistic 'mating instincts' which dominate the lower animals sex lives.
Are you with me so far?

The defining characteristic of humans, is that we are the "thinking animal": we are beings of volitional consiousness. The Objectivist morality (unlike any other of which I am aware), concentrates NOT on arbitrary rules, but rather, is built around a series of principles, which all lead up to a fully-realized human life.

Now, one of the distinctive characteristics of Objectivist morality is that the same action can be perfectly moral (within the context of protecting or achieving one's values), or immoral (within the context of working AGAINST one's values). For example: lying. "Honesty" ('telling the truth') IS a value for Objectivists, but NOT 'in itself', without regard to WHY you're being honest.

Honesty is GOOD when it furthers your life. (Thus, it is of value to deal honestly with others). BUT -- as an example -- if (for example) the secret police in a Totalitarian regime come for you, and start asking you questions, the Objectivist morality would advocate that you lie to them, unreservedly, to protect your values (your family, for example.) Likewise, "force" is contextual: the INITIATION of force is barred (for obvious reasons), but RETALIATORY force is encouraged (self-defense, etc.)

EVEN suicide cannot be considered "evil in and of itself" via the Objectivist principles. If an individual rationally judges that his life is "no longer worth living" (say, because they have a terminal illness, and they are rendered a quadriplegic, who has no possibilities for improvement), then suicide is an appropriate choice. (As an example, I would cite an English professor I read about one time, who was faced with two alternatives -- 2 more weeks to live in agony, due to an inopperable brain tumor, or suicide. He chose suicide.)

Now, it therefore follows from these facts, that the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. human sexuality is not neccesarily "reproductive" in nature -- BY the nature of humans, ourselves. (Thus, the fact that any particular sexual practice is 'non-reproductive' does NOT -- and cannot -- imply that it is 'contrary to human nature.' Ceilbacy (lack of sexuality), or sex restricted to BREEDING purposes (the two 'ideals' held up by many religions), are THEMSELVES contrary to human nature.

2. Particular actions can never be judged out of context, but MUST be viewed in terms of the person's entire life. Thus, 'heterosexual sex" can be either 'moral' or 'immoral' according to context: rape, for example, is a decidedly IMMORAL instance of heterosexual sex. (Yes, I know homosexual rape occurs too.)

3. Thus, "homosexuality" cannot legitimately be condemmed "in and of itself", but only within specific situations: prison-rape, for example.

So why "choose" homosexuality? I assume by this, you mean "why would anybody engage in homosexual activity?"
Well a corrolary question is: why engage in heterosexual activity? Several reasons:

Is it a "one-night stand?" is it undertaken in a slutty, degraded, or otherwise life-harming way? I mean by this, DOES the particular sexual activity actively harm (work against) the rest of the individual's life-goals?

Now, many people would (mistakenly) say that AIDS and HIV is a 'gay disease", or attempt to use them as 'proof' that Homosexuality is "wrong" in and of itself. This is slipshod reasoning, and for those who would attempt it, I need only point out that Jerry Fallwell and other Fundamentalist Christians, have attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to make the same claim.

Further, many people (for various individual reasons such as brain chemistry, psychological factors, etc.) WOULD be damanged if they attempted to live out a 'heterosexual' lifestyle. (I have ample evidence for this a cousin of mine was your stereotypical 'closeted Catholic". he ended up cheating on his wife with large numbers of anonymous gay men, in porn theaters, simply because heterosexuality was psychologically untenable.
Arguably, in HIS case, attempting to engage in heterosexuality was the true "evil", for it actively disrupted (and eventually destroyed) what could have otherwise been a fully-integrated life.

Those who would attempt to state that Homosexuality is evil because it is "non-reproductive" had BEST be prepared to only have sex with their wives (or husbands) for the specific reason of "having a baby." Otherwise, they have implicitly accepted the basic premise that sex is NOT inherently 'reproductive' for humans. Thus, no blanket condemnation of 'homosexuality' is possible, given a rational appraisal of the facts.

Reginald Firehammer

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 21

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 9:41am
Emrich,

I said: Homosexual behavior is chosen, as all human behavior is chosen. It also happens to be contrary to human nature, and since it is chosen, it is also morally relevant.

You responded with three long posts (one was actually to Vertigo). Most of your response was to assumptions you made about what I meant. Since those assumptions were mostly incorrect, I will explain what I mean explicitly.

Human nature includes all of man's nature, both physiological and psychological. When determining what is appropriate, in terms of values, all of human nature must be considered. To act contrary to any aspect of human nature is inappropriate, and if chosen consciously and knowingly, it is also immoral.

The organs of the human body all have a specific natural functions. Man must discover what those functions are. Children, for example, frequently put small objects in their noses or ears, which must be removed, usually to their discomfort. This is not as dangerous as it is instructive, the minor pain is evidence that child has used these organs in way contrary to their nature.

The human body and all its organs have a specific nature that determines how they are to be used, just as the human mind has a specific nature that determines how it must be used. The fact that within the scope of that nature, the varieties of ways the mind and body may be used are infinite does not mean man is free to violate the specific requirements of either the mind's or the body's nature. The scope of things human beings may put into their stomach for both nourishment and pleasure is infinite, but we cannot put poison or glass in them, for example, without violating the requirements of their nature.

The fact that human beings regularly violate the requirements of both their minds and their bodies does not make those violations consistent with human nature. The question is, why do people choose to harm themselves, mentally or physically? The obvious answer is desire. No one does anything for which they have no desire whatsoever. When people harm themselves it is because they have chosen to yield to some desire, either without bothering to determine if fulfilling the desire is harmful or not, or in defiance of what they know is harmful.

No one doubts the homosexual has a desire to engage in homosexual practices, else, why would they do it? The acts, however, are contrary to the requirements of human physiology. For example, consider the case of male homosexuals and anal sex. The lining of the rectum consists of a single layer of cells, easily damaged. Anal sex invariably leads to damage of that lining and disease. The lining of the female vagina is several cells thick naturally meant to accommodate intercourse without harm.

(I am sure you do not want me to recite an entire list of ways homosexual practices are harmful, both physiologically and psychologically; but will, if you insist.)

Homosexual practices, like all other self-harming practices, are justified on no other basis than it is what is desired. Human beings frequently have desires that are contrary to the requirements of their nature. It is failing to objectively determine which desires are consistent with one's own best rational self-interest and choosing accordingly, and turning it around, making desire the source of one's choices that leads to all irrational and self-destructive behavior.

Now you said: Homosexuality is manifestly NOT "contrary to human nature" or it would not occur in every culture, time-period, and religious/ideological segment, that has ever been studied.

I could have said homosexuality is contrary to the requirements of human nature. Nature actually has two meanings: 1. the specific characteristics and attributes of a thing, and 2. that which is, "naturally," without the interference of man or intelligence. Death and disease are, "natural," in the sense that they occur "naturally." When speaking of the nature of a thing, however, we mean a things basic attributes and qualities, we mean, "what a thing is." It is in that sense that we say homosexuality is contrary to human nature. Your argument could be used to justify as consistent with human nature, murder, theft, religion, superstition, cruelty, and insanity, which all, "occur in every culture, time-period, and religious/ideological segment, that has ever been studied."

You said: What I assume you are referencing, by your short-sighted 'contrary to human nature' idea, is the notion that human 'sexuality' is innately REPRODUCTIVE in function, or purpose.

Well, no, I was not referring to that at all. But, since you bring it up (I wonder why it occurred to you?) if human beings did not need to reproduce, it is unlikely sex would be one of our attributes, would it?

You also said: {I can tolerate many things: but sloppy argumentation is NOT one of them.}

I guess you consider, "assuming," what someone else means or is thinking, "good' argument. (Personally, I don't give a damn what you can or cannot tolerate, by the way.)

Since most of your screed said absolutely nothing about anything I said (or even think) I will allow your "good arguments," to speak for themselves.

Regi

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 22

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:56am
Regi:
Now, that was just sad. I'll quote EXACTLY what you posted. Notice that it has absolutely NO resemblance to what supposedly 'meant' in your reply:

"Homosexual behavior is chosen, as all human behavior is chosen. It also happens to be contrary to human nature, and since it is chosen, it is also morally relevant.

When a person decides to live rationally, avoiding self-destructive behavior, choosing not to be controlled by their desires but to be in control their desires, like those for drugs, or sex, or any of the other passions men use as excuses to behave irrationally, they have a right to look down on those who do not."

Now, notice that you did not mention ANYTHING about what you meant by "homosexual behavior".
As a matter of fact, your "male anal sex" thing is pretty much one of the standard canards thrown up by Fundamentalist Christians and has NO validity whatsoever. They've done numerous studies on the effects of "anal sex" and have found NONE of this "inevitable damage" you speak of. As a matter of fact, the human rectum is MUCH more than a 'single layer of cells thick". A relatively-powerful muscle such as the anal sphincter, for example, could NOT do what it's functions require, if it WAS.
The human ear-drum (which is infinitely thinner than the rectum), is STILL several layers of cells thick. Moreover, your stance is sloppy for two more reasons:

1. It would seem to preclude only MALE homosexuality (vis a vie no "anal" contact among lesbians),
And,
2. It seeks to bar a more general concept ('homosexual behavior') by reference to ONE manifestation of such 'behavior' (male-to-male anal intercourse.) I trust, Regi ol' pal, that you DO remember Rand's concept of the "package deal?"

It WOULD only be a valid argument against 'homosexuality' IF male-to-male anal penetration was the ONLY 'homosexual behavior'.
Your argument, as I said, not only fails to address lesbians, but ALSO fails to address anything OTHER than male-to-male anal intercourse (while being physiologically innaccurate besides.)

The most you can say your argument 'proves' is that anal sex of ANY SORT (even heterosexual), is "contrary to human nature". So also, I guess, would be masturbation (because it's non-reproductive and the humand hand isn't specifically 'designed' to encompass the penis, etc. etc.)

Now, I said NOTHING about humans not "needing to reproduce", but the pivotal question is: is that WHY humans engage in sexual acts? Primarily, no. Sexual contact has A HELL of a lot more meanings than that -- or would you advocate we all go back to a 'time of mating' similar to what the lower animals indulge?

(Next, you're going to try to tell me that the only truly 'rational' course, is to eat food with NO REGARD to taste, aesthetic experiences, or what have you, because "if humans didn't NEED to eat, then we probably wouldn't have to have food."
Fine, Regi. Go back to your "autonamist" cave, and eat that raw, half-rancid lump of rabbit meat you caught with your bare hands.

To be honest, your response to this thread (like so many others) consisted of faulty argumentation, and accusing anybody who dissagreed with you of 'irrational screeds'. Fine. You did the sae thing to Joe Rowlands over in the "questioning fundamentals" board a while back. How's your ARI membership going there, Reginald?

To be honest, I've seem you do this sloppy argumentation too many times for my taste, and am becoming REALLY bored with it.

Apperently, your idea of "man's life as a standard of value" extends no further than the cave. Fine with me. If we're going to talk about "man's essential nature", then we should concentrate on the attribute of Rationality. (Oh wait, sorry. You'd have to BE rational to be able to discuss it, and you're probably not.)

Now come up with a denunciation of homosexuality which actually takes into account what homosexuality IS, and doesn't fixate on some "ass-master" video you probably rented by mistake at your local porn shop.

vertigo

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 23

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:18pm
To me it seems that the motivation for homosexual relationships is similar to the motivation to smoke, or take drugs, or drink: 'because I want to'.

Of course, heterosexual relationships are also based on desire, but here the human body is clearly designed for that. I agree with Regi that heterosexual relationships seem more in man's nature. Note I used the word 'designed'. I am not implying there is a designer. I simply mean man's nature. Let's not start a creation/evolution debate.

But Henry, you do have a point. Strictly speaking, sex as is typically performed isn't really in man's nature either. I don't want to say too much about this, but looking at man's anatomy we are typically made to have sex like dogs do, from behind and leaning over each other. Our face-to-face style is against that nature. As typically this method is better, for obvious reasons, especially in light of sex being an intimate affair, it has as much motivation as homosexual relationships do.

The difference is only a matter of degree. To what degree does it go against man's nature? Even if you view anal sex sufficiently against man's nature, what about lesbian sex? There is no implicit danger there.

For that matter, oral sex has no motivation either, other than 'because I want to'. So Henry makes sense when he says that to discriminate against homosexual relationships is to admit that sex is innately reproductive, or if the slant is that it is against our nature, it rules out oral sex and face-to-face hetero-sex aswell.

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 24

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:43pm
Vertigo: The conflict comes (and I see where you're going with this), by mistaking just exactly what IS 'man's nature'.
Obviously, yes, there ARE some structural aspects to sexuality, but no specific 'sexual position' is structurally "mandated" for humans, as it is for dogs (for example.)
Dogs are PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE of 'doing it' any other way than 'doggy style' (as are most other quadrupedal animals.
You are assuming (as it happens, mistakenly), that "human nature" is as narrow as the "natures" of other animals, when in fact, human nature is far broader: not only are the options of "the possible" FAR broader for humans (vis a vie our status as the "thinking animal", relative to others), but also, our physical needs and drives have undergone a fundamental shift -- they now (in addition to potentially serving purely biological needs), have become, to a large extent PSYCHOLOGICAL.
Too narrow a view of "human nature", leads to faulty reasoning.
I would suggest (very gently and kindly, since you are a nice person, and sincerely interested in this debate), that you rethink your definition of 'human nature'. You're dropping out key facts, and reaching a false generalization as a result.

Now, back to Regi:
You attempted (I think) to equate the 'moral status' of homosexuality with that of murder, rape, theft, etc. That's just bad reasoning.
You'll notice, first, that ALL of those actions (murder, rape, etc.) are SUBSUMED by larger conceptual groupings, to which they belong.
"Murder" is a subtype of "killing".
"Rape" is a subtype of "sexua intercourse".
"theft" is a subtype of "wealth/property transfer" (for want of a better term.)

Now, the mistake you make (and which is pretty much epidemic to 'religious morality'), is that you attempt to ban the higher-level catagory IN ITSELF, without regard to context, consequences, or any other factors. Your indictment of "homosexuality" on the grounds that "male anal penetration is harmful" is exactly equivalent to the religionist's prohibition against "killing" because "murder is harmful." it's a package-deal, which can lead only to confusion, and unintended consequences.
For example, the injunction "thou shalt not kill", leads inevitably to such grotesques as pacifism (for Christians) and the entire religion of Jainism (where the central tenet of 'cause no suffering' leads Jainist priests to starve themselves to death so as not to inflict 'suffering' on other life-forms by eating them, etc.)

Regi, catagorical prohibitions are stupid. Indicting "sexuality" on the grounds that "rape" is wrong, would be inestimably stupid, woudln't you agree? EACH particular instance or sub-type of a given phenomenon must be evaluated WITHIN the given context. Rape IS wrong -- NOT because it's a type of 'sexuality", but for other reasons.

Now, it so happens that particular instances of homosexual conduct CAN be objectively defined as reprehensible: "gerbling" for example. (It's manifestly, actually harmful IN ITSELF, without regard to degree.) "Water sports" (urine games) by contrast, have no ill-effects (urine being, conrary to popular belief, sterile). "infantilism" has no moral relevance either (by which I am referencing the "adult baby" games.)

So no, Regi, no blanket condemnation of 'homosexuality' is possible by reference to 'male anal intercourse" anymore than a blanket condemnation of HETEROSEXUALITY is possible, by means of reference to RAPE.

If you want a morality based on such catagorical prohibitions, then I would suggest Roman Catholicism, or (for a more 'american' feel) the Westboro baptist church.

Vertigo, I hope this has given you some food for thought.

Reginald Firehammer

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 25

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 6:46pm
Emrich,

Now, that was just sad.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I did my best. You've really heart my feelings. But, if you really think that, why did you feel compelled to provide such a long answer?

Now, notice that you did not mention ANYTHING about what you meant by "homosexual behavior". As a matter of fact, your "male anal sex" thing is pretty much one of the standard canards ....

Well, that's probably true, since it is pretty much a standard homosexual practice, and one of the most common sources of homosexual problems.

For example:

"This practice is inherently unhealthy, for the rectum simply was not designed as a sexual organ, but as the sewage pipe of the body. It lacks the membrane elasticity and other protective features needed if it were to serve as a sexual organ. As a result, anal sex typically causes damage to the body that promotes a disproportionate level of acute rectal trauma, rectal incontinence, and anal cancer among homosexual males. Damage to the soft tissues of the rectal lining also permit entry of microbes, regardless of condom usage. Infections such as hepatitis B, shigellosis, and Giadia lamblia infection are much more common in homosexual male. These conditions together are often termed "Gay Bowel Syndrome." [R.A. Kaslow et al., "The Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study: Rationale, Organization, and Selected Characteristics of Participants," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 126, No. 2, Aug. 1987]

"But apart from AIDS, are these health consequences serious?" A paper was presented in 1993 to the Eastern Psychological Association [a regional affiliate of the American Psychological Association - see the APA Web page at http://www.apa.org/science/regionals.html] examining death statistics ... which concluded that even when AIDS was not a factor, gay men had a significantly shorter lifespan than married heterosexual men - shorter by about three decades! Those with AIDS had their lifespans reduced by an additional 7 percent.

Now you said, They've done numerous studies on the effects of "anal sex" and have found NONE of this "inevitable damage" you speak of. Since there are "numerous" such studies, you ought not have any trouble citing one.

You also said, As a matter of fact, the human rectum is MUCH more than a 'single layer of cells thick," which is irrelevant, because what I said was, "the lining of the rectum consists of a single layer of cells," (which any good medical book will verify), as opposed to the vagina, the lining of which is several cells thick.

Now, you have suggested I have implied, "homosexual practice," pertains only to anal "sex," and I agree that is the only specific act I addressed. Most people are pretty much aware of the repertoire of homosexual practices, and I assumed even you would understand a homosexual practice is anything two (or more) individuals engage in related to sex/genitals where those engaged have the same set of genitals.

You also said: /{Next, you're going to try to tell me that the only truly 'rational' course, is to eat food with NO REGARD to taste, aesthetic experiences, or what have you}

Since I said, "The fact that within the scope of that nature, the varieties of ways the mind and body may be used are infinite does not mean man is free to violate the specific requirements of either the mind's or the body's nature. The scope of things human beings may put into their stomach for both nourishment and pleasure is infinite, but we cannot put poison or glass in them, for example, without violating the requirements of their nature," does that mean you are arguing for putting poison and glass in the stomach. I enjoy and cook food from almost every culture, from middle east, to mexican, to oriental; but that does not mean I'll eat just anything, even if I desire it.

Now, if others wish to sacrifice their lives to their irrational desires, I certainly will not prevent them from doing so, and will defend their right to engage in any practices they like.

I grew up befriending homosexuals (and I'm over 60) and was frequently castigated by others for those friendships. (Not that I cared.) My "gay" highschool friends are all dead, and have been for some time.

I'm not trying to convince you, either. But, if you're gay, I'll outlive you. Now I do not wish to discuss this any longer, so go ahead and have the last word.

Regi

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 26

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:38pm
"which concluded that even when AIDS was not a factor, gay men had a significantly shorter lifespan than married heterosexual men - shorter by about three decades! Those with AIDS had their lifespans reduced by an additional 7 percent."

Well, for example, the MUCH higher rate of gay suicide (due, in no small part, to viewpoints such as YOURS. Factoring OUT the higher suicide rates (and HIV, which, not coincidentally, reduces HETEROSEXUAL lifespans to an equivalent degree), there is NO difference in the lifespan of the homosexual.

Now, as to the 'studies' you cited:
Please give a link to where you found them, AND give commensurate CURRENT data. (I could, for example, come up with various 1950s-era 'studies' from the NIMH citing homosexuality as a 'mental illness."
I notice you're at least TRYING to be 'scientific" about all of this now, but I should call your attention to the almost complete lack of statistical information in the quote you provided: "dispraportionate level", "typically", "much more common", etc.
Until and unless you can provide an actual statistical breakdown on this "gay bowel syndrome", your condemnation of homosexual MALES due to it, seems specious at best.

Now, additonally you said: Most people are pretty much aware of the repertoire of homosexual practices, and I assumed even you would understand a homosexual practice is anything two (or more) individuals engage in related to sex/genitals where those engaged have the same set of genitals."

Except for the fact, Regi ol' buddy, that you specifically addressed your argumentation toward ONE sexual practice. If your premise is that the condemnation of homosexuality is based on the 'wrong' people rubbing the 'wrong' sets of genitals together, then you didn't make that very clear, NOR have you provided an argument that even APPROACHES coherence, to defend such stance.


"I grew up befriending homosexuals (and I'm over 60) and was frequently castigated by others for those friendships. (Not that I cared.) My "gay" highschool friends are all dead, and have been for some time."

Which implies what, exactly? That their causes of death were inextricably linked to their homosexuality? Sorry to tell you, but quite a few of your "straight" highschool friends are probably dead as well. Until (and unless) you can come up with something better than THIS, your argument does not obtain.


"If You're gay, I'll outlive you.":
That was idiotic, Mr. Firecracker. Not that it matters, but I'm as heterosexual as you yourself CLAIM to be (or at least so my WIFE says). Let's run down your 'argumentation' again for anybody who is still actually interested:

1. Homosexuality is 'contrary to human nature' because it is 'life-harming'. However, you mysteriously neglect to provide any statistical (numerical) data regarding your claims, and "assume" that what information you DO provide (referenced specifically to MALE homosexuals) should suggest a conclusion about lesbians as well.

2. You 'assumed" I am familiar with the "repetoire of homosexual practices": thank you, regi, butI must not watch as much porno as you do. Since you admit that there is a "repetoire" of homosexual "practices", you should (I would think) at least be able to give us some information about what that "repetoire" consisted of, AND the relative degree of "against human nature" that they all exhibited?

And don't try to cop this attitude about how you weren't trying to "convince" anybody of anything, Regi, esle you wouldn't have even spoke up. Those who speak up in a discussion ARE trying to 'convince" others (or at least, defend their own viewpoint.)

So the studies (of which you only reference ONE, with no statistical breakdown whatsoever) seem to indicate a 'lesser lifespan for gay men". Okay, and? The implication is what? Gay men commit suicide more often? Gay men get mysterious ass-viruses from rectal tears?
You neglect to mention the lifespan consequences for lesbians. If your contention is that homosexuality is VERBOTEN because of it's "deleterious health effects", then you should be able to point to such effects for EACH AND EVERY SUCH SEXUAL "practice" within said "repetoire".

Again, sloppy argumentation, this time with a nonsequitur quote. Either give us the statistical breakdown, or recind your original premise.

(Suprising how you want us to take your anti-homosexual premise, on the exact same say-so as the Environmentalists want us to take THEIR stuff. Funny, but I didn't know that "much more likely" was a valid scientific term.

Face it, Regi, the GENERAL studies of anal sex (in males as well as females) have pointed up NO statistically significant health consequences. I'll rummage around -- or maybe not, because you didn't even make it worth my while.

BTW: I don't particularly care if I "heart" your feelings, because why should I? You don't give a damn what I think, so why should I give a damn about YOUR viewpoints, eh? If you'd bothered to give us anything to work with other than your "gay men's anal habits are BAAAAD" rhetoric, maybe I'd bother.

Damn, Regi, you could have at least TRIED.

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 27

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:28pm
Ya know what's really hillarious, Regi? Not only don't you have a coherent argument for WHAT makes homosexuality "contrary to human nature", but you can't even get the 'health risks' right, either.

Then, when I call you out on it, you take what I can only describe as the cowards way out: "I don't want to discuss it anymore!" Gee, Regi, rather than maybe admit that you're mistaken, you'd rather just bow out of the argument (hoping that it makes ME look like a big, bad meanie, right?

I would assume that since you quoted that medical article, you can actually find something a little more concise than references to a "much higher occurence", and/or you can find information on anal sex risks in the GENERAL population.

"Homosexual behavior" does NOT equal "gay male anal sex", NOR does "gay male anal sex" have any relevance as to the health risks of Lesbian actions.
If you don't want your viewpoint questioned, then don't even bring it up on a DISCUSSION board. How hard is that for you to remember?

(By the way: since when did questioning somebody's prejudices amount to 'really hurting their feelings?" Go back and read over that thread where you castigated Joe Rowlands as a "subjectivist." Do I REALLY need to go grab some quotes out of it, to demonstrate what REAL rudeness is?

Regi, I'm always willing to live and let live, and to the extent you want to be unreasonably bigoted against homosexuality, on the basis of faulty information, then that's fine with me. But if you're going to go and get your 'feelings' hurt everytime anybody dares to question you, then it's probably better if people just don't talk to you.

Francois Tremblay

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 28

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 5:28am
Old Randist remnants of romantic love between a man and a woman as the only rational mode of intimate relationship. I would think we would have left this behind already.

Homosexuality exists in all kinds of animals, is perfectly healthy, and has nothing to do with anal sex. Heterosexuals also have anal sex. I daresay this Firehammer fellow is a rather ignorant chap.

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 29

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:59am
I guess, Francois, that one COULD say that it all comes down to a 'generation gap" (in that 'our generation' seems to be willing to do better argumentation, and to actually back up our claims.)
Regi there expects to get by with a slew of recycled "kinda like Rand" arguments, and an appeal to the 'wisdom of age" (being as he's "over 60" and all -- age or IQ, nobody can say!!!) :)

vertigo

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 30

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:46am
Quote: "(being as he's "over 60" and all -- age or IQ, nobody can say!!!)"

Henry, I see you are testing Regi, to see how he responds to being called senile. Does testing this give you pleasure? I am truly interested to know.

vertigo

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 31

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:13pm
Quote: "our physical needs and drives have undergone a fundamental shift -- they now (in addition to potentially serving purely biological needs), have become, to a large extent PSYCHOLOGICAL."

Please elaborate on this. What psychological needs do humans have? I have never really thought about this. I think my problem is I am not sure about the exact distinction between animals and humans. To a degree animals are volitional, so you can't say 'only humans are volitional', etc. The one difference I can see is that humans have language. Take language away and we behave much like animals. So what really is the difference, besides language? Why is it that animals don't learn language? Bees can comminucate to each other about where the pollen is, is this a form of language? Is a bird's chirping a form of language?

You can say that humans can override their desires, but perhaps if an animal could learn language they could also override them. Maybe they have no reason to. Although the dog does spin around a few times before sleeping, and there isn't a reason for this. Perhaps they can't learn that that behaviour is futile, as is howling at the moon.

You can say that only humans collaborate and trade, but that comes after language, who can trade without language? And animals do help each other, like prides of lions or herds of elephants.

I hope you see in light of my 2nd previous post I feel this direction I am taking is important and I need to come to a decision on it. It is a big issue, quite fundamental in fact.

Francois Tremblay

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 32

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:39pm
Lower animals have languages, but those languages are simple, utilitarian and instinctual. There is no learning curve similar to humans. Monkeys can be taught simple concepts, but there is no evidence that this is anything but conditioning, since their learning curve once again does not match that of humans.

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 33

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 6:56pm
Quote: "Henry, I see you are testing Regi, to see how he responds to being called senile. Does testing this give you pleasure? I am truly interested to know."

If our esteemed friend Regi is giong to hide behind his age (making the implicit claim that I am mistaken merely because I am younger than he is), then such specious claims are fair game for humor. It's really not that fun needling him anymore (even though he has earned it, in spades.)

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 34

Friday, January 23, 2004 - 7:11pm
Vertigo: For detailed study on the psychological needs of humans, I would reccomd that you study the works of Aristotle. His concept of "the good life" elucidates VERY profoundly, the distinctively human needs.

Now, as to whether you can claim that animals and humans are QUALITATIVELY different: plants and animals are obviously different in very fundeamtnal ways. Animals and humans are, likewise, different in equally fundamental ways.

Animals (at least the more complex forms) DO hae a form of consiousness, yes, and may even be capable of rudimentary communication, but there are basic differences between the instinctive sounds of (say) a housecat, and language, as developed by humans:

Notice (for example) that animals do not have to LEARN their methods of communication. (A kitten isolated from all other cats will nevertheless meow and hiss and purr in response to the same situations, as a cat who has been fully taught by it's mother, etc.)

Humans (by contrast) have languages, which are NOT 'instinctive' in any meaningful manner. (For example, unless a person LEARNS to speak (say) French or english or any of the other languages humans have devised, he or she will be restricted to the 'animalistic' grunts, squeaks, and screams exhibited by pre-verbal infants.

Also, as to the issue of animals co-operating with one another: this is primarily an instinctive action, which the animals do not (and probally CANNOT) go against. In contrast, humans must THINK CONSIOUSLY in order to form into groups, and co-operate meaningfully. No analog of (for example) symbolism, art, science, tool-making, or building shelters has been found in non-human animals. (What things animals DO build -- such as birds' nests, and beehives and such) are likewise UN-LEARNED. They are hardwired structures, which the animals never improve upon.
The qualitative difference between the most complex ant colony, and a stone-age tool made of rock, is that the tool took CONSIOUS THOUGHT to devise.

There's also a book called "human universals", which was written by an anthropologist named Donald E. Brown. The book studies how 'universal themes' appear across all human cultures, but also how they are ALL DIFFERENTLY EXPRESSED, in different cultures. (This is not true with different beehives, or wolf packs. The sum total of animal 'co-operation' is confined to a single pattern, which repeats EXACTLY, in every grouping of that animal.
(For example: geese always honk, and fly in a "v" formation. They never fly in a giant cube.)

This is somewhat oversimplified, but you get the idea of where I'm going with this.
Good question, Vertigo!

Reginald Firehammer

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 35

Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 10:52am
vertigo, Emrich,

vertigo said: To a degree animals are volitional, so you can't say 'only humans are volitional'

But only humans are volitional. Volition does not mean simply, "making a choice," because in its broadest sense, even a machine can be designed to make a choice.

It is the manner in which choice is made that distinguishes between the "instinctual" choices animals make and the "volitional" choices that humans make.

The difference is humans cannot behave at all without consciously choosing to. The actions of the autonomic nervous system and reflexes are not, "human behavior," because they are involuntary.

The motivator of all behavior is the feelings, the passions, and the desires. The animals respond directly to their desires, and the desires automatically produce the correct behavior for fulfilling those desires. This is the essential nature of instinct.

Desires in human beings do not tell us either what those feelings are a desire for or what actions to take to fulfill them. They must all be learned. An animal's desire for food (hunger) automatically produces the appropriate action to acquire the appropriate food to meet the requirements of that animal's nature.

Hunger in man produces no action at all (except crying, in babies). It does not tell us what we need to eat or how to acquire it, and even when we have learned these things, the desire still produces no action. We must choose to act on the knowledge (or we starve). A human being can choose to starve. An animal cannot. (Anorexia is an example.)

Only human beings have volition. It is the characteristic that distinguishes human consciousness from the consciousness of all other creatures. Volition is the faculty that makes reason, (and language, as well), both possible and necessary.

From your senile old friend,

Regi

Reginald Firehammer

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 36

Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 12:19pm
Emrich,

As you requested:

Syphilis increase sparks AIDS concerns, By Steve Mitchell
United Press International

U.S. sees HIV cases rise among gay, bisexual men, By Cheryl Wetzstein, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Health Risks of Gay Sex (This is the most thoroughly researched/documented study I have found. It is a PDF file. You won't like this one. The Corporte Resource Council does have a loose religious association, but research is research.)

Health and Homosexuality (Very detailed, very well documented. Swedish Site.)

Anal Cancer and YOU, By Bob Roehr, from Pridesource, a gay WEB site. This was interesting: "The incidence of anal cancer in the US is only 0.9/100,000. But among men who have sex with men that number soared to 35/100,000 in data gathered prior to the advent of HIV. And the rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer," says Palefsky."

Now let's see some of your statistics and sources.

Regi

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 37

Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 4:53pm
Regi:
Good deal on the "voliitonal consiousness" thing. Nice explanation.

Re: homosexuality:
You still haven't provided anything except "anal sex" related info, and no systematic indictment of Lesbians --- OR of any other specific sexual practice.
(And here I thought you were bowing out of the debate!) :)

I'll look at the information, but to be very honest, I find your idea of "research is research" to be pretty specious, in itself.
(For example, do you really want us (as Objectivists, and secularists -- if not outright Atheist), to aquiesce to the copious 'studies' on the supposed 'fact' that religious belief (christianity, of course), is supposed to be a definite health benefit? The organizations who put forward such "studies" are beholden to a particular premise (or at any rate, have a definite hypothesis in mind.)
Regi, my point is, research is most assuredly NOT all "research" -- by which I mean, of course, that not all 'research' is equivalently rigorous, or of comparable quality.
To be honest, I don't know whether I want to even bother with this debate (because you automatically, upon my dissagreeing with you, went into some form of pouty 'you hurt my feelings!"
To be honest, I have many other things to occupy my time (job, other discussion-threads, etc.) Perhaps Francois Tremblay could take this debate over?

(In addition: the incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases/paracites/etc, would in and of itself, not indicate that any given sexual practice is 'contrary to human nature' (anymore than drinking contaminated water indicates that "water consumption" is contrary to human nature.)

I MAY continue this later. (It's a pity that you decided to take the 'infectious disease' route, rather than actually addressing any of the points I raised.)

Ah well, c'est la vie! :)

Cheers, Regi! :)

Francois Tremblay

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 38

Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 5:05pm
I don't want to take Henry's side of the debate on homosexuality, I don't want to debate homosexuality. There is no debate as far as I'm concerned. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and therefore has nothing to do with ethics, politics, or any other ic. Everyone should have sex in the way they see best, as long as they don't hurt anyone without their consent. The end.

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 39

Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 5:41pm 
Franc:
Yes, admittedly you are right, but the thing is, Regi seems to want to peg the entire homosexuality "issue" on the topic of ANAL SEX among gay men, and the (claimed) health risks attendant to it.
The shortcomings of his argument, have already been stated, so I'm not going to reiterate them. However, suffice to say that (just as Regi was supposedly willing to do, a few days ago), I will gladly allow our esteemed colleqgue Mr. Firehammer, to have the last word. (Considering that there are far more interesting debates elsewhere on this board, and we've STILL to see any cogent explanation of any of the points I raised, besides.)

Why continue a discussion when my opponent is not going to actualy REPLY to anything I've said?

vertigo

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 40

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 11:18am
So the essence of the difference between humans and animals is that humans can behave against their desires, and animals can't? Perhaps a nice way to say this is to say humans can choose their own goals, whereas typically animals can't.

This is good enough for me. Since humans can choose what goals to pursue, you then say any human pursuit is acceptable if it doesn't harm other people, right? What about cruelty towards animals? Is that perfectly aceptable? Perhaps some sicko gets pleasure out of skinning dogs alive. Is that okay?

Another point now, let's say somebody sees a person just about to walk across the road and a car is rapidly approaching. Let's say it is this person's judgement that the car will hit the person, but if they shout to warn the person it might be avoided. In this case, you would say it is perfectly acceptable to not interfere, by doing so you are harming nobody. Would you feel any motivation to shout, potentially averting the accident?

Or if you saw women's handbag get pinched, would you feel any motivation to apprehend the thief? It's no skin off your back if somenody's bag gets stolen; they should have been more careful. I'm just trying to understand Objectivist ethics at this point, in light of the attitude that any behaviour is acceptable if other's rights are observed.

Sam Erica

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 41

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 11:49am 
Vertigo: Benevolence is considered by Objectivists to be a virtue. How about doing more reading before asking elementary questions?

Francois Tremblay
Post 42

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 12:14pm
"I'm just trying to understand Objectivist ethics at this point, in light of the attitude that any behaviour is acceptable if other's rights are observed."

You are confusing politics with ethics. Be more careful.

Here's a clue : when you talk about good and evil, you should be using the word "value", not "right". If you use "right", that's because you're talking about politics.

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 43

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 12:23pm
"So the essence of the difference between humans and animals is that humans can behave against their desires, and animals can't? Perhaps a nice way to say this is to say humans can choose their own goals, whereas typically animals can't"

Vertigo:
The two things you stated are not the same thing at all, and are not even equivalent.

1. "Acting against desires" could mean just about anything. (For example, if I 'want" to go outside, but sit here instead, that doesn't say anything about my capacity for rationality, or my capacity to choose my own goals.
A dog (yeah, I like dogs, what can I say), CAN be trained to 'act against his own desires" (in that he will 'stay' whether he really WANTS to move, or not, if you tell him to 'stay'.)

Now, the issue of "choosing one's own goals" is a totally different question, entirely. First, because those goals which you choose WILL be something which you 'desire'. You're making a potentially-fatal psychological mistake when you equate anything anybody "wants" with a mere 'desire" (or as Rand would have stated it, a 'whim'.)

So no, in answer to your question, 'choosing your own goals' is NOT simply a 'nicer way" of saying that you can go against your own desires.
If the only criteria for a moral life was to "goa against your own desires", then why adopt a moral code such as Objectivism (which explicitly states that "Man's happiness" -- INDIVIDUAL happiness, as opposed to 'collective' varieties), is the "ONLY moral purpose of one's life".?
"Life" is not merely a state of "just barely scraping along". As Aristotle so aptly pointed out, there IS a difference between "living and living well". ANY action must be judged WITHIN the context of whether it enriches an individual's life, or diminishes it --- and contrary to what SOME people on the board might assert (Firehammer comes to mind as one possibility), such enrichment CAN occur in other ways than simply 'maximal length of lifespan."
Consider: would even the most ardently "prudish" Objectivist suggest that 140 years of priggish, empty, boring "just doing te minimum to survive physically", would be prefferable to a SIXTY year lifespan which was full of experiences, relationships, problems to be solved, and things to learn? I don't tihnk so.

Vertigo, you have just hit on the essence of the only RATIONAL moral system which has ever been achieved: Even the Wiccans -- as much as I find them to be somewhat peculiar -- have realized it. As their "Rede' says: "if you harm none, do what you will."

The essence of personal morality is NOT whether a given action may take six minutes, a year, or even THIRTY years off of your 'potential lifespan", but whether WITHIN the context of YOUR LIFE (the sum total of everything you do, experience, and become), it is enriching. This is one of the reasons I have never found "veganism" to be attractive: it posits a level of 'bare sustenance' which, to be very honest, would not count as WORTH living.

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 44

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 12:48pm
SamErica:
Is "gossiping" a benevolent acttivity? How about doing more THIKING before castigating Vertigo for asking what you consider 'elementary' (IE STUPID) questions? How is he going to LEARN anything, if he doesn't ask?

Vertigo:
In both of your examples, you miss a vital difference.

1. Yelling at somebody to maybe help them not get run over by a car is VERY different from actively interfering in someone's private activities.
Much as I like dogs, I find 'animal cruelty' laws to be a slippery slope phenomenon. "Send the guy to jail for skinning his dog", is NOT that much of a step away from "send the guy to jail for eating hamburger!"
Sometimes the choice is indeed between two undesirable outcomes. (IE, a legitimate government will not be able to outlaw 'drugs', because of the inevitable erosion of OTHER 'civil liberties' implicit in such actions. This will mean that we take the chance of having some people who OD, or become nonfunctional, or what have you. But the question is: is the 'cure' (government oversight of every area of your life) better than the "problem" (individuals doing what YOU consider 'misuse' of their freedom?)
I don't think so.

Now, in the case of a woman's purse being pinched, somebody's rights HAVE been violated (the woman's.) Helping somebody else to defend their rights (in this case, the right to her own property), is indeed of benefit -- but again, we run into the question "should the government stick a gun to your head, and COMPEL you to 'help?' No.

Also, none of these examples are appropriate to the homosexuality argument: what two (or three, or four) consenting adults do in the privacy of their OWN LIVES, is legally (and morally) no concern of anyone else. Notice I said CONSENTING.
If my neighbor consents to wear big adult-size diapers, and address his wife as "mommy", then that's no reason to break into his house because I think it's "irrational."

If I choose to eat fatty steak dinners because they are aesthetically pleasing (but maybe not as 'good for me' as bland tofu shakes, and brown rice), then that's NOT YOUR GODDAMN business. Complaining is fine, but the dividing line is: it's SOMEBODY ELSE'S LIFE, and if the 'solution' to the problem involves INITIATING FORCE, then it's simply not worth doing.

Now notice: INITIATION of force. That means STARTING something. In the case with the woman: if I run after the robber, tackle him to the ground, and bash his skull into the floor until he's unconsious, I have NOT 'initiated' force -- I have RETALIATED against force.
Likewise, if a rapist punches a woman, that is initiation of force. If a woman DEFENDS HERSELF against the rapist (to safeguard her right not to be coerced brutally, into unwanted sex), then it is 'self-defense'.

Think of any political or social 'problem', and then ask yourself one key question;

"Would the proposed 'solution' involve infringing the rights of those who have not themselves infringed OTHER'S rights?" If the answer is yes, then you're not faced with any 'problem' other than the fact that YOU want to intrude into others lives, immorally.

I hope I clarrified this somewhat. For better discussions of this, I'd suggest you start reading some Libertarian literature. (Libertarians have a slightly different take on it all, than standard Objectivists, and sometimes they explain things better.)

Thanks again, for the good question. Sorry, Hibbert, if my replying to someone's honest question was "monopolizing the board". I guess I'm just a "young punk" who doesn't know when to bow down, and genuflect in the presense of wisdom.

(You could have had an opportunity to explain what 'benevolence' IS, but you didn't bother. Your loss, Hibbert.)

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 45

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 12:59pm
Franc:
Positing a 'dividing-iine' between ethics and politics is somewhat dangerous, because (as Rand so aptly stated), "Politics and the application of ethics to a 'society'" (That may be slightly garbled, but I'm not going to bother paging through six books just to look up ONE sentence!). Politics, and the concept of "rights" derive from the field of ethics, in that the 'rights of a government' are derived SOLELY from the "rights of it's citizens AS individuals", and THOSE rights derive from the correct values and ethics of man's life.

Ethical-political dichotomy is just another disastrous attempt at the 'mind/body' dichotomy, or the 'moral/practical' dichotomy. you should know better.

vertigo

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 46

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 1:00pm
I am getting mixed messages at this point. On the one hand, you say 'whether within the context of your life it is enriching'. I suppose it comes down to what you think enriches your life.

I have fundamental differences of opinion, with the people of this site and with the many things expressed in Atlas Shrugged. At this time I am not ready to jump in without being sure of it. I still get the impression that behind Objectivism's strong words and bold ideas there is a hidden leap of faith, things that don't compute. In response to questions about this I get told 'don't ask elementary questions'. Fine, I won't.

Unfortunately that is the only questions I have to ask.

vertigo

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 47

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 1:18pm
Oh well, I didn't your last two posts.

Let me just ask the pertinent and potentially stupid question. If benevolence is a virtue, which I did realise from importanceof philosophy.com, does Objectivism say you must be benevolent?

Or is it OK to never be benevolent ever, in Objectivism's terms. Because this is what it comes down to. SamErica made it sound like since it is a virtue you must do it.

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 48

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 1:26pm
Vertigo:
PLEASE do not run off so fast! I (for one) am honestly trying to help you discover your own views and values. To be honest, I have some problems with Atlas Shrugged too, as well as with Rand. But by and large, Objectivism is (or seems to be) closer to my own values than many others. I'm rapidly learning that even HERE, unreasoning condemnations and elitist drivel abound. Don't take SamErica seriously: I know I don't. (grin)

Go read some of Joe Rowland's articles, on this site. He highlights the differences between a "duty-based" morality (which impels you toward virtues as something you 'must' do), and morality as a set of principles (which serve as generalized guidelines for living your life.)

I believe he posted 13 or fourteen articles discussing the application of the various Objectivist virtues, to an individual's life.

But no, Vertigo, please don't let SamErica bludgeon you into leaving.

Francois Tremblay

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 49

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 2:07pm
"Franc:
Positing a 'dividing-iine' between ethics and politics is somewhat dangerous, because (as Rand so aptly stated), "Politics and the application of ethics to a 'society'""

Yes, I agree. I'm talking conceptually here, not deductively. Small but significant difference. Ethics and politics are different levels of discourse.


"Ethical-political dichotomy is just another disastrous attempt at the 'mind/body' dichotomy, or the 'moral/practical' dichotomy. you should know better."

Tsk tsk Henry. I didn't say it was a dichotomy. That doesn't even make any sense. Dichotomy of what ? Human action ?

Henry Emrich

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 50

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 4:45pm
True enough, politics and ethics ARE different levels of discourse, but they most definitely DO occupy the same 'conceptual hierarchy", if you know what I mean.

What I meant by "dichotomy" was: positing a fundamental dis-similarity between politics and ethics, in the same way as the "mind/body dichotomy" seeks to undermine the essential interconnects between mind and body.

Also true that I should have been clearer/gave you more credit. (I guess I'm just sorta getting used to the sort of 'argumentation' that goes on here, too often. Must remember that you are more capable.

Francois Tremblay

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 51

Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 5:07pm
"True enough, politics and ethics ARE different levels of discourse, but they most definitely DO occupy the same 'conceptual hierarchy", if you know what I mean."

Yes.


"What I meant by "dichotomy" was: positing a fundamental dis-similarity between politics and ethics, in the same way as the "mind/body dichotomy" seeks to undermine the essential interconnects between mind and body."

I agree. All I'm saying is that talking about rights as the only defining factor of action is a confusion. Each level of discourse has its own conceptual structure.


"Also true that I should have been clearer/gave you more credit. (I guess I'm just sorta getting used to the sort of 'argumentation' that goes on here, too often. Must remember that you are more capable."

Yes, we tend to be more capable than it looks, it's just a question of being rigorous (^_____^)

MUVIRSE2

Post 52

Monday, March 1, 2004 - 1:26pm
I think everyone studying Objectivism needs to study Aristotle first, it is clear by the topic of this forum that most of the " Objectivists" on this site do not even understand the law of identity. The thing that will destroy Objectivism are people who don't understand the fundamentals of the philosophy in the first place. Even though Leonard Peikoff is not the ideal Objectivist, he wrote a very good article called fact and value in response to Kelly and the Brandens which hit the problem with " Objectivists" right on the head. I think the article can be found at aynrand.org. There are so many articles and forums on this site that talk about issues Objectivism has already discussed, there is no need to dwell on small issues, most of the principles have already been established. Notice that Ayn never addressed an issue twice, she thought in principle. She would often explain, but she would not address questions like, Does Objectivism allow man to marry who he wants? Does Objectivism allow man to steal a loaf of bread when starving? The same goes for the gay issue, it is very critical for Objectivist newbies to study all aspects of Objectivism before posting questions.

Ted Keer

Post 53
Friday, January 2, 2009 - 5:38pm
Well, I never would have thought I'd see it, but the post above mine is the first explicit example I've seen of the Fundamentalist Objectivist Church of Textual Inerrancy. Rand has said it all, and has never repeated herself. One must read everything she wrote before thinking. All questions have been answered, fully, and for all time.

The Great and Powerful OZ has Spoken!



Ryan Keith Roper

Post 54

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 5:51pm
Ummm, I haven't read enough to comment on the actual thread, but did this guy just take a paragraph to call everyone a noob, while implying that the only rational reasons to comment in a thread are being Ayn Rand or possessing a sophisticated AI simulation of Ayn Rand in your head, so that you can think her thoughts in real time?

Teresa Summerlee Isanhart
RoR Editor

Post 55

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 6:23pm
*snort*

Ted Keer

Post 56

Friday, January 2, 2009 - 6:44pm

My only regret, (You'll understand once you've read the thread) is not having Reggie here to show him what the function of a few of my organs is.

Steve Wolfer

Post 57

Saturday, January 3, 2009 - 12:17am

Regi says, "The organs of the human body all have a specific natural functions. Man must discover what those functions are. Children, for example, frequently put small objects in their noses or ears, which must be removed, usually to their discomfort. This is not as dangerous as it is instructive, the minor pain is evidence that child has used these organs in way contrary to their nature."

I have learned to use laughter when reading things like this! I wonder if Regi has all of his organs properly figured out yet? I don't even want to think about which organ he put where to acquire the instructive minor pain to show him not to do that.

Ted Keer

Post 58

Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 11:06pm

The funny (really sad) thing with Regi's "natural function" argument is that it is absolutely biologically evolutionarily 100% wrong. Organs do not have set functions. The can be adapted to new uses. The first bird to fly was not a perverted dinosaur doing unnatural things with its wings. The first man to speak was not doing pervereted things with his lips. And why exactly do men have lips or nipples according to Regi? Ah, the idiocy....

William Dwyer
Post 59

Friday, January 16, 2009 - 6:07pm
"...the minor pain is evidence that child has used these organs in way contrary to their nature." - Regi Firehammer

Hmm. Does the 'argument from minor pain' apply to a virgin experiencing sexual intercourse for the first time? Is it evidence that she is using her organs in a way contrary to their nature?

How about the pain of childbirth? Is it evidence that a woman is using her organs in a way contrary to their nature?

Just curious.

- Bill

Objectivism and Homosexuality, Again - Part I - Discussion
Kirsten Russell

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 0

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 - 3:59pm
Bravely spoken, Chris Matthew Sciabarra (I'm sure you recognize the quote from BEN-HUR, but I don't mean it the way Hugh Griffith did--I mean it literally). I've been aware for years that the relationships between Roark and Wynand in THE FOUNTAINHEAD and Rearden and Francisco in ATLAS SHRUGGED are implicitly romantic, but never seen it so clearly stated in print. (The way Rand stated it in her letters and journals was contradictory and confusing.) Much as she reportedly did not intend it, those relationships do come across as homoerotic, if not actually homosexual -- and it wasn't until I recognized that they do that I could understand why many of the men I met at the Nathaniel Branden Institute were gay. Three of those men were long-lasting friends of mine, and though we finally went separate ways, I still care deeply about them and hope they are happy. If the Objectivist movement was homophobic, one of the most important things I learned from it was to understand and accept homosexuality as a normal variety of human sexual response. Thanks again for your wonderful (and very courageous) series on Objectivism and homosexuality.

Sal Barbella

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 1

Sunday, October 20, 2002 - 3:35pm
Many things can be read into a situation, and I think Sciabarra is reading his own personal values into Rand's writing. I think Sciabarra sees these relationships as homosexual because this is his relationship to reality. He sees friendship and closeness between men in a homosexual context, when perhaps it is only friendship and bonding that he is seeing. Hetero males have needs and wants of other males, and these needs and wants are often misinterpreted by others. Gay males generally relate to men in a different way then hetero males, and many things are often misinterpreted.Many men see any closeness between women as a sign of lesbianism, when in fact, many times, it is just gals being pals and friends.

I would say to Chris, work for an acceptance of homosexuality but don't try to impose it on Objectivism, or on Objectivists, who are accepting of homosexuality but who are in favor of heterosexuality. This type of behavior is similar to those heterosexual shrinks who were always trying to change gay men and women. I think, right now, you are trying change Objectivism to suit your personal lifestyle, when in fact the world is open to you to create your own view of it, exclusive of Ayn Rand.

Olivia Hanson

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 2

Monday, October 21, 2002 - 6:56pm
With supposed friends like Chris Sciabarra, why would Ayn Rand need enemies? Apparently, Sciabarra has found the vulnerable point in Ayn Rand, and is about to exploit it to death: her dislike for homosexuality. Yes, she said it and how terrible of her, so let's get down to the real business at hand: changing our society.

Really Chris, I wish I had a dollar for every gay women who has told how disgusting she thinks heterosexuality is, and how repugnant and vile the heterosexual act is, especially the part called f......!

Also, your comment from Rossano Brazzi, is just a remark from someone who had no knowledge of who or what she was. Do I have to repeat here some of the remarks I have heard about you, especially your favorite position, and what part of the male anatomy you favor?

And last but not least....Jon Galt! Is it possible you could have chosen a sleezier example? With all the responsible, productive gay men and women, you have to chose someone who seems to favor his penis over his brain.

In my opinion, you are an enemy of Ayn Rand, and I tend to sympathize with the Peikoff crowd, and their disdain for your work. You exploit Rand, and you strive to destroy her image. People like you and Mimi Gladstein can't decide to love her, or hate her, in the meantime, you survive by exploiting her.

Olivia Hanson

sciabarra

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 3

Tuesday, October 22, 2002 - 4:42am
Just a few points in response to those who have contributed to the dialogue here.

First, thanks to Kristen Russell for your kind words with regard to this series on "Objectivism and Homosexuality."

Second, to Sal Barbella: If you'd carefully read this segment of the series again, you'll find that I have NOT imposed my own personal context on Rand's work. In fact, what I did was merely to state that several commentators have noted the "homosocial" aspects of Rand's fiction, and that Rand herself viewed the relationships between some of her male characters as extensions of romantic love. I then contrasted this view with her later, stated views, about the mutual exclusivity of romantic love and friendship, thus causing a tension between the two depictions. I do not believe that Rand viewed any of the relationships between her fictional men as homosexual, and I do believe that she says something of great importance about the need for emotional bonding among men---of whatever sexual orientation.

Ultimately, I'm not trying to impose homosexuality on anyone. As the conclusion of my series proclaims: Rand offers us "a legacy that projects an exalted view of love as a response to values. It is a legacy that belongs to all rational men and women of whatever sexual orientation."

To Olivia Hanson, I am not an enemy of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has made the biggest impact on my thinking of any philosopher I've ever read. I've devoted volumes to Rand's work because I think it is important---not only philosophically, but as an engine of analysis to combat human oppression on any scale, be it personal, cultural, or political/economic.

I also think I present a rather sympathetic picture of Rand's sexual views, despite my obvious disagreement with her assessment of homosexuality, which, as I've stated, is not a core principle of Objectivism---and should have no effect one way or the other on our acceptance of that philosophy.

The comment from Rossano Brazzi that you point to was, in fact, COUNTERED by me in the article, since I pointed out that I found absolutely no evidence of Rand's "bisexuality." Interestingly, however, I have been in touch with a few people who know the nuances of Italian a lot better than I do; some of these individuals have suggested that Brazzi may have been talking more about Rand's "androgynous" blending of "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics, rather than any sexual proclivities. Either way, I do not give any credence to Brazzi's claim. I merely raise the issue as a way of examining the theme of gender in Rand's life and work.

And as for all those remarks you've heard about me, let me repeat them for you: I've been called The Evil "Sciabarra Man"; a second-hander Peter Keating; my search for evidence of Rand's Russian roots has been likened to the approach of Adolf Hitler, racists, and other crackpots; upon writing a piece on "The Laramie Project" for THE FREE RADICAL, I was told by an alleged "Objectivist" reader to go join the gay-bashed "AIDS-infected Matthew Shepard in hell"; upon debating the issue of homosexuality some years ago, it was said of me that my attendance at NYU in Greenwich Village made clear that I'd received all three degrees as a "c*cksucker on my knees". And let's not forget the real classic that my sexual orientation explains the "warped" bizarre views I have on dialectical method.

Yeah, some so-called "Objectivists" are paragons of benevolence.

Oh, as for my favorite position: sitting in front of this computer. And my favorite parts of the male anatomy: eyes, hands, and feet. :)

As for Jon Galt: we've already had a long discussion about him, no, uh, pun intended. Let me say that I simply found it unusual and worth discussing--that somebody so unashamed of their anatomy and sexual orientation would take the name of one of Rand's protagonists and build a career in adult film. Yes, of course, there are plenty of productive gay men and women, straight men and women, in many other professions. Nobody is denying that.

Finally, as to your sympathy with the Peikoff crowd and your disdain for my work: take a look at "Partisanship vs. Objectivity in Ayn Rand Scholarship" on SOLO HQ. Perhaps then, you might have a different opinion as to who is actually exploiting Rand (spiritually and materially) and destroying her image.

Loving Ayn Rand as I do, does not mean that I am unwilling to analyze her---with the same critical, objective stance that I'd bring to my analysis of any other giant in intellectual history.

Cheers,
Chris

Olivia Hanson

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 4

Tuesday, October 22, 2002 - 3:46pm
I think Chris you suffer the from the same Objectivist disease that runs rampant in the Objectivist world, the melding of consciousness and the objective world into one, so as to think your view of a certain situation is objective reality. I, Chris Sciabarra, see it as thus, and therefore it is. However, I, Olivia Hanson, gay female, Objectivist, see your articles in a different light.

No doubt, you think you are pursuing a certain course but I think in the end, your deeper more unconscious forces are ruling the day. Primarily, I would say a large contradiction between your sense of life, and that of Rand as portrayed in her writings. This, to me, is the most glaring contradiction, and I think something that is manifesting in your writings.

I think many people see your efforts as intellectually honest, yet perhaps guided by hidden drives that you are not aware of.

As to whether you are an enemy of Ayn Rand or not, I would definitely say she would see you in this light, exclusive of your homosexuality, and guided only by your intellectual efforts. In my opinion, along with many other people, she would have disliked "Femininist Interpretations" immensely; probably would have disliked "Russian Radical" especially with the Marxist dualist twist of yours.

Also, while homosexuality in regards to Objectivism is an important issue, and I applaud you for your effort, you seem to be intent on beating her over the head with her unfortunate statements. After all, she was from another generation, and died just about the time homosexuality was coming into public light.

While Jon Galt seemed like a good idea for you, I see it as extremely disrespectful to Ayn Rand, and her life. You must realize you carry her name, and you live off her name, so you must respect the consequences of what you do and say for her name, and its public image.

And please, Chris, you keep using the same example of how you got your degree, and that some person sent you a hostile email in regard to Matt Sheppard, and called you anti-gay names. Get over it. It comes with the territory, and if you want to play with the big boys, suck it up and become a leader, not a whiny, little victim. You state that you love Ayn Rand, so then why not act like it? Why not show a heroic posture instead of whining and victimizing yourself as some poor little gay boy brutalized by those Objectivists? Would Roark or Rearden start whining when someone said something to them? We all know the price of being gay, but how many of us know the price of showing a heroic posture? Did Jackie Robinson start crying when people called him nigger? No, he struck a heroic posture and changed his world.

If you want to prove your love of Ayn Rand, show it in your actions! And stop crying and making excuses. Life is more than an academic exercise.

Myron Ford

Post 5

Tuesday, October 22, 2002 - 7:53pm
Jon Galt's hardware will never match Ayn Rand's software, although I must admit I enjoy his virtues much more than Rand's. Who needs women when we have Jon Galt, and the pleasures of male on male sex. Besides, women are cruel creatures, heartless and unforgiving in regards to sex. Real intimacy only occurs amongst brothers who love and nurture without contempt.

Anyway, there is definitely something homoerotic about Rand's world. I think Rand's world is a perfect blueprint for homosexual men, who despise society, sex with women, and a normal life. Think about all the future societies that can be built with only men at the helm. Of all the selfish concepts, the love between two men is the utmost, an erotic adventure unmatched by women. Also, I think Wynant wanted Roark's baby, more than he wanted a building designed by him.

Joseph Rowlands

Post 6

Tuesday, October 22, 2002 - 10:38pm
Olivia,

You've failed to make your case. Maybe you should reevaluate your position. You seem to think Chris' articles are some smear job towards Ayn Rand. But the evidence doesn't support it.

He's shown what Rand said, and how Objectivists have not only accepted her mistake, but practice it. If this were just about Rand being wrong, it wouldn't be that interesting. But he's shown that her mistake has had a large influence on other Objectivists, and that other Objectivist have made their own mistakes making it worse. Which means he's not focusing primarily on Rand, but on the culture of Objectivism. That should be clear from reading all FIVE articles.

You started off implying that Chris had no good reason to discuss this issue, and that it's merely because he's an evil enemy of Rand. Well, if the evidence provided in FIVE articles wasn't sufficient, he gave even more evidence. And what do you say? Instead of recognizing his attempt to show the results of these ideas, you've just told him to stop crying. But this is just dismissing the evidence he's provided.

The result of your statements is that there is no justification for discussing Rand's mistakes, ever. Any possible reason is dismissed as mere whining, and the motivation can only be that of an enemy trying to tear her down. Lovely. Mere questioning of Rand is considered a moral fault. Or is questioning okay if you don't do it out loud?

I did notice that you didn't try to argue with him on any points of substance. You've called him an enemy, talked of mysterious "hidden drives" that somehow affect his work, and dismissed his evidence as whining. Guess that means you agree with all his facts and reasoning?

sciabarra

Post 7

Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 4:43am
Edit
Olivia tells me I'm suffering from some "disease" and that I'm a victim of my own unconscious drives. My, my, my... that's quite an exercise in psychologizing---which, as we all know, Ayn Rand herself declared was an argumentative fallacy.

I've not questioned your motivations or psychology, Olivia. And I can even disagree with you without attacking you personally. But don't presume to know anything about me or my sense of life.

You're probably right, however, that Rand would have disliked some of my work---though not all of it. Clearly, I am less interested in the approval of Rand, or Peikoff, or even you---than I am in the pursuit of truth. I don't claim to have uncovered the One and Only Truth. But I do claim to have worked hard to uncover lots of interesting pieces of evidence that have helped me to put forth a bold and daring thesis about Rand's methodology and her intellectual roots. We can disagree about that, we can even disagree over my five-part series on homosexuality and Objectivism, but there's no reason to fault the other person's sense of life or "hidden drives."

I do appreciate your applause of my efforts... but the point of the series was NOT to beat Ayn Rand over the head. In fact, I clearly state that Rand DID have a RIGHT to her opinion, and you'll find no argument from me that Rand's views should be placed in historical context. That is, after all, the raison d'etre of AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL.

The purpose of the series was to examine "homophobia" within the "Objectivist movement"---its origins, its implications, and its effects. That "homophobia" has been buried in the closet for so long---and I simply wanted to rattle the chains a bit. Unless we "check our premises" on this issue, it will never become the NON-ISSUE it SHOULD be.

As for Jon Galt: I chose to interview him and to quote him in a SINGLE paragraph (300 or so words) of my 15,000+ word five-part series. Try not to reify one paragraph as if it were a whole unto itself.

Finally, there is only one reason why I mentioned the issue of the names I've been called. It's because, YOU, Olivia, RAISED the issue. Since you made some innuendos about the things people say about me and my sexuality, I wasn't going to allow THAT to go unanswered. It is better to state such things EXPLICITLY and OBJECTIVELY than to make off-the-cuff implicit statements, which might be interpreted in any number of off-the-wall ways.

I do live in the real world, and I do not play the "poor little gay boy" victimized by nasty Objectivists. I've been criticized from every angle and on every issue, and have publicly answered many of these criticisms---and I've made these critical exchanges a vital part of my website. I know the price that is paid for standing up for what one believes, for living by the judgment of one's own mind. The price---the reward---is living a life of integrity.

I'd like to say something more about me, and why Ayn Rand appealed to me so personally... because, indeed "life is more than an academic exercise."

Like other people, I've had my obstacles, including some pretty severe health problems since birth. I've nearly lost my life several times. That doesn't make me a victim. It's just a recognition of a fact. And I learned to live with facts from a very early age, because that is the only way to survive. I learned that nothing is handed to you, that you have to work hard to get over obstacles, that you have to live a life of authenticity---because without authenticity, life is not worth living.

And when I found Ayn Rand and saw in her eloquent words the objective necessity of living such a life, I felt that I'd discovered an explicitly enunciated heroic creed to live by.

And I've done my best.

Roger Bissell

Post 8

Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 11:47am
One of the most refreshing things about Chris Sciabarra, other than his manifest intelligence, scholarliness, honesty, and good will, is the fact that he is secure enough in his personal and sexual identity that he is comfortable being good friends with people, regardless of ~their~ sexual orientation -- and this makes it possible for people who are secure in ~their~ sexual identities to be open to the joyous opportunity of calling him "friend." One of the enlightening things about the current exchanges of comments about his revealing series on homophobia in the Objectivist movement is that it has stimulated people of ~all~ sexual orientations to engage in hateful, ad hominem attacks. Rand's supposed defenders do her no service by resorting to such scurrilous behavior.

Best 2 all,
Roger Bissell, heterosexual
and devoted friend of CMS

Roderick Long

Post 9

Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 3:26pm
For those who think "Sciabarra is reading his own personal values into Rand's writing," let me add my two cents: for what it's worth (two cents, I guess), I'm a heterosexual male, but the Roark-Wynand relationship has always struck me as having homoerotic overtones. So I'm afraid I don't find very convincing the suggestion that one has to be a homosexual male in order to find homoeroticism in _The Fountainhead_.

At any rate, surely the way to resolve the question is to focus on the text, not on other interpreters.

So: suppose you found the following scene in an Ayn Rand novel. How would you interpret it?

"She, Dagny Taggart, was the helpless one in this moment, with the solid planking of the deck under her feet. Roark, floating like a piece of driftwood, held a power greater than that of the engine in the belly of the yacht. Dagny thought: Because that is the power from which the engine has come.
Roark climbed back on deck; Dagny looked at Roark's body, at the threads of water running down the angular planes. She said:
'You made a mistake on the Stoddard Temple, Howard. That statue should have been, not of Dominique, but of you.'"

Would you interpret it as devoid of heteroerotic overtones? If not, why interpret it as devoid of homoerotic overtones in its original form?

Adam Reed

Post 10

Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 4:25pm
To follow up on Chris Sciabarra's discussion of relationships
among Rand's male heroes:

Before giving a label to a concept, one ought to identify the facts
of reality that concept pertains to. Branden's theory of romantic
love as based on mutual "psychological visibility" identifies the
romantic partner as, prior to anything else, a person who makes
visible - who exemplifies and/or visibly responds to - one's own
essential awareness of what one is. This feeling of "psychological
visibility" is, at least in my experience, an aggregate of
experienced visibility on many different dimensions of character.

One's sexual identity is only one of those dimensions. And it is the
only dimension of character that requires, for visibility, a mutually
reciprocated sexual attraction.

To Rand's heroes, sexual identity is much less central to who they
know they are, than their virtues "qua men". I read Rand's "Man"
in "qua Man" as a translation of the yiddish "Mensh", that is, a
person equipped with the complete set of human virtues, regardless
of whether those virtues are culturally stereotyped as masculine or
feminine. Let's keep in mind that Rand came from a culture that values
the androgeny implicit in developing oneself as a complete human,
rather than merely a male or a female. In Hebrew, the highest praise
for a woman's character, which Ayn clearly deserved, is "ayshet khail".
It means "soldierly woman", that is, a woman of strength, endurance,
and courage. Her male heroes are perhaps the most androgynous in any
English-language novel by a heterosexual author: benevolent and
compassionate, sensitive to beauty, feeling deep and developed
emotions. They are also, in complete integration with their androgeny,
powerfully masculine.

Roark and Wynand, or Francisco and Rearden, each made their most
important dimensions of character psychologically visible to the
other. The fact that both men in each pair were simultaneously in love
with the same woman, was a result of the same traits that gave them
mutual psychological visibility to each other.

Romantic love is built on two foundations: mutual psychological
visibility and mutual sexual attraction. It does not diminish the
special value of romantic love when psychological visibility is
also valued and celebrated for itself, even in the absence of Eros.

--
Adam Reed

Context matters. Seldom does *anything* have only one cause.

Ari
Post 11

Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 7:11p
I think your work in bringing homosexuality out of the closet in regards to Objectivism has been excellent, and that you deserve a good round of applause for your efforts. If you asked for and got only a tiny response from gay Objectivists, this is disappointing, disheartening, and maybe a wake-up call to people who are supposedly supporting a heroic philosophy.

My initial response to the world was as a radical of the left, and I have followed their reactions to homosexuality over the years, since the 60's. In this regard, Objectivism is light years behind, drapped in a world of darkness.

Recently, I was on N. Branden's forum and witnessed him saying that, he did not understand homosexuality and therefore could not comment on it. I was extremely disappointed in this type of response, and thought it inappropriate to anyone calling themselves a psychologist. I remember listening to one of his lectures at NBI in the sixties, talking about the flaws in homosexuality, and the arrested development of homosexual males. Apparently now, he has gone blind and just doesn't want to deal with the issue, as is the case with many others.

While Leonard Peikoff is often brutalized in open Objectivist circles, I thought his comments on homosexuality very much to the point, and at least he had the courage to make a statement. I don't remember his exact words, but he related that intelligent, sensitive boys have a hard time of it, and thus if they are homosexual, often seek the approval of men in this way.

Don't hold me to the exact quote. I am just summarizing what I remember him saying. Yet, as a gay man, I found it to be a cogent observation, and entirely lacking in hostility.

As for Ayn Rand, I met her several times and found her to be a very warm and charming person. At one time, I am told, she had a gay man working for her in some capacity, and I am told she adored him.

Yes, she made those regretable remarks. Yet, coming from leftist circles, I can tell you whatever she said, is quite lame compared to the "kill the cksucker" remarks I heard during the sixties and seventies.

Now, to be a bit critical. I didn't like the Jon Galt picture with penis exposed, and really thought it inappropriate, and had to wonder if it was your idea or was put there by someone else. Here, in talking about Rand (and we all know her exalted view of the world), we have a picture of him excentuating his penis as if this is what he values most in his life. Stereotypically, this is one of the images people have of gay men, penis-fixated drolls who worship Tom of Finland like musclemen. Anyway, lose the porn will you Chris. Very shabby, disrespectful of AR and I think a terrible example of gay Objectivism.

While Ms. Hanson has her own agenda, I do think many people do see you as an enemy of Ayn Rand, and not all of these people are being vindictive or anti-homosexual. As a friend, or someone who is appreciative of what you have accomplished, you might just want to step back and take a look at Chris Sciabarra from the outside. Not only with homosexual issues (which make many Objectivists very uncomfortable) but with some of the other things, like FI, there is a view that you are opposed to her.

Anyway, thanks again for a great series of articles on homosexuality, and opening up the Objectivist world to a different vision. In your own way, you are an innovator, and I look forward to reading your new books in the future.

Ari C.

sciabarra
Post 12

Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 5:04am
This is Part One of my response:

As I said on the SOLO Yahoo group forum once: My, my, my, my, my, my... :)

Some people have wondered if I get a thrill out of plucking all these strange chords and exciting so much controversy. I suppose I do---but the controversy is not an end in itself. It is always something that opens up new boxes for Objectivist Pandoras... and I think this is almost always a good thing.

I would like to respond with some depth to the many issues raised here. First, I would like to thank Roger Bissell, Roderick Long, Adam Reed, and Ari C. for their illuminating comments.

I have to admit that Roderick's implicit juxtaposing of the imagined Taggart-Roark encounter over the Stoddard Temple with the actual Wynand-Roark encounter was almost jarring. His question about heteroerotic versus homoerotic overtones was, I think, well phrased, and very provocative. I hadn't thought about it in these terms, and he's even raised > eyebrows (not an easy task).

Adam Reed deals with additional issues that are also extremely provocative; I was struck many years ago by Ronald Merrill's initial raising of the Jewish subtext of Rand's writing---and I think that Adam's discussion here lends even more credence to the project of grappling with that subtext. The fact that the subtext raises all sorts of interesting issues regarding gender and sexuality is all the more reason to examine it in greater detail.

Ari's excellent comments are, for me, the ones needing most attention. So I will focus on that in the remaining portions of this post.

First, thanks Ari, for your kind words with regard to the series and to my work in general. I should point out, however, that I got an ~overwhelming~ response from gay Objectivists in my call for interviews for this series. Those interviews numbered over 100, and the majority of these were from people of an alternative sexual orientation (gay, bisexual, transgender). The sad thing about the interview process was that next to nobody wanted to speak "on the record"---and so, well over 90% of the material that I used had to be quoted "anonymously." This was without respect to orientation, because heterosexual individuals were just as cautious about the use of their names in the series. If anything, this does show that for all of our progress, a certain stigma is still attached to this subject. In that sense, the series is a "wake-up call," as Ari has pointed out.

I was most interested in what Ari had to say about the left of the 1960s; as I point out in my finale, the left has had a very mixed record with regard to homosexuality. While some of the liberation impulses emerged out of the civil rights movement, the "Lavendar Left" was always looked at with some suspicion by Marxists who were of the opinion that homosexuality was a degenerate pre-communist vestige that would disappear in the ideal communist society. The gulags that were erected to usher in that society speak for themselves... since many of the victims are unable to speak.

I, too, was surprised by Nathaniel Branden's comments on his forum, but in fairness, his own mystification over this issue has been addressed in his post-Rand lectures---and I note these in the series. I think his attitude is one not simply of toleration; he thinks sexuality is enormously complex and that sexual orientation is not a moral issue, and I think he's moved away, quite considerably, from his earlier views about "arrested development." Peikoff's comments have also been mixed, as I've pointed out in the series, and as Ari himself notes in his post.

On the issue of Ayn Rand, I think I was very clear in the series that Rand enjoyed close relationships with many gay men, including her own brother-in-law, Nick Carter. Her own negative attitudes toward homosexuality did not seem to affect---in the slightest---her respect for people as individuals. (And yes, she did have a gay man working for her in some capacity---check out Arthur Silber's "Light of Reason" blog, for more information, since Silber, who is gay, and is a SOLO participant, worked with Rand during the period of her AYN RAND LETTER days... though I'm not sure if this is the same individual that Ari has in mind.)

Whatever the nature of Rand's attitudes, then, it never seemed to affect her behavior toward people. On this count, she was exemplary---and I note this in the finale of my series (which makes it all the more puzzling when people suggest that I was hammering Rand over the head with this issue... I think, if anything, I've made her much more sympathetic, in spite of whatever views she held).

Please read on to part two of my response ... the message was too big for the server.

sciabarra

Post 13

Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 5:07am
This is part two of my response:

The Jon Galt picture has caused a commotion. The commotion was addressed on the SOLO yahoo group, and actually, Arthur Silber himself enunciated his own concerns on the "Light of Reason" blog. Let me say that I recognize these concerns, and I don't wish to belittle them. But I think we need to place this whole discussion in a wider context.

First, THE FREE RADICAL---which is where the photo was initially published--- ~ regularly ~ prints photos of people who are naked, thanks to our esteemed editor Lindsay Perigo who has never shown the slightest embarrassment over the depiction of all sorts of male and female naked bodies. :) Jon Galt provided us with the opportunity to look over a number of his photos, and I can tell you that the one that was selected was the ~least~ "pornographic." Because his name was mentioned in the article, it was not an unusual choice to include a photograph of him.

When I did an article on rapper Eminem, and interviewed Brooklyn teens about him, THE FREE RADICAL published photographs not only of the rapper, but also of the teens whom I interviewed. So there was nothing strange, on the face of it, in publishing a photo of a person mentioned in an article.

I must confess I, myself, remain a bit mystified over the controversy of the photo, because I don't think it is all that revealing. (This might say something about my own libertine mores, but I don't think so...) We see the man's penis, but not the "head" and it is certainly not depicted in an aroused state. He is also in pretty good physical shape.

The interview itself portrays Galt as an adult film star who is very intelligent and concerned about the role of adult films as a purveyor of positive sexual values. Galt also makes points about eroticizing safe sex and about his libertarian concerns over the issue of censorship. All of these points, I think, are challenging. A part of me thought it necessary to introduce Jon Galt, not only because of his name and his love of Ayn Rand, but also because I do like pushing the envelope... and, as I explained above, not for its own sake.

I think that just as FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF AYN RAND upped the ante on discussions of gender in Objectivism, and just as the "homosexuality series" upped the ante on discussions of sexual orientation in Objectivism, so too raising the issue of "obscenity" and "pornography" has upped the ante on this discussion. I think there is a general discomfort among Objectivists with ALL of these issues, and for a philosophy that speaks of overcoming the mind-body dichotomy, this is all the more important to address.

I think we need to remind ourselves that Rand herself was criticized---in her time---for including steamy "fornicating bits" (as William Buckley called them) in her own novels... yes, even "rape scenes," rough sex, and B&D, S&M-type imagery. (The very name "Dominique" suggests "domination", and Rand's journals clearly show that she was dealing with all of these issues quite consciously.)

I also think it should be noted that for all of her problems with "pornography," Rand herself had absolutely no problem being interviewed by Alvin Toffler in PLAYBOY magazine in the 1960s. In that issue of PLAYBOY, there were lots of naked women in sexually-charged poses. If Rand herself had no problem being published in a magazine that, even during the 1960s sexual revolution, was viewed as "pornographic" by some, and that published photos of naked women, why should we be ashamed of depicting a not-fully-naked photo of Jon Galt in an article that mentions his name? Galt's photo is actually ~less~ revealing than any photo found in PLAYBOY, hardly a "hard-core" pornographic magazine. Is it because he's a man? Is it because he's gay? If so, then we need to check our premises.

I'm not certain of this, but I suspect that the outcry over this particular photo makes people uncomfortable for different reasons, but that uncomfortability itself has generated a valuable discussion; for that reason alone, perhaps it wasn't a bad thing to publish after all.

Some people have suggested that I should do a sequel series on "Pornography and Objectivism," but I think I'll put that one on the back-burner for now. Pretty soon they'll be calling me the "Larry Flynt of Objectivism"; I'm not sure I'm ready to add that title to the many other illustrious ones that I've heard. :)

Finally, I do appreciate Ari's suggestion that I need to "take a look at Chris Sciabarra from the outside." I actually do this on a very regular basis; I have to. In my capacity as an editor, whether of FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS or of THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES, I frequently have had to deal with authors who are constantly challenging me on all sorts of issues, and those challenges, by their nature, require the kind of self-examination that Ari thinks necessary. I sometimes have published articles with which I've had so many disagreements, that I startle myself for my liberality!

But the truth is that I publish such material (as long as it passes the required double-blind review process) because I am actively seeking to "up the ante" in Rand studies. I think that the outcry over the homosexuality series and several articles in THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES, and, before that, the feminist book (which got a thorough trashing in the pages of THE FREE RADICAL for over a year), are all indicative of just the kinds of things that Objectivism needs: engagement with hot-button approaches and issues.

The FEMINIST book alone brought together many different styles of feminism, but it also featured some cogent critiques of left-wing feminism in the contributions of authors such as Nathaniel Branden, Diana Brickell (now Hsieh), Sharon Presley, Karen Michalson, Wendy McElroy, and Valerie Loiret-Prunet. It also featured an interview with David Kelley (in Joan Kennedy Taylor's essay) that brought into question the very term "feminism." That this book now appears on the shelf as part of a series featuring over twenty similarly titled anthologies on Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Dewey, and others, speaks to its importance. Through my efforts and the efforts of many of my academic colleagues, Rand is being taken very seriously by scholars worldwide coming from very different traditions. It is simply one more necessary step in the wider permeation of Objectivism into the academy and into the wider culture.

Do some of these initial steps falter? Perhaps. That depends on the standard by which you evaluate them. I can only say that a baby doesn't learn to run, until it has learned to walk, and it doesn't learn to walk, until it begins to crawl.

Rand studies are probably still in the crawling stage. Some day, they will be soaring through the air.

In my view, Objectivism needs even more "enemies" to help that process along.

And as I've said in previous postings, if this be treason, I'll make the most of it.

Cheers,
Chris

====
Website: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra
====

Olivia Hanson

Post 14

Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 5:58pm
Why can't I know anything about your sense of life? You are a public figure, and your books have open covers. And really Chris, that charge of psychologizing is so childish and beneath you!

Are you telling me that hidden, unconscious drives are something one should ignore in the name of philosophy? If someone like you, who profeses to love Ayn Rand, does many things, that one would judge as anti-Rand, is it improbable to postulate that maybe hidden forces are work?

After all, anyone in therapy knows about ambivalent feelings toward loved ones, feelings of anger, rage, and hatred, as well as love.

Have you experienced therapy, delved into your deepest emotions, pains, hurts and resentments?

We all have hidden drives, unless we are fortunate enough to have spent time in therapy, so as learn what they are. Your article on Matt Shepard is the perfect example. Why would two men beat him to death, and mutiliate him in such a way, when he posed no physical threat? What hidden, unconscious forces drove them to beat him to death? And why would Matt Shepard get into their vehicle in the first place? Was he unaware of the danger gay men face, or was he refusing to look at this, seeking out some deep need of his own, that he wasn't in touch with?

So many times, when one reads of male gay bashing, the heterosexual attackers are quoted as saying the gay victims, "were coming on to them" and therefore they had to defend their masculinity. But why not defend their masculinity by walking away? Why are they striking out in murderous violence if it is not some hidden drives or feelings they don't want to face?

And by the way, while I was extremely critical of you, I would like to say your article on Matt Shepard was very touching and moving. Good work!

Other than that, I made my statement. If you can't see what the Jon Galt photo represents to many people then I am not on earth to educate you. And please, stop with the prudish nonsense. It is not a case of penis, vagina, etc., but a man focusing on his penis, AS HIS MOST IMPORTANT POSSESSION. Here again, I repeat. Your SENSE OF LIFE diverts sharply with that of Rand. She emphasized mind, ability, talent, productivity, and sexuality as a consequence.

Jon Galt is emphasizing penis, muscles, sexual lust, using a famous name as a gimmick.

Olivia

Kernon Gibes

Post 15

Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 7:06pm
Olivia wrote:

And really Chris, that charge of psychologizing is so childish and beneath you!


At first I was taken aback at Olivia accusing Chris of being childish, but there is a kernel of truth if you dig hard enough. Because it is true that there are many things beneath Chris --- he would, if he slipped, have far to fall. But Olivia, there doesn't seem to be much that is beneath you.

sciabarra

Post 16

Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 7:58pm
Olivia asked: "Why can't I know anything about your sense of life? You are a public figure, and your books have open covers."

Rand tells us that "sense of life" is one of the most personal, most intimate aspects of the subconscious. It is formed, in essence, by a tacit process of emotional abstraction, from the earliest moments of childhood. In most cases, it is also quite tenacious, affecting our ways of communicating, our choices, actions, responses, and so forth.

The point here is that it is an enormously complex aspect of human life, not something easily discernible by a person's articulated statements, or even a person's singular aesthetic responses. For anyone to presume that they "know" another person's sense of life without ever having actually MET (and getting to know) the person is remarkable on the face of it. (I don't think we've met, Olivia, have we? And even if we have, I don't think we've been friends all these years, have we?)

And, yes, of course, I do not believe that subconscious drives should be ignored. You make valid points about the Shepard murder in this context. What I'm saying, however, is that in order for you to pass judgment on an aspect of my consciousness that is implicit by definition, you'd have to have access to a lot more information about my consciousness and my life than you actually have. And it's not even something you can easily discern by simply reading an article or two of mine, or even a book or two.

For example, if I'd read WE THE LIVING, where all the main characters are destroyed, and Rand's short story "The Little Street," reeking with quasi-Nietzschean contempt, and ONLY these two works, I might have had a very different view of Rand's "sense of life" (as "malevolent") than, say, if I'd read ANTHEM and ATLAS SHRUGGED.

But even that is not a guarantee. Let's not forget that some people, like Whittaker Chambers, have read ATLAS SHRUGGED, and argued that Rand, in effect, expressed a malevolent sense of life: "To a gas chamber, go!" as Chambers put it. He was no more correct about Rand's sense of life than you are about mine.

You assert that my "SENSE OF LIFE diverts sharply with that of Rand. She emphasized mind, ability, talent, productivity, and sexuality as a consequence. Jon Galt is emphasizing penis, muscles, sexual lust, using a famous name as a gimmick." Do you realize that by making this statement, you are practically identifying me with Jon Galt, and judging my whole sense of life on the basis of a single 300-word paragraph and its accompanying photograph?

I'm not going to get into all the personal details of my life on a public board; quite frankly, it is none of anybody's business. Let me say, however, that I do know the importance of the formal therapeutic process, and that I've also kept a personal journal since I was 11 years old, and that 30+ years of introspective journal-keeping provides a remarkable opportunity for "premise checking"---which I do routinely.

With all due respect, worry about your own premises, and I'll take care of mine.

Peace,
Chris

Antony Teets


Post 17

Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 8:55pm
Olivia,

You are showing your sense of life to be a very negative and destructive force. The first time I read a message from you on SOLO I was shocked at your lack of benevolence and total disregard of proportionality. In fact your comments shocked me far more than the photo of Jon Galt on Sciabarra's article! I smiled at the photo, I frowned when I read your message.

Unfortunately, Ari seems to agree with you that the photo of John Galt is beneath Sciabarra and that therefore Sciabarra did not use good judgment by including it with the article. I am sure many people like you are shocked. Many more are not. You seem to feel that the central issue is that including a photo like that of Jon Galt in an article discussing Rand is beneath her as well. Yet Ayn Rand had an interview with Playboy that many prudes would have regarded as beneath her BECAUSE of the associations. Playboy has interesting articles but they also show lots of nude women.

Rand didn't have to talk about the glories of heterosexual love and sex because, as you will note, most heterosexuals don't have to talk that way. They are the majority. They rule. I think it is perfectly valid for Sciabarra to speak of homosexuals in Objectivism past, present, and future if for no other reason than to avoid the kind of emotional and sexual repression that occurs when people are forced to closet themselves. You should know better than that, you seem at least intelligent enough to know that a gay identity is a rather recent event in human history. There has been much discussion on SOLO as to whether or not there is even such a thing as a "gay" or a "straight" identity, and yet we never thought to consult YOU. Why, you seem to have all the right answers, and above all: "Stay away from Chris, don't read him, don't get infected by the gay disease." Or would that be the Objectivist disease, is that what you called it?

Tell me though, if everything is beneath you, then how on earth do you get along in life? In quarantine? Are you not disgusted with absolutely everything you see? Are you mad at Chris because he doesn't see everything just the way you do? Would you rather have everyone think just the way you do? I won't. I am the first to state openly that if the world were to be the way you want it to be, I don't want to be in your world. You see if you start "psychologizing" (dreadful word), then any number of others can do the same to you. Judging from the tone in your writing, you must be unhappy if you consider that Dr. Sciabarra is beneath you:)(Sorry Dr. Sciabarra)

Yet I think he is far more benevolent and intelligent than the orthodox Objectivists who breath dragon fire and give hell to anyone who dares speak independently. This is nonsense and nothing will cause Objectivism as a philosophy to fold quicker than this attitude. Objectivism should be applied to homosexuality. Sciabarra is right in doing it as he has done, and he has fun doing it, which is apparent from the outset. I have seen Rand's philosophy compared and applied to just about everything from maple syrup to the Goddess Athena:) Yet I hear Objectivists screaming "bloody murder, libel, infamy, blasphemy, traitor, enemy, commie, homo, wimp!!" every time it happens. If you think Chris Sciabarra makes a bad name for Objectivism then you are SOOO wrong! Mean spirited people in the Objectivist groups do that.


You seem to think that the gay movement should march to the beat of Rand's pronouncements. HA HA I think if you give any serious thought to the issues of gays (and now we're called queers) and you are gay yourself, you should befriend Sciabarra and applaud his FIRST TIME EVER efforts to speak openly of Rand and homosexuality in a BENEVOLENT way. I don't think that Rand was beneath that. You wrote: "Jon Galt is emphasizing penis, muscles, sexual lust, using a famous name as a gimmick." I'd rather have that than what you offer any day! What is wrong with using a famous name as a gimmick? Are you not a capitalist?

Unfortunately, as far as the gay bashing and psychologizing, I think she inspired a lot of it. Her more orthodox followers tend to use her philosophy to vent that kind of cultural rot. Then there is hunky, gorgeous, sexy Jon Galt who only uses her name as a gimmick not a weapon.

I think if you will look around, gay people tend to be more benevolent and rational than Ayn Rand imagined. For Rand, it followed logically that gay people should be irrational. If you think, as she did, that homosexuality is purely nurture, then it becomes only a moral issue, and biological makeup is -0-. If you then reason as she did, that it is because of their poor logic that they CHOSE to be gay, then homosexuals become...that's right, the enemy. Rand then appended a neat little gimmick borrowed from a major philosopher (Nietzsche) and called homosexuals and hippies all of them, Dionysians.
I don't think she was a racist, but she certainly made blanket comments about gays and hippies. I am not even going to begin to apologize for her, although I know that context is everything. It proves to me that she is not to be worshipped as a deity or a goddess as you do. She is beneath Sciabarra in many ways, and he has applied her philosophy to difficult areas that she couldn't even imagine. She didn't have the sophistication and easy knowledge that an intellectual develops from methodological research orientation (which I don't think you know anything about).


What Rand discovered in her limited research of homosexuality was limited and sad. She invented a moral monster, a Frankenstein when in fact she should have done more empirical investigation before pronouncing judgment. The reason I am pronouncing judgment on Rand is beacuase I have looked over her entire work and have found nothing but negative assessments of homosexuals. Sciabarra's is the FIRST DIFFERENT voice within Objectivism.

We still don't know everything about why gays are gay, it could be some nature, some nurture, all nature, all nurture. How odd that Rand, who never even openly embraced evolutionary theory because of its status qua "theory", should yet enlist herself on the side of bigotry against homosexuals (the nurture only side) when we don't even know yet what these actual ratios are. How medieval.

By coming out and calling Dr. Sciabarra an enemy of Rand you are so wrong. He constantly refers to her intelligence, her benevolence, and her inspiring personality. I wouldn't go as far as HE did on admiring her personality. I think she inspired alot of really messed up people to become even more messed up. Sciabarra doesn't think that he has to make a religion out of her or protect her from academics because the merits of her thought are strong enough to outlive her persona.

What I gather from your message, especially the last line, is that you don't want to see her submitted to academic scrutiny. You don't seem to like academics. Well you had a good metaphor when you said that "life is more than an academic exercise"--if academics is an exercise, you certainly seem to be very out of shape:)

Anthony Teets

Post 18

Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 9:19pm
Chris,

In my mad rush to stuff Olivia down the shoot:) I forgot to read your message above, so mine sounds like nothing new. How dare you keep having all the right ideas all by yourself! I think what you have done for Objectivism is wonderful and I congratulate you on closing out a series of installmetns that has been monumental. I also congratulate all of the SOLO staff for being such wonderful models of benevolence and promoting the discussion of such passionate topics. Somehow I knew that the series would close out with either a bang or a harangue:)

Ari Cohen

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 19

Friday, October 25, 2002 - 5:01pm
I would accord with Anthony Teats when he points to you as a great source of wisdom and intelligence in regards to Objectivism and homosexuality. In my first post, I meant to say I was greatly disappointed, not in the lack of response to your articles, but in the failure of people to go public. For this, in my opinion, is the path to resolving the problem, or at least having it on the table: individual Objectivists, gay or straight, speaking out in public about their experience.

This, to me, is a very serious matter. While the left is producing gay examples, or if not, gay supporters seemingly in triplicate, organized Objectivism, both from the gay and heterosexual side, seems comfortable to ignore the subject. While yes, you are right about the left vacillating about the subject, many leaders of the left were at the forefront in changing the world in regards to homosexuality.

In this regard, Chris, your legacy may be the "The first gay Objectivist." Not of course in reality, but in respect to speaking out about it, making it public, and working toward some kind of view of the world from a gay male Objectivist perspective. (In this, I mean a gay Objectivist male is certainly going to have a different perspective than a male who is heterosexual, married, with three children.)

In regard to Leonard Peikoff and ARI, I would not expect a sympathetic view of homosexuality, or much support. They follow the strict Randian path, and homosexuality does not fit into their view, although I know many individuals sympathetic to ARI, who personally have no problem with homosexuality as a personal lifestyle.

(I find the ARI side much more honest in regard to homosexuality, then many of the open school, who seem to be politically correct, and don't want to offend anybody WITH WHAT THEY REALLY THINK.)

Branden and his mystification of homosexuality has been a major disappointment. He was in a position to advance at least the acceptance of it as a lifestyle, and chose to take the "blind monkey" approach.

In this respect, what if I said I didn't understand heterosexuality, and couldn't comment on it. Certainly, I am not an expert on it, nor do I have all the answers, yet I think I could make rational observations about it. And certainly, as a gay man, I can't say I understand all the complex issues involved with homosexuality, yet as a conscious human being with an alert mind, I can make rational observations.

One last point about Jon Galt. I would say the issue is being obscured by offering up the example of "Playboy" magazine. "Playboy" at the time of the Rand interview was softcore, and carried articles from some of the best authors in the world. It was a classy, well-produced product.

I haven't read "Advocate" for a long time by at last glance it too was a classy, well-produced product, that shed itself of the "seedy, pornographic" beginnings and became a vehicle for intelligent, gay discussion.

In this respect, in first reading your article, I saw a muscular man with an exposed penis, who is using the name of one of Rand's characters in order to promote himself as a star of pornography. I really don't see pornographic films as an act comparable to that of an architect, engineer, lawyer, or astronaunt. I mean where is the productive expenditure of the mind, talent, ability in respect to reality?

In fact, I see both hetero and homo porno as titillation for sexual release, sometimes cheap and anonymous, other times done with at least a theme and a plot. But whatever, I don't view it as something to admire or emulate, or does it equal the act of writing a book, constructing a building, or running a railroad.

Rand would be vehemently opposed to this in RELATION TO HER NAME, as she would be with heterosexual pornography. We all know her romantic view of the world, her belief in "spiritual pin-ups" and I think it is necessary to respect this.

I think in this respect it is important to respect the name of Ayn Rand if one is an admirer of her. This does not preclude criticism of her, but it does involve respecting her, and her view of the world.

Ari Cohen

sciabarra

Post 20

Friday, October 25, 2002 - 6:47pm
Just wanted to add a few more words of appreciation for the additional points made here by Anthony and Ari.

While being the first "gay Objectivist" sounds intriguing on the face of it, I doubt it will be my only legacy. :) This dialectical thing has probably defined me as much as, or more than, any other single characteristic. Still, even the "first gay Objectivist" label doesn't ring true. After all, at the very least, our esteemed Lindsay Perigo has been at the forefront of this issue for many years; our agendas coalesced so well, and it was SOLO's emphasis on this issue and others that brought me aboard, and that led me to consider doing this year-long series in the first place.

I should also say that while there were a few discussions of homosexuality in which I participated online (one in the 1990s on the old Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy, for example), the "issue" of my sexual orientation really was never an "issue" (wasn't even mentioned) until after the publication of FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF AYN RAND in 1999. (I was also interviewed in two gay Chicago weeklies on the subject.)

Lord knows, AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL (1995) was controversial enough on its own terms, and even though I dealt somewhat with the issue in that book, I do think that the discussion surrounding that book focused--quite legitimately--on its substance. Even ARI scholars attempted to deal with the book---they may have dismissed it, like John Ridpath did in his 'review' in THE INTELLECTUAL ACTIVIST, but they didn't ignore it. And that was a welcome change from their previous policies. I do not believe for a single moment that any of the criticisms leveled my way had anything to do with sexual orientation. They have had everything to do with important methodological and historical questions that my book and my approach have raised.

I'm not sure who is being more "honest" with regard to homosexuality, however. Among my 100+ interviewees, many of them were from ARI. I'm not sure if they were more nervous about coming out of the gay closet than they were about coming out of the closet as having "cooperated" with Sciabarra on anything, let alone something to do with homosexuality.

You may think ARI is more "honest," but if one goes by website hits, I can tell you that there is only a single mention of the word "homosexual" on the entire ARI site:

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/court.html

It deals, in a single sentence, with the notorious Bowers vs. Hardwick decision.

By contrast, at The Objectivist Center site, one finds this FAQ on bold display:

http://theobjectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/dmoskovitz_faq-moral-homosexual.asp

Finally, one last---and I do mean "last"---word on Jon Galt.

A little story: When my first four parts of the series were complete, a friend of mine said to me: "Did you know that there is a gay adult film star named 'Jon Galt'?" I honestly didn't.

He told me to do a google search on Jon Galt, to see if I could contact him to find out if there was any relation to Rand's ATLAS protagonist.

I eventually got some contact information for Galt, and he agreed to an interview. He told me that I was the very first person to have even MADE the connection to Ayn Rand. He picked the stage name for personal reasons, because of his deep admiration of Rand, and never dreamed anybody would ever associate him in the world of gay adult films with ATLAS SHRUGGED.

So, it's not as if he picked the name in order to promote himself. This was the first time in his career that anybody had ever asked him. It's not as if the audience is going to flock to his movies BECAUSE he is a fan of Ayn Rand's works. It was his personal way of saying thank you to Rand for having given him such inspiration to be true to himself.

To have found this man, to have interviewed him, and to have done a full year's worth of work on the subject of "Objectivism and Homosexuality," I think I would have abdicated my journalistic responsibility NOT to report it in the pages of THE FREE RADICAL. And the simple fact that this single paragraph and photo have initiated a discussion here and elsewhere tells me that there really are a lot of issues that still need to be dealt with in our little universe.

Cheers,
Chris
===
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra

Alexander Fleetwood

Post 21

Friday, October 25, 2002 - 6:57pm
More power to Chris Sciabarra in all his efforts to stir discussion of all the issues that he has raised in the Homosexuality and Objectivism series - and in his efforts to clarify and elaborate upon his views in the vigorous dialogue that has followed.

I wish to offer a few observations based on some of the comments that people have made so far in that dialogue.

Chris is absolutely right about the issues that make so many Objectivists uncomfortable, and about the need for reflection and discussion about them... AND about the need to stir up hot button, controversial issues.

Roderick Long's comment gives voice to my own reaction when I first read the very same passage from THE FOUNTAINHEAD while in high school. You definitely don't need to be gay to immediately think: "This seems homoerotic!" Long makes a great point so clearly.

It's frightening how many Objectivists HAVE NO CLUE about the value of dialogue - including, definitely, with people with whom one deeply disagrees. It's also frightening how many of them welcome Rand's willingness to be so "in your face" and controversial - but who hate it when anyone raises challenges or controversy within the "hallowed halls" of Objectivism.

Regarding the dialogue involving Chris and Olivia on the subject of sense of life... Peikoff and Rand were quite emphatic in his 1976 lecture series THE PHILOSOPHY OF OBJECTIVISM, in stressing a number of the very sorts of points that Chris stresses on this subject. Peikoff touched on this issue when he mentioned, as an example, how difficult it can be to detect that an apparently happy, married couple in fact is quite unhappy in private. In Q&A, Rand emphasized that even if a person knows another personally, sense of life is enormously complex and elusive. Although she unfortunately threw an insult in at the same time, Rand stressed that even given that her sense of life was on display everywhere in ATLAS SHRUGGED - that still, her fans couldn't know based on reading the novel, what her personal tastes in, say, music would be. In this respect, Olivia's notion of how readily accessible another person's sense of life is, radically differs from Rand's own.

So thank you to Chris Sciabarra for doing such a fine job of stirring up such valuable trouble!

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 22

Friday, October 25, 2002 - 11:34pm
Oh Chris! You are indeed an example of modesty, but let your friends and admirers exclaim your virtues, or what else are friends for? No, you may not be the FIRST HOMOSEXUAL OBJECTIVIST, but you certainly are to my knowledge, the first to write a series of installments with genuine insight. You are a new species, a mutant Objectivist:) and I prefer your version any day to the Dodos of the past. I don't mean to proclaim a Titanomachy or anything like that, and hell the Byzantine Empire was virtually extinct a thousand years past its prime. I do know however that you stand on the backs of giants and I also know that you constantly give recognition where it is due. In my eyes the little things I say about you are not much. You are young, keep writing. Who knows, some of those defending you here may one day be contributing to your Festschrift!

Cheers, Anthony

Kernon Gibes

Post 23

Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 9:39am
Ari,

Regarding:

One last point about Jon Galt. I would say the issue is
being obscured by offering up the example of "Playboy"
magazine. "Playboy" at the time of the Rand interview was
softcore, and carried articles from some of the best authors
in the world. It was a classy, well-produced product.

I haven't read "Advocate" for a long time by at last glance
it too was a classy, well-produced product, that shed itself
of the "seedy, pornographic" beginnings and became a vehicle
for intelligent, gay discussion.


Am I to infer that including Jon Galt in The Free Radical was inappropriate because, unlike Playboy or Advocate, it is not a classy, well-produced, or intelligent product? I beg to differ!

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 24

Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 10:32am
Hi Kernon!

I didn't think of it that way but I guess one might infer it as well. What's up Ari? I think actually the patterns are quite different. Rand agreed to an interview with Playboy and her interview appeared there, perhaps among the glossy pages with nude women. I hardly think that she wanted her article to appear in Playboy's more serious "philosophical" section:) Sciabarra on the other hand, has brought ONE small photo of a gay male VIRTUALLY clothed with only a portion of his penis visible, to FreeRadical. It was classy and it was tactfully done. FreeRad is a classy magazine with very interesting articles and excellent contributors. That's my plug for FreeRad. I hardly think that readers will be less inclined to buy the magazine because a male penis is partially on display on one of its pages. That may entice many to keep looking for more. OOPS, I went there!

Olivia Hanson

Post 25

Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 4:08pm
I think, Anthony Teets, in his rush "to stuff me down the shoot" left his objectivity in the closet. Also, Anthony, that would be shute, as in poop shute, not shoot as in "shoot that bitch, Olivia Hanson, before she writes another post."

No doubt Anthony is a devout fan of Chris, and seems to think he has to counter my arguments with "his feelings" instead of dealing with what I said. And that is admirable that you like and admire Chris. I would like and admire him too if descended from the lofty heights of academia, and lived a little bit in this world, that is being threatened and mutiliated by fundamental Islamic insanity as well as left-wing collectivism, and not Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand is not the enemy. She is the anecdote, no matter her shortcomings. Collectivism and altruism are the enemy.

Yet, you know something Anthony, you are a prime example of everything I was stressing. You are a product of Chris Sciabarra and his writing, a living example of what he is saying. You are angry at Ayn Rand for her statements about homosexuality, and accuse her of many things. You accuse of her creating a "moral monster" a "Frankenstein." And you of course, never balance this with the fact that homosexuality was a small grain of sand in regard to her whole philosophy, and probably something she spent little time in thinking about. And of course, where did you learn this, and where did you hear about this? From Chris Sciabarra!

Rather than making her homosexual remarks a regretable mistake, Sciabarra has blown them up into a handy weapon for anyone who wants to attack Ayn Rand. Rather than work for some position in regards to homosexuals, he keeps faulting Rand for a remark she made in 1972.

Here I sum up my case against Chris Sciabarra, who says he loves Ayn Rand.

1)Rand was opposed to the feminist movement and stated so in her writing. Chris Sciabarra helps publish a book called "Feminist Perspectives of Ayn Rand."

2)Writes a book called "Russian Radical" with the contention that Rand's philosophy is similiar in some aspects to the Marxist dialectic. Here, again does anyone dispute her reaction to this, and how she would feel about it?

3)Gives an interview where he says Howard Roark was never an influence in his life. Howard Roark was and is the essence of Ayn Rand's philosophy. How does one love Ayn Rand, but not love Howard Roark, the very essence of her philosophy?

4)In character and personality and lifestyle, is very different from the heroic personalities of Rand's writing.

I could include the article on homosexuality as more proof but we have already seen that answered by Sciabarra's loyal admirers. Yet, I would add that Sciabarra writes from a male homosexual view, and excludes the female side of the slate. In this I would say gay females are more in line with the Randian view of characters than the rather, overly gay fem-type character so prominent amongst gay males. (Surely, a generalization, and I know Jon Galt doesn't fit as I know there are many masculine gay men, but we all know that fem-types are a prominent part of that world.)

So I state in conclusion. Chris Sciabarra, whether intended or not intended is a negative force in regards to Ayn Rand, a countervaling figure who wants to change Objectivism to fit his view of the world, instead of creating a movement of his own, free of Ayn Rand.

Nothing personal Chris. Just my view. You are probably a sweetheart and I surely don't see you as evil as one of your supporters mentioned. And Anthony, feeling strongly about Chris is an admirable quality, yet your objectivity flies out the window when you defend him. Why not strive to support him, but to do so with at least an attempt to understand what I am saying, and how others may see Chris in a different light than you do.

Olivia Hanson

Cameron Pritchard

Post 26

Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 5:23pm
Edit
Well, at least you got your facts straight this time, Olivia. It's dialectics, not dualism that Chris is on about (see one of your earlier posts). Makes one wonder if you know what you're talking about.

Further, since when do Ayn Rand's "feelings" about Chris' thesis matter one little bit? How she might have felt about being described as a dialectical thinker makes no difference to the facts one way or the other. To quote you: "I think Chris you suffer the from the same Objectivist disease that runs rampant in the Objectivist world, the melding of consciousness and the objective world into one, so as to think your view of a certain situation is objective reality." I think, Olivia, that you suffer from the same Objectivist disease that runs rampant in the Objectivist (ARI) world, the melding of Ayn Rand's consciousness and the objective world into one, so as to think her view of a certain situation is objective reality.

What also runs rampant in Objectivism (but which logically shouldn't) is a deep-seated puritanism, a version in fact of the mind/body dichotomy which, like Islamic fundamentalism, believes that nakedness is an affront, and gets offended at the sight of half a penis! The penis is part of the male human body, sex and lust are part of the human experience. Is the mind to be regarded as the only important feature of humans beings? Isn't the body rather glorious as well?

Kernon Gibes

Post 27

Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 5:41am
Cameron,

I'll make a prediction, even though in doing so I may undermine it, and that is that Olivia will not respond to the substantive points you raise. She picks what she considers easy targets from Chris' comments and counters Anthony Teets' so-called emotional responses with her own emotions or unsupported claims, but that's about it. For example, you'll notice that she's dropped the sense of life argument.

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 28

Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 7:33am
Olivia,

Sorry I mispelled a word on my post. I speak five languages and am happy to keep them all as well-organized as I do. If I make a mistake in English spelling that is fine. Oh, and it is actually spelled "chute" not "shute". That makes two of us:)

BTW: In this sentence did you mean "antidote"?

"Ayn Rand is not the enemy. She is the anecdote, no matter her shortcomings. Collectivism and altruism are the enemy."


You wrote of Dr Sciabarra (hereafter, Chris, or Sciabarra):

"I would like and admire him too if descended from the lofty heights of academia, and lived a little bit in this world..."

Are you implying that Sciabarra is a Platonist? Do you really think that Sciabarra lives in a higher realm of Ideas? Everything he writes follows a contextualist and relationalist methodology. Your accusation would disallow his context completely. BTW: How is he lofty? Didn't you also say that he was a wimp, etc? I think you are mad because he doesn't SHOOT from the hip and you would like him to think and write perhaps in the way you do or in a manner you would approve. IMPOSSIBLE.

You wrote:
"You are a product of Chris Sciabarra and his writing, a living example of what he is saying."

You don't know me Olivia. Since you admitted you don't know Chris either, I can only assume you don't want to know either of us because that may bring us both closer into context:) I am not at all ashamed to be a friend and supporter of Sciabarra. I think his work is a gold mine. He doesn't write like Ayn Rand, get over it. Chris has his own signature style that doesn't need to be blessed or approved by the Ayn Rand Institute Kosher Department:)

Rand and feminism:

You as woman should know that the feminist movement represents a multitude of shady characters as well as some genuine voices (among whom a number of Objectivists figure as well). Sciabarra and Mimi Gladstein have presented an alternative where no one else even considered the idea. I don't even want to imagine what Rand would have thought because as you and I know that would require impossible knowledge. I have never read a single sentence from Sciabarra's work that said "Ayn Rand agrees with me that..." Just because Rand is no longer around to give her stamp of approval does not mean that we cannot continue to apply her philosophy to new issues that arise. I certainly would not make the error of going to Peikoff and asking him he approves of a statement I make about Rand. Those who do so (Bernstein) are in for a real treat:) You don't know any more than Sciabarra or Peikoff, how she may have thought about the feminist movement today. Feminism is so splintered and it has evolved in so many directions. The same may be said of the gay movement. I do think there is something radical and "revolutionary" about these movements. I don't think Rand was opposed to ideology or revolution and in fact her thinking evolved in a context of radical thinking. Sciabarra has pointed that out wonderfully, much to the chagrin of her more conservative and moderate followers.

As far as Howard Roarke and Sciabarra, you may not have read his recently published article on The Fountainhead in the SUN. I think he does like Howard Roarke. You don't say this outright, but I am implying that you think that gay men like Sciabarra and others of us should "love Howard Roarke". Is this true? Well, also consider that Chris obviously admires Jo(h)n Galt:) Does that count? I just don't buy this whole obsession thing. Why do you have to be obsessed with Rand novels and characters in particular? Why can't you identify with the philosophy of Objectivism without swallowing all of Rand's character creations? Were the Greeks any less Greek if they admired Apollo and disliked Hera or Zeus? What does loving Howard Roarke have to do with anything anyway?

In my opinion, what is admirable about Sciabarra's approach in the Feminist Interpretations is that he co-edited a group of writers who are very diverse and represent a wide variety of opinion. That is something that scholars are passionate about. I still don't see your point that Sciabarra hates Ayn Rand.

Please forgive my passion for smilies:), I've been warned before, but I just can't help it.

Anthony

Anthony Teets

Post 29

Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 7:54am
BTW: Sciabarra's article appeared in the Daily News not in the SUN, as I mentioned. I couldn't find the piece as it was buried under a mile-high stack of articles, copies of JARS, and books by Sciabarra:)

Cheers,

Anthony

sciabarra
Post 30

Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 9:07am
I’d like to thank the participants for furthering the dialogue, even if it seems to have broadened into a forum on Sciabarra. I’d like to reply to a few additional points raised by Olivia for the benefit of the larger discussion. This is a two-part response.

Olivia writes that Anthony, who happens to be a friend, is “a prime example of everything I was stressing. You are a product of Chris Sciabarra and his writing, a living example of what he is saying. You are angry at Ayn Rand for her statements about homosexuality, and accuse her of many things. You accuse of her creating a ‘moral monster’ a ‘Frankenstein.’ And you of course,
never balance this with the fact that homosexuality was a small grain of sand in regard to her whole philosophy, and probably something she spent little time in thinking about. And of
course, where did you learn this, and where did you hear about this? From Chris Sciabarra!”

I do not keep faulting Rand for a remark she made in the 1970s; I’ve been very careful to place that remark in context, and to trace its implications and its effects on an entire movement, particularly a sub-culture of that movement: gay Objectivists. I cannot be responsible for how others will interpret it or use it, but I can tell you that a recognition of the facts of the reality of this situation is the first step toward changing the reality.

Anthony is no more a “product of Chris Sciabarra” than Roger Bissell, Kernon Gibes, Cameron Pritchard, Roderick Long, Joe Rowlands, or any number of other people who have posted here in support of the series; each person’s arguments should be judged on their own merits, as we are all individuals here.

Turning to Olivia’s “case against Chris Sciabarra,” let me say the following:

1) Rand articulated an opposition to "Women’s Lib"; the fact that I co-edited a volume called FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF AYN RAND does not dispute Rand’s explicit statements. What it does is to provide a forum for discussing Rand’s similarities to and differences from contemporary feminism, as well as her impact on many “individualist feminists.” Other volumes in the series are called FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF PLATO, FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF ARISTOTLE, and so forth. You may disagree with the analyses offered in these volumes, but an “interpretation” of a thinker through various feminist perspectives, does not mean that the subject (Plato, Aristotle, Rand, etc.) is, necessarily, a feminist. (Indeed, to say this in the context of Plato or Aristotle would be anachronistic!) These volumes simply provide a forum for scholarly give-and-take on questions of gender and sexuality as they are expressed in the works of the particular thinker in question.

2) I did write a book called AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL, and while you will find parallels made between Rand and Marx on the question of methodology (namely, dialectical method), you are dropping the wider context of that book. The book is part of a trilogy of books called the “Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy,” which includes MARX, HAYEK, AND UTOPIA (SUNY, 1995), AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL (Penn State, 1995), and TOTAL FREEDOM: TOWARD A DIALECTICAL LIBERTARIANISM (Penn State, 2000). The purpose of the trilogy was to reclaim dialectics as a methodological tool in defense of liberty. And what you will find is a defense of dialectics, which I view as “the art of context-keeping.” In fact, my brief history of dialectics in part one of TOTAL FREEDOM begins with the father of dialectical inquiry: Aristotle, who made the biggest impact of any philosopher on the thinking of Ayn Rand. Chapter One of TOTAL FREEDOM is entitled: “Aristotle: The Fountainhead.” So, regardless of how Rand would feel about it (as Cameron and others suggest), the fact is, I view dialectical method as something fully in keeping with the contextual thrust of Objectivist epistemology. We can disagree about the meaning of dialectical method, but that doesn’t make me an enemy of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. [I should point out that Roderick Long, who has participated here, has written a 60+ page ~critique~ of my trilogy in THE JOURNAL OF AYN RAND STUDIES (see ) to which I’ve written a reply, along with Roger Bissell, and Bryan Register, to which Roderick offered a rejoinder. That’s the nature of scholarly give-and-take, and even though I edit the journal, I don’t opt out of that process; I actively encourage the critical engagement... especially concerning my own work.]

See part two for the continuation of this response.

sciabarra

Post 31

Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 9:09am
This is part two of my response:


3) Olivia says I gave an interview in which I said “Howard Roark was never an influence on [my] life.” She asks: “How does one love Ayn Rand, but not love Howard Roark, the very essence of her philosophy?”

Olivia is incorrect. When I was interviewed for THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, the interviewer Jeff Sharlet asked me if I ever wanted ~to be~ Howard Roark. Here I was, sitting in Windows on the World at the top of the now-destroyed World Trade Center; here I was having been photographed on the roof of 22 Cortlandt Street, while the photographer told me to give him my best “Howard Roark” pose, with the Twin Towers as backdrop, the wind whipping against my face. Here I was among New York’s greatest skyscrapers being compared to the Master Architect himself, and I was being asked if I ever wanted ~to be~ Howard Roark. I answered (and my whole answer was not reported in CHE): “I never wanted to be Howard Roark.”

And what I meant by that (and it was explained on my website, and in the huge debate that ensued after the CHE feature was published in April 1999) was: I do not reify the abstractions in Rand’s fiction and rip the characters out of their context. I learned from Rand's work that I didn't have ~to be~ Howard Roark in order to be a moral person. Being Chris Matthew Sciabarra and applying the principles of Objectivism to the context of my own life was and is enough.

As for my actual views of Howard Roark the character, let me say this. His principles, Rand’s principles, were a great inspiration to me, and I wrote a piece for THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS for their series, “Big Town Classic Characters, New Yorkers of the American Imagination,” that tributes the character. Check it out:

http://www.nydailynews.com/city_life/big_town/story/5964p-5560c.html

Hardly the words of somebody who does not “love” Howard Roark. (I should state, however, that my “love” for Ayn Rand is a “love” of Rand’s work, not of her as a person... I never met the woman. I could only admire the many obstacles she triumphed over, and learn from the various biographical works that have been written about her.)

I therefore have no problem with Olivia’s conclusion that my “character and personality and lifestyle” are “very different from the ... personalities of Rand's writing.” I would hope so. And I’d urge everyone who has learned from Ayn Rand to apply the principles, without trying ~to be~ Roark, Rearden, Galt, Dagny, etc. Being yourself is challenging in and of itself.

4) I do not believe that I write “from a male homosexual view, and exclude the female side of the slate.” I was also born in Brooklyn to a Sicilian and Greek family. Surely my sexuality and gender and logistical and family upbringing provide me with a slate of experiences that differ from those who are not gay, not male, not Sicilian and Greek, and not from Brooklyn (which is, take it from me, a world unto itself... most people who hear me talk don’t conclude: “He’s gay.” They conclude: “Jesus! He sounds like he’s from Brooklyn!” :) ).

But I don’t believe any of these unique experiences make my views less objective. I don’t even know what a “male homosexual view” is, considering the remarkable diversity among individuals of whatever orientation. I know plenty of male homosexuals who adhere to a leftist political agenda who would renounce me with even greater ferocity than Olivia has shown in some of her posts here.

5) I do not believe I’m changing Objectivism to fit my own view of the world; I freely admit that Rand has made the biggest impact of any philosopher on my thinking. But I take full responsibility for my own views, which have been shaped by my engagement not only with Rand, but with Hayek, Rothbard, and so many other thinkers in the history of thought. I don’t think I’ve quite reached the point of having launched “Sciabarran social theory,” but I do think that I’ve put together the rudiments of a “dialectical libertarian” framework that few people would confuse with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism as such, even though, in my view, Objectivism informs the entire project.

I’m glad Olivia concludes: “Nothing personal Chris. Just my view. You are probably a sweetheart and I surely don't see you as evil as one of your supporters mentioned.” Believe it or not, I think we’ve made a little progress here.

Cheers,
Chris

Anthony Teets

Post 32

Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 10:04am
Hi Chris and Olivia,

I am the one who said Rand had created a "Frankenstein" out of homosexual males. It bears repeating. I defend my position although I am aware that it is very opinionated. In my opinion, she knew enough to KNOW better than make a blanket statement based on nothing more than an opinion. Sounds like a lot of opinion here, yeah? I don't care what she felt personally about music or art, making negative statements in public about the sexual choice/orientation (the nature/nurture case not being settled yet) of any person, is bigotry. To conclude that ALL homosexuals are morally depraved or psychologically unevolved because some homosexuals are depraved, psychologically unevolved, (or political leftists) says nothing at all, and it is inappropriate. It is my boisterous opinion again that Objectivism needs to make a unified statement on gay issues. If a philosopher can write essays on Marilyn Monroe and her "joyful sense of life", then the same philosopher (or an advocate of her philosophy) is capable of finding something positive to say about gay issues. This is what Sciabarra has done Olivia. BTW to respond to what was said about Jon Galt (the porn star) thinking with his dick, then where does that leave Marilyn Monroe? What part of her anatomy did she think with? Wasn't it BENEATH Ayn Rand to praise her? Did she praise Marilyn for her rationality and her intellect?

Olivia Hanson

Post 33

Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 4:25pm
Anthony, I agree with you that a gay position on homosexuality would be an excellent step in the right direction. And you got me on the chute business, so you see arrogance (mine) gets pointed back at me.

As for Kernon, I think you want to demonize me. In fact, what I have been doing is expressing my point of view of some of the things I have noticed. Chris is defending himself superbly, and I imagine that what I have said, he has heard before.

I stated my opinion on the sense of life issue, and Chris has stated his. What else is there to say? Do we argue it into old age?

For the record, I have defended Chris on more than one occasion, when some supermacho Objectivist type has referred to him in hateful language. (If you want date and names, email me privately and I will gladly tell you who said it and what I said.) And while I say I defended Chris, I should amend that and say that I have defended all of us, who are gay, when I stand up and assert myself as a gay woman.

It is my experience when I assert myself, the offender always backs down and becomes sheepishly red-faced, or embarrassed, and then tries to backtrack or cover-up the "little cocksucker" remark.

Chris has done some excellent work in regard to Objectivism and gay people, and I will say that he is one of the few gay people to show courage in the face of anti-gay hostility.

So now, what shall I do? The same thing that you are accusing ARI of doing? Put my loyalty to Chris as a primary and ignore the fact that I see the situation in a very different light?

Also, almost everybody I have read ignores what I said and puts in their own subjective version of my posts.

For example, what sustantive points does Cameron Pritchard raise? He infers I am blind follower of Ayn Rand, that I believe her "view of the world is objective reality." I am not and never have been. I never said Chris should not point out her faults. What I said is that he was overdoing it, hurting her image, and giving ammunition to her enemies. CAN I MAKE THAT ANY CLEARER!!!!!!!

Granted Objectivism does have a puritanical streak running through it, and gay people are suffering from it. But Jon Galt strutting his dick, as Ari Cohen describes it, is not the answer. I know somebody who uses and sells cocaine, takes part in unprotected sex, quotes Rand and capitalism, and says she taught him how to be free. And he is gay. Is he someone you want to headline an article about gay Objectivists?

Alright, enough. I said my piece and I don't believe in prolonging disagreement.

Olivia

Olivia Hanson
Post 34

Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 4:27pm
Anthony, I agree with you that a gay position on homosexuality would be an excellent step in the right direction. And you got me on the chute business, so you see arrogance (mine) gets pointed back at me.

As for Kernon, I think you want to demonize me. In fact, what I have been doing is expressing my point of view of some of the things I have noticed. Chris is defending himself superbly, and I imagine that what I have said, he has heard before.

I stated my opinion on the sense of life issue, and Chris has stated his. What else is there to say? Do we argue it into old age?

For the record, I have defended Chris on more than one occasion, when some supermacho Objectivist type has referred to him in hateful language. (If you want date and names, email me privately and I will gladly tell you who said it and what I said.) And while I say I defended Chris, I should amend that and say that I have defended all of us, who are gay, when I stand up and assert myself as a gay woman.

It is my experience when I assert myself, the offender always backs down and becomes sheepishly red-faced, or embarrassed, and then tries to backtrack or cover-up the "little cocksucker" remark.

Chris has done some excellent work in regard to Objectivism and gay people, and I will say that he is one of the few gay people to show courage in the face of anti-gay hostility.

So now, what shall I do? The same thing that you are accusing ARI of doing? Put my loyalty to Chris as a primary and ignore the fact that I see the situation in a very different light?

Also, almost everybody I have read ignores what I said and puts in their own subjective version of my posts.

For example, what sustantive points does Cameron Pritchard raise? He infers I am blind follower of Ayn Rand, that I believe her "view of the world is objective reality." I am not and never have been. I never said Chris should not point out her faults. What I said is that he was overdoing it, hurting her image, and giving ammunition to her enemies. CAN I MAKE THAT ANY CLEARER!!!!!!!

Granted Objectivism does have a puritanical streak running through it, and gay people are suffering from it. But Jon Galt strutting his dick, as Ari Cohen describes it, is not the answer. I know somebody who uses and sells cocaine, takes part in unprotected sex, quotes Rand and capitalism, and says she taught him how to be free. And he is gay. Is he someone you want to headline an article about gay Objectivists?

Alright, enough. I said my piece and I don't believe in prolonging disagreement.

Olivia

Kernon Gibes
Post 35

Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 5:32pm
Whenever someone says they are exiting a thread, I feel somewhat disinclined to write anything further, as it seems as if I am merely trying to get the last word in. But, Olivia, exiting is your choice.

No, I am not trying to demonize you. You did a superb job of that on your own (mores the pity). I do notice that your posts have become increasingly more civil and less strident against Chris. He used to be "an enemy of Ayn Rand" and now he is merely "hurting her image" and "overdoing it".

You are certainly right about one thing, and that is that Chris is indeed doing a superb job of defending himself. Without in any way wishing to diminish Chris' abilities, this is because he has the facts on his side.

You say:
Put my loyalty to Chris as a primary and ignore the fact that I see the situation in a very different light?


And what would you have us do, those who see the situation in a very different light from you and agree with Chris, put our agreement aside and keep silent for fear of being accused of merely being loyal to Chris and Chris sycophants?

Perhaps when you grant some respect to those you disagree with you will get some respect in return.

Ari Cohen

Post 36

Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 7:53pm
Edit
Kernon you can infer anything you like, and probably will. But I can tell you what I infer from your post. I infer that you don't want to deal with my very clear description of Jon Galt, and are redirecting the discussion away from it. I made a very clear point about Jon Galt, and if you want to respond to that please do. One way or the other, I would at least enjoy an intelligent response, instead of a redirection of what I was alluding to.

Also, in regard to Olivia Hanson, I think you are the one who is not granting the respect. She disagrees and stated her views, and you are the one who is attacking her, with your snide little comments. Yes, she attacked Chris quite forcefully and the "enemy" comment belongs in the trash. Yet, at least she tried to make her point, and I think she is trying to show her admiration for him as well as her opposition.

You on the other hand, continually imply your own interpretation of her motives, but yet I have yet to witness you direct yourself to what she is saying.

Also, take a cue from Chris who has been nothing but a supreme gentleman in responding to her charges. If she deviates from proper decorum, it does not mean, you have to respond in kind. If you are gay, I would say this is even more important, because you live in a hostile world, and one must learn to deal with opposition, hostility and conflict, and turn it toward a positive outcome.

Elizabeth K. Kanabe
Post 37

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 7:44am
Edit
The first 300 or so words in this article tell us a few things about Jon Galt. He’s gay, an adult film star, is a Rand fan, and he’s proud of who he is/what he. In reading the reactions to the mention of Jon Galt and including his picture in the article, I was surprised as how many people think he has no right to be there. He’s accused of using the name for publicity, of thinking his body is his most highly valued possession, of not being worthy of mention because he has not built skyscrapers or run a railroad. He is even compared to a drug dealer who engages in unprotected sex. It seems if an adult film actor is mentioned in the article, every gay person who’s read Rand, no matter how horrible their sense of life is, might also be mentioned.

Chris has not put Jon Galt in the article as the person to emulate or admire. It was a series on Objectivism and Homosexuality, and Jon Galt is a gay male whose life has been influenced greatly by Rand. Chris interviewed many people for the article, and most were listed as anonymous. Jon Galt wasn’t. Chris didn’t feel that Jon’s profession warranted excluding him from the article. And after all, it was Chris’s article. If others feel that a gay, objectivist lawyer who is very successful might make a better choice to open an article, by all means go find him and write one too! I’d love to read it.

I don’t judge Jon as if I knew what he did after work, anything about his SOL, etc. And I wouldn’t judge Chris for including him as if he had just written a fictional piece where a gay adult film star with nothing else to offer us was the hero of the story.

If others view people involved in the porn business (acting or viewing) as not good enough objectivists, that’s their opinion and I could see why they would not want to include Jon in the article.

I would discount a lot of people that way, as just about everyone that I know (haven’t polled objectivists specifically) either watches porn or at least at some point has seen it. I think other things are much higher indicators. For that reason, I kept reading the article without a second thought about Jon Galt until the discussions.

As for the picture, it’s just a picture to me. It has stirred conversation, along with the whole article, which might just why writing on the subject was needed and Chris stepped up.

At any rate, I've enjoyed the articles. So, thanks, Chris!

Anthony Teets

Post 38

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 8:52am
Hi Olivia!

I am glad to see that you are in agreement about the possibilities open to formulating an Objectivist position on homosexuality. I think that the best place to start is with the theory of universals. In the eighties John Boswell (a gay advocacy scholar) was working on a thesis about "gay identity" and wrote a seminal article "Revolutions, universals, and sexual categories" (Salmagundi, 1982-3) I consider his work to be an enormous contribution and a challenge. His attempt was to cast the project of gay studies in light of philosophical thought, and he described what he saw as the underlying premises of the debate. He saw two oppositional groups (essentialists vs. social constructionists) as relying on moderate realism (essentialists) and nominalism (social constructionists). Notice how Rand's Objectivist theory of concepts is radically different from these. In the ninties these groups grew more antagonistic when Simon Levay (author of "Queer Science", 1996 and "The Sexual Brain", 1993) revealed in 1991 the results of empirical studies on the hypothalamus. The studies proposed that the hypothalamic segment of the brain could be responsible for inspiring males to seek females and that its absence or diminutive size in homosexuals may be the key to understanding their predisposition. The social constructionists have subsequently taken LeVay to task on many issues. The original arguments however, were largely abandoned, and with the rise of the new biologically-informed psychology, philosophy has taken something of a back seat. That has left the social constructionists the odd position of defending gay rights on the basis of philsophy. So we got Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's "Epistemology of the Closet" (1990)and her monolithic construction of queer theory (oddly enough she is advocates deconstruction) that conflates the epistemological with the political. Rand had a crucial insight when she described "ideology" as the bridge between epistemology and politics. For deconstruction and postmodernism (largely informed by decon), the epistemological IS the political.

I am interested in formulating an Objectivist stance on homosexual/gay/queer (whatever nominative you prefer) issues, but I realize the enormous task that lies ahead. What I find very rewarding in Rand's Objectivism (all personal idiosyncracies bracketed) is that the axiomatic approach allows one to counter all of the sides of the debate. The metaphysical position that existence exists leads Rand to adopt metaphysical pluralism and lays the groundwork for a radical individualism. The axioms of identity and consciousness do not contradict existence in any way in Objectivism. These axioms allow for a system to be built which does not deny either existence in favor of consciousness or vice versa. Queer theory is indebted to the Kantian line of thinking, but it has been informed by the radical marxist tradition (how ironic) of the sixties (tres chic) and Americanized by Stonewall. "Now we are all leftists" declares Goldstein.

We can turn to Objectivism. I think that with this philosophic basis we can safely advance an Objectivist defense of homosexuality rooted in this philosophy. Sciabarra may have cut his teeth on Marxism, but that is only a great advantage. The problem with many Objectivists is that they don't read enough Marxist writers. When Rome fell to the Barbarians in the fifth c., it was because she took her eye off the enemy. When Byzantium fell to Mehmet in the fifteenth c., it was because she could not understand the strength of her opponent and fortified herself in orthodox rigidity.

I stated my opinion very forcefully above that Rand had some pretty nasty flaws with regard to the psychological aspects of homosexuality. In no way did I mean that I disagreed with the foundational elements of her philosophy (quite the contrary), but I find it necessary to reveal all aspects of her mind so that we keep her [bracketed] while we treat the purely philosophical components. I think she had very important things to say about philosophy and admire her more rational statements. I do not however, admire her personality. There are times when I find her approach revolting and patronizing. I find an interesting parallel between Rand and Camille Paglia in this sense. Paglia has been blasted as a lesbian-hater and a gay basher as well. The difference is that Paglia recognizes gradations and this is evident in her humor. Rand drew her observations subconsciously (disgust), based on morality (altruism? collectivism?), and perhaps even politics (gays largely associated with Communism).


In my research on Oscar Wilde I have found a similar cult of "personality" that existed in the late XIXth century and has recently resurfaced. The name of Oscar Wilde was notorious in his time. Recently he has been raised to the status of a demi-god and monopolized by leftists for political agendas that cannot even be remotely drwn from his writings. I find it intriguing that his form of individualism ran counter to the collectivist altruism that gay liberationists like Richard Goldstein, Sedgwick, Alan Sinfield, Mark Simpson (big potatoes and small potatoes:))embrace.

I am really quite excited that you have contributed to this discussion, and I believe that you are in earnest when you write "And while I say I defended Chris, I should amend that and say that I have defended all of us, who are gay, when I stand up and assert myself as a gay woman." That was a very nice thing for you to say. I have joined SOLO only very recently and I am very proud to be associated with everyone here. It takes an enormous amount of courage to admit when you are wrong, and as E.O. Wilson commented "Ethicists, scholars who specialize in moral reasoning, tend not to declare themselves on the foundations of ethics, or to admit fallibility. Rarely do we see an argument that opens with the simple statement 'this is my starting point and it could be wrong'". I like to always bear in mind that I am fallible and have a moral obligation to myself to declare it:) I would not admit (as I saw one poor chap acuse another on a forum), "to be always holding rigidly to my large phallusies":)

Cheers

BTW: (this is meant as humor only) Kernon I am glad to hear that you have crossed over to our side:) Really...there is no need to feel pressured and certainly don't let Ari dissuade you from being as vocal about this as you'd like. LOL When and if you do come out of the closet I promise to be as supportive as I can be. That goes for all of you gentle heteroes on SOLO!!

Kernon Gibes


Post 39

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 10:11am
Ari,

Could you explain what "...infer anything you like, and probably will" means? Does that mean that my inferences won't correspond to reality but rather whim? Would you consider that a snide remark? That you would "enjoy an intelligent response" implies that my response to you was not intelligent. Would you consider that a snide comment? What is your inference that I "don't want to deal with" your description of Jon Galt based upon? Merely the omission, or do you have a crystal ball into my motives?

Since you counsel me to drop the snide comments to Olivia, I am curious why you didn't follow your own advice with respect to your response to me? Do you believe that your response to me constitutes a turn toward a positive outcome?
Myron Ford

Post 40

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 2:01pm
Olivia is just another bossy c... trying to get her way. Even she admits she is bitch, as are all women, straight or lesbian. While many gay men project a nice front, I think we all know that women want to destroy us, dominate us, or control us. I think a gay Atlantis, filled with productive and creative men would be a way to be free of this. Lesbians could live on the other side of the island, and raise the children fostered by artificial insemination. Jon Galt would be our first president. Chris, when we will see the whole giant penis. And welcome to the club, Kernon. A toast to another gay objectivist. The list is growing as is my lust for Jon Galt.

sciabarra

Post 41

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 2:01pm
I know I said I didn't want to say more about Jon Galt, but I do think Elizabeth put her finger on an important issue. She writes above:

"Chris has not put Jon Galt in the article as the person to emulate or admire. It was a series on Objectivism and Homosexuality, and Jon Galt is a gay male whose life has been influenced greatly by Rand. Chris interviewed many people for the article, and most were listed as anonymous. Jon Galt wasn’t. Chris didn’t feel that Jon’s profession warranted excluding him from the article."

This is true, even more so. This was the finale of a series that featured highlights from interviews of well over 100 people, many of whom, yes, chose to remain anonymous, and many of whom expressed views with which I didn't agree.

Interestingly, when Part 3 of the series was published ("The Horror File"), for example, participants to the SOLO HQ discussion didn't raise any objections to aspects of a statement made by one of my anonymous interview subjects---aspects that I, personally, find much more obscene than anything regarding Jon Galt. But in my journalistic capacity, I simply reported these words with no editorializing:

"'Frank' [who, unlike Jon Galt, chose to remain anonymous] does not associate knowingly with homosexuals; he is 'increasingly inclined to regard homosexuality as an unhealthy psychological disorder,' with serious 'health hazards' resulting from such practices as 'anal intercourse, fisting, rimming, and golden showers,' all of which spread hepatitis, HIV and other STDs. Frank also believes that a sizable portion of gays engage in sexual torture; they have a higher homicide, suicide, and accident rate than their heterosexual counterparts, and they remain 'collectivist . . . foot soldiers of cultural Marxism.' For Frank, gays are in a perennial state of 'sexual and relationship nihilism,' something with which Objectivism can ill afford to be associated."

I raise this point because it is important to remember that I interviewed people from many walks of life for this series, and that the interviews took the better part of a year to complete. I state explicitly that Jon Galt's is "only one small voice in a larger and diverse choir of gay men and women who unashamedly sing Ayn Rand’s praises."

Among those praising Rand were gay men and women who were identified in my series as philosophers, writers, biologists, psychologists, advocates of polyamory, monogamy, bisexuality, SMBD, and so forth. A very wide range of professions and ideas about sexuality were represented.

I also concluded the series with an important observation---with which I concur---made by a colleague of mine who emphasized that gay men and women "have more or less the same range of variation as heterosexual people in interests, intelligence, cognitive style, integrity, responsibility, and other attributes..."

Clearly, much of that variation is on display in this series. I'm sorry more people weren't willing to go "on the record" with their names; we have a lot more work to do if we want to break the taboos surrounding this subject. I think Lindsay Perigo's observation in part 4 of the series is right on target: "It struck me again that Objectivists didn’t really have their act together on this question. . . . The fact that so many of your respondents . . . wanted to remain anonymous when quoted, suggests they still don’t."

Cheers,
Chris


Anthony Teets

Post 42

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 3:43pm
Myron,

I am afraid I cannot agree with anything that you have posted here. I do not share your opinion about women, that they are any of the things you describe. I wanted to say that before when I read it in your original post, but I was caught up with the thread. I don't believe that "women want to destroy us", that is SOOO wrong. Neither do I believe that there is any chance that we might survive as men or as a race, without women. I asked my Dad and he tends to agree with me:) I cannot imagine a world so dark and colorless as you propose in an Atlantis for gay males? I don't see how you could have possibly gathered any of those things from Sciabarra's work. What you have to say is completely unbelievable and I couldn't possibly concede even at any stretch of my imagination.


MOST IMPORTANTLY: From my knowledge Kernon is not gay and he has never intimated such a thing. This whole thing is preposterous. Furthermore I wish to apologize to you Kernon for saying what I did. I was making a joke (and I even said so) not about you, but about Ari who incorrectly assumed you were gay.

Kernon Gibes
Post 43

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 5:40pm
Anthony,

Thanks for your note of clarification to Myron Ford! No apology is necessary, though I, naturally enough, accept and appreciate it.

Perhaps we'll have come all the way as a society when "coming of the closet" will be an expression that no one understands anymore, much less denotes a particular sexual orientation.

I actually wasn't going to bother correcting Myron, though, come to think of it, my wife does check this site occasionally! \ch{:)}

Ari Cohen
Post 44

Monday, October 28, 2002 - 6:47pm
Chris

I am in total agreement with Lindsay in regards to the statement in your last post, about the failure of Objectivists to respond publically. I view this as very disheartening, and since I don't know the people involved and their reasons, I wonder if you have any thoughts on this?

No doubt as you said earlier, people connected to ARI were either afraid to talk about homosexuality, or afraid to talk to you. But that, leaves out the rest of the free Objectivist world.

Also, your example of Frank is an example I have encountered many times. Don't blame the homosexual, blame the effects of homosexuality. Yet, I see this type of response as laden with fear, and directed toward the outer world, instead of his own inner world. Ideally, homosexual men having sex has nothing to do with his life, and most healthy heterosexuals I know could care less what homosexuals do in bed. So why is he concerned about fisting, or golden showers? What is it touching in his inner world that would concern him to the point of being worried about gay men fisting, but not worried about straight couples having unprotected sex, or married men going to brothels. (Statistically, the latter at a much higher level, and more dangerous in that these men are returning to their wives.)

Yet, whether Frank, or Tom, Dick or Harry there has been a tremendous decrease in anti-gay sentiment in a very short time, much of it due to the fact that gay people are starting to assert themselves. I lived in New York at the time of Stonewall, and please believe me, the changes are overwhelming, and I think this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Olivia mentions her staunch defense of you, and other gays, and I think this is precisely the thing that has to be done, especially in the Objectivist world, where there is no violence or threats of violence, and where most people, in my opinion are decent people.

Yet, my heart is still heavy and stunned over the lack of Objectivists willing to go public, especially the gay Objectivists.

sciabarra

Post 45

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 4:27am
Ari, I agree with your assessment here, and I believe there has been a monumental shift in cultural attitudes over a relatively short period of time. While conservatives argue that we're simply "slouching toward Gomorrah," I think it is a positive thing that more and more people are willing to go public and to assert themselves.

But the question you raise about gay Objectivists' unwillingness to go public in this series is a valid one. Aside from the reasons I've given, I think there was another issue at work. In all too many instances, those who were giving testimony were mentioning their unpleasant experiences with others. Even if they were not willing to divulge the identities of these others, they were concerned that by mentioning their own identities, people might form accurate conclusions about the identities of the "others" who were being discussed in the interview. I think most people wanted to protect their own privacy and to keep confidential the identities of the people they were discussing.

It's a small world. And the Objectivist world is even smaller. If, for example, in discussing the perceived "homophobia" of a particular Objectivist club leader in Omaha, Nebraska, the interview subject divulges her own name, how many steps does one have to take before grasping who the club leader is as well?

Now, while this might have made for interesting journalism, it would have also created a lot of conflicting testimony that might have lost the essential point. I think people were less interested in raising particular objections to particular people, thereby getting involved in a "she-said, he-said" debate, and more interested in just talking about their experiences, feeling free enough to discuss them without impugning the characters of others, and opening up a can of personal worms that they'd prefer to keep sealed.

It is a legitimate concern, and considering that some of my interview subjects actually mentioned the names of "famous" people in Objectivism with whom they'd had unpleasant experiences, we would have opened up a can of worms bordering on legal action. Interview subjects didn't want to do this, and I didn't encourage them to do anything with which they felt uncomfortable.

This is a very hard subject to discuss for some people---especially when you're talking about experiences with your Objectivist college roommate or experiences with your Objectivist psychotherapist or experiences with various Objectivist writers. The subject is difficult enough; going public and naming names heightens the difficulty, rather than liberating one to talk freely about it.

I'm not justifying the attitudes one way or the other. I'm simply saying: it is understandable.

Cheers,
Chris

Ari Cohen

Post 46

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 4:08pm
Chris

Yes, the changes have been dramatic, even away from the major gay areas and cities. In the old days, we joked about gay America as the Christopher Street docks and the two outposts in California, and the Sahara Desert in-between.

Yet, the changes in the Objectivist world, as I see it, have not been dramatic, and rather disappointing at that. Reading your take of the situation, I could see the reluctance, and the problems it could create, especially as you say, Objectivism is a small community of people.

One of the big changes, I have seen in our society is the willingness of people to stand-up and be counted. Many, many years ago, I remember the football player, David Kopay revealing himself on t.v. as a gay man. Can you imagine the shock waves that went through the gay community? A macho football player who played professionally stating he was gay. What a powerful example! I remember it as such a powerful, positive force toward gay liberation.

Then, too, there was a Tom Snider show from one of the Manhattan gay tubs, where men came out of the closet on national t.v. I remember watching that with a group of people, celebrating as if our troops were winning another tremendous battle.

I see this as the way for gay Objectivists, and I hope your series will bring about a profound effect in this regard. As a matter of fact, it already has, and as time goes by, perhaps the effect will snowball.

Personally, after spending some time on WetheLiving, I had thrown in the towel as far as Objectivism, and as far as Objectivism and homosexuality. While definitely more accepting than ARI, I got the distinct impression many people on that list consider homosexuality to be an infliction, a disease, a curse to be hidden and not to be discussed.

I see homosexuality as a positive lifestyle, if one lives positively, and I am definitely not going to spend whatever time I have left, hiding behind a wall of fear.

Thanks for the good work. You really deserve a big round of applause.

Ari Cohen

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 5:32pm
Anthony

Micturation. I am still laughing from your reply to Mr. Chappel, if you remember the exchange, which I have just read. Surprisingly, I read his post the other day, got disgusted, and stopped at that point, while later on using his example in one of my posts.

Today, I continued and saw your reply as well as that of Chris. Do you know, I am probably much older than you, yet I had no idea what micturation meant, and had to look it up.

His whole post would be a perfect example of fear and loathing in the Objectivist world, except I think his example is an extreme case, and a case, as Chris says, of obsessing on the homosexual lifestyle by someone who claims to be an opponent. I would add a perverse and distorted obsession at that, in fact extremely distorted would be a better qualifier.

Anyway, don't have time to elaborate right now, Anthony, but your posts on the other forum are first-rate and extremely interesting. Will post more later.

Thanks for the laugh. And happy micturation avoidance to all, no matter your lifestyle.

Anthony Teets

Post 48

Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 9:34pm
Hi Ari!

I'm glad you enjoyed my reply to Mr. Chapelle. I really did have to look the word micturation up. You don't know how hard HIS post made ME laugh. He didn't sound like an Objectivist to me at all. I thought he just had a warped understanding of sexuality in general. Chris phrased it perfectly though: "Methinks thou dost protest too much". Indeed, when someone goes on at such length, you kind of know what is on their mind.

At the time, I had just terminated a relationship, so it was kind of like therapy. LOL No, of course it bears repeating, Mr. Chapelle was not my boyfriend:)

Ed_Ronin

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 49

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 2:07pm
This five-part collection of philosophical sommersaults, which attempts to declare objectivism as compatible with homosexuality is laughable.

Values must be life affirming- homosexuality is not. Homosexuality, at its worst it is abusive (most homosexuals have been sexually abused, and nearly all- damned near 100% of sexually abused children are abused by members of their own sex.)
At its best it is simply harmless- a "kink" if you will. But under no circumstances can it honestly be called life-affirming.

Let everyone practice it for a generation and see what happens.

It is the worst type of primacy of consciousness to pretend that a close friendship (like Francisco/Rearden or Roark/Wynand) is an "unintentional" expression of Rands supposed hidden homosexual values.
The nature of the fictional friendships has been spelled out explicitly in the novels and the nonfiction, it is pretense to redifine them according to nonessentials.

From the US military, to modern art, the performing arts, and now even child rearing, every niche of society has a group of nihilists attempting to redifine it by nonessentials. Now it seems objectivism is in someone's sights.

Objectivism has a lot to offer homosexual indviduals- it guarantees your right to be what you are in your own home.

But don't make the mistake of believing homosexuality has anything to offer objectivism. It doesn't. Neither does any other disorder, fetish, kink, or turn-on.

Sexuality (as a topic)is not part of philosophy, it is more a hybrid of psychology and phisiology, the rational study of which depends on a rational philosophy.

To try invert that hierarchy is obviously motivated by some form of nihilistic heterophobia.

Those who are homosexual, and objectivist, should be objective enough to state honestly "I am damaged, through no way of my own, possibly beyond repair, but I will live a life of reason."

Ed Ronin

Ed_Ronin
Post 50

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 2:11pm
PS From Ed Ronin:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ari Cohen

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 51

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 - 7:27pm
Ed Ronin, If you are a real person (and I really have my doubts) one sees right away your statistics about abuse are a product of your wishes and your inner torment.

Argumentation requires facts retrieved from the objective world, and not facts culled from your feelings and whims.

If homosexuality repulses you, say so, and refrain from hiding behind an intellectual facade. If you allow yourself to access your feelings of repulsion, you will learn something about yourself and your sexuality, and it won't be a philosophy lesson.

Ed_Ronin

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 52

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 6:38am
Ari:

I'll conceed a few points- my quote "Damn near 100%" is based more on my own experiences than on objectively recorded data.

And yes, I am repulsed by homosexuals who see the world thru gay-colored glasses(the nihilistic types who lisp and act like queens) in the same way I am repulsed by Blacks (or whites or american indians or Christians) who see the world through lenses colored by race-tinted glasses.

No, Ed Ronin is not my given name. It is a legally changed replacement of a long slavic name that I just don't identify with. Most everyone in this room knows that a Ronin is a masterless samurai, anyway. (But I don't see that as any more pretentious as a Gay pornstar using Jon Galt as a name [see Franciscos sex-speech to place pornstars in their correct moral category]

I concede these points in the interest of intellectual honesty and so as not to be accused of doing a "hit and run" post.

I have some questions though, are there any circumstances in which you would judge a heterosexual, who is repulsed by homosexuality, as anything other than a repressed homosexual?

Is homosexuality a response to automatized value judgements, which can be volitionally changed?

If yes is do I have the right to judge those values?

My issue is this, (and if I am sloppy it is because I'm at work hot-keying back and forth between this post and my real job- I'll stay away from stats) My guess is that there are both moral and immoral reasons that some people are gay, ditto for straights- but I think their are gender-collectivsts out there just as there are race-collectivists, and I don't think either have a place in objectivism.

I haven't had time to edit this, and usually don't when online, and have learned a good lesson from you Ari, about not tossing off numbers.

Gotta get back to work!

Ed (now known as) Ronin

Joy Bushnell

Post 53

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 8:29am
Hello Everyone!

Ronin wrote:

Values must be life affirming- homosexuality is not. Homosexuality, at its worst it is abusive (most homosexuals have been sexually abused, and nearly all- damned near 100% of sexually abused children are abused by members of their own sex.)

At its best it is simply harmless- a "kink" if you will. But under no circumstances can it honestly be called life-affirming.

Let everyone practice it for a generation and see what happens.

End quote.

I won't comment on the aspect of homosexuality being 'at worst abusive' though from my own experiences and observations I do see a trend that many homosexuals (and heterosexuals, kinky people, etc.) have been abused in one way or another. There are many kinds of abuse and we are all affected by those events to some degree.

I'm curious though as to how homosexuality (or kink, or any other deviation from the 'norm' is not life affirming.

I am inferring from the statement that if we ALL practiced homosexuality for a generation something would happen in a generation ... my guess would be that there would be no children to carry on in the name of humanity. :)

As a woman, I find this an interesting stance. I thought in Objectivism, it is a woman's right to choose whether or not to reproduce. Nature doesn't force us to spread our legs and get inseminated by any passing male. In fact, Objectivism guarantees women the right to terminate any such life in our wombs, whether or not we put it there voluntarily.

What is different about a woman choosing not to have children and a homosexual man? (Obviously, I mean something other than our physical differences. :)

Are you then saying that any woman who chooses not to reproduce is also not living in a life affirming way?

That Rand was in fact not living in a life affirming way? As far as I know, she did not have children though of course, I have no idea if it was a choice or a fact of nature.

Ronin went on to write:

Objectivism has a lot to offer homosexual individuals- it guarantees your right to be what you are in your own home.

End quote.

I agree completely here. As I began to read about Objectivism, it occurred to me that Objectivism did have a lot to offer everyone and I was stunned to realize that Objectivists of a bygone era actually denounced homosexuals. LOL! My reasoning was and is that because reproduction is a choice, the choice not to have children 'freed up' everyone to have whatever kind of relationship they wanted .. including those that will not produce children for whatever reasons.

Most other belief systems argue that Man's natural state is one where women are relegated to bearing children as her DUTY. Objectivism was different in this regard and a cause for celebration that women had been elevated to creatures of choice. Objectivism declared for the first time that we are each free to do as we rationally wish, with no duty to nature or society to reproduce. Am I wrong?

Ronin also said:

But don't make the mistake of believing homosexuality has anything to offer objectivism. It doesn't. Neither does any other disorder, fetish, kink, or turn-on.

Sexuality (as a topic)is not part of philosophy, it is more a hybrid of psychology and phisiology, the rational study of which depends on a rational philosophy.

End quote.

I have to disagree in part here. It seems there is some dichotomy here that I'm not clear on. Sexuality is a core part of every human being on this planet, and yes, it includes psychology and physiology and most definitely depends on a basis of rationality.

The thing I'm seeing here though is that what is termed kink, disorder, fetish or even turn on is considered outside of philosophy per se? I don't see how that could be at all. I was under the impression that much of this debate about kinky sex and homosexuality was rooted in the morality of those choices? I.e.., some think it is immoral and others do not? Am I wrong as to the root of the argument? Morality is very much a part of philosophy .. isn't it?

What I find more interesting though, and this is where my own tangent comes in ...

While we would not morally denounce someone with a broken ankle, cancer, or hepatitis we do tend to morally denounce homosexuals, kinky people and the like.

We see physical ailments as okay, but not emotional ailments?

Now, before everyone gets on my case by seeing homosexuality as a disorder *grin*, I'm choosing this example to illustrate a point. Because Ronin has termed them a disorder or 'unnatural' I'm following that line of logic. However, I will be honest and state right up front that I tend to agree that homosexuality and even my favorite kinks are rooted in emotional damage that needs to be worked through BUT I also have come to believe that many expressions of homosexuality and kink are healthy. I do think human sexuality swings both ways, and that some forms of kinky sex are extremely exciting and wonderful. Which forms? LOL! Those that don't injure anyone involved. :)

So, if we assume that homosexuality and kink are disorders, why do we need to morally denounce them?

Why do people with physical afflictions get spared the moral condemnation? Because they have no control over their afflictions? That is arguable. Accidents can be prevented. Had I been more careful, I would not have broken my ankle so horribly. Maybe all that candy I ate as a youngster contributed to my having gestational diabetes for all my pregnancies? Am I to be morally denounced for that?

So what makes having an emotional ailment different from a physical ailment? Don't tell me we are still working on the mind and body dichotomy! LOL!

Now, I suspect Ronin was making a different kind of point, one I'm not really qualified to address. I'm not an academic Objectivist and it is my impression that the purpose of Chris' work is not to invert Objectivism or whatever, but to point out that choices are choices and should be respected as such.

If I were to follow Ronin's reasoning, I would have to morally denounce any woman that decided not to have children, I would have to morally denounce any one with an emotional or physical ailment .. but I'm not into denouncing such things.

I would rather spend my denouncing energy for those that deserve it ... our politicians, statists, collectivists and other such evil people. Personal choices are personal choices and the one thing I thought Objectivism celebrated was the idea of personal freedom and choice, along with responsibility!

Ronin concluded his comments:

Those who are homosexual, and objectivist, should be objective enough to state honestly "I am damaged, through no way of my own, possibly beyond repair, but I will live a life of reason."

end quote.

I have to say that I was surprised by this. Do you go around stating all the ways you may be damaged? Is it only a matter of degree then? Or just sexual orientation? I freely admit that I am damaged in many ways, and I often say so to illustrate a point relating to what I am writing. I was raised a mystic and it's hard baggage to overcome at times. But do I need to wear a glaring red letter 'D' on my chest and proclaim to the world that I am damaged? If everyone had to do that, we would all be wearing such red letters and what would be the point? I am not defined by my failings, nor should anyone else be. I respect other people enough to understand they might have whatever problems they have and that it is their business to work on them or not. Unless they infringe on my liberty, property rights, or happiness it really is none of my concern. :)

However, isn't living a life of reason life affirming??? LOL!

Joy :))

Kernon Gibes
Post 54

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 9:05am
Joy,

Just wanted to compliment you on one thing you caught onto: and that is that, yes, Ronin's position is more accurately described as "species affirming". To belabor the obvious, in Objectivist ethics, the primary beneficiary of a moral act is supposed to be the actor, not the human species. Species affirmation would be a form of collectivism.

Kernon Gibes
Post 55

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 10:46am
Joy,

Now that I've dispensed with my complimentary comment, I can proceed to something else entirely! :-o

You wrote:

However, I will be honest and state right up front that I tend to agree that homosexuality and even my favorite kinks are rooted in emotional damage that needs to be worked through...

Could you expand on this? I didn't intend to take you out of context, but I didn't see anything else you wrote which clearly modified this statement. Is this just based upon your personal experience, or a careful study of the available scientific evidence? AFAIK, your conclusion isn't warranted. It is, of course, one thing to claim that everyone you personally know had experienced some form of emotional damage, but quite another to claim that this is true of an entire segment of the population.

Joy Bushnell

Post 56

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 12:06pm
Oops! Sorry Kernon, the above that you quoted from my message is strictly based on my own experience and observations of people I've known on-line in the cyber world. *grin*

I keep forgetting that I have to put everything in a one shot deal here! LOL! I've so often mentioned my 'research' in other conversations that I forget that most here would not know of my illicit activities in the darker regions of the cyber (and real sometimes :) world. ;)

My own observations come from talking and 'listening' (ie., reading) to homosexuals, kinky folk, and others on various discussion groups devoted to sexuality of one kind or another. At most, I'd say that this comes from in depth conversations of perhaps 50 or 60 people, hardly representative of the entire population. *grin*

My own experience parallels that I've heard from others and I have drawn my own conclusions as it relates to myself and what I believe.

I've seen quite a bit of 'scientific' data but being married to a scientist makes me quite suspect of their conclusions either for or against my own conclusions, nebulous as they might be at this stage. In fact, if one were to integrate all the 'conclusions' out there so far, it would amount to a muddled mess because psychology is pretty much in the Dark Ages and people in various fields often don't know what questions to ask and if they did ask the right questions, there is still the issue of how well people know themselves to answer correctly. And then you have those people who would be afraid to answer correctly for a variety of reasons.

However, I do appreciate you pointing this out so that I could clear it up before starting something ugly here! LOL!

Thanks!

Joy :)

Joy Bushnell
Post 57

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 12:15pm
Actually, let me clarify some more as I suddenly get the impression that Kernon may have mistaken one point of mine:

I do not believe that homosexuality or kink is EXCLUSIVELY due to emotional or sexual abuse, this that or the other thing.

I do believe that a healthy sexuality can include same sex affection, sex, bonding, and yes, even kink. :)

There is such a deep continuum when it comes to what we are talking about here in regards to homosexuality and kink.

There is a world of difference between tying up your partner and blindfolding them for hours of exciting sex and literally living as a sex slave 24/7 with no regard for your own sense of worth.

There is a world of difference between a person hating/fearing the opposite sex in the extreme and a person that simply prefers the same gender or even both genders while being able to easily interact with people of either gender.

My conclusions about emotional damage and working through issues concerns the extremes of gender preference or kink. Just as I see emotional damage as the cause of those who over eat, over drink, and any number of other activities that are harmful either physically or emotionally.

Hope this clears that up. :)

Joy :)

Ari Cohen

Post 58

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 2:22pm
Ed Ronin

Thanks for the intelligent reply. At least, now, I know you are honestly opposed, instead of just trying to smear the experience.

In regard to this question of yours:

"I have some questions though, are there any circumstances in which you would judge a heterosexual, who is repulsed by homosexuality, as anything other than a repressed homosexual?"

Here is the thing. First, you say lisping, queen types repulse you, and then you say "homosexuality" repulses you, which would include the whole experience.

Anyway, in answer to your question it has been my observation that healthy straight people with active sex lives, have a very live-and-let live attitude toward homosexuality, in so far as no one tries to intrude upon them.

Rather than be repulsed by it, they simply state that it is "not there thing." Or shrug their shoulders with indifference. Conversely, healthy homosexual types are enjoying their lives, and really are not concerned about heterosexuality.

As an Objectivist, I don't think one has to like homosexuality, but I think one has to accept that it is a lifestyle for many people who call themselves Objectivists.

Joy Bushnell alludes to homosexuality and kink repeatedly in her posts, but this is an expression of inexperience and lack of personal knowledge of the full homosexual world. In fact, as homosexuality moves out of the closet, more and more gay people appear who are living healthy and rational lives. (Kink inplies an unhealthy, non-intimate, non-romantic aspect. And yes, while homosexuality is rooted in a dark, underworld past, much of it extremely kinky, this is changing very rapidly.)

In conclusion, Ed there are repulsive parts of homosexuality just as there are repulsive parts of heterosexuality. Have you ever seen pictures of heterosexual men being mutiliated by a dominatrix, crawling on the floor, licking a toilet bowl?

I can't speak for gay people in general, but I know a lot of gay men who dislike the sissy, fairy type. I would say these types are a small percentage of gay people.

Finally, no I don't think because certain gay types repulse you, you are a repressed homosexual. One could say I was a heterosexual teenager, so I am not unfamiliar with the painful path of many males. In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, most heterosexual boys fear homosexuality because they are reluctant to confront it. If they confronted it, instead of making a monster out it, they would probably come out the other side, much more confident of their desire for girls.

Also, I don't see value judgements as the answer to many deep-rooted personality traits and lifestyles, especially homosexuality. But this is a very complex subject, best left for another time.

Thanks again for an intelligent reply.

Ari C.

Ed_Ronin
Post 59

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 2:33pm
Thanks for the civilized responses! The criticisms have been helpful in pointing out that I have been equivocating terms. Let me try to be clearer.

When I speak of "Homosexuals" I refer to individuals.
When I speak of "Homosexuality" I refer to the "gay community", or "gay collective" i.e. those who deliberately try to conform to arbitrary affectations, and who would destroy masculinity by declaring it a farce and placing it in "quotes" every time they write about it, declaring any intense male friendship (like I have with my step-brother) a celibate homosexual relationship etc.

That's is my beef(No penis joke intended); sexual collectivism, and the nihilists posing as objectivists who package-deal legitimate points, such as individual choice, with evil, like a porn-star named Jon Galt. (I'd say the same about a prostitute name Dagny Taggart, or a White Supremicist named Hank Rearden.)

That is why I said Homosexuality had nothing to offer objectivism, but objectivism had much to offer homosexuals.

I mentioned in an earlier post, or at least alluded, that sexual preference (pick your favorite type for this monologue) has many causes
some moral, some immoral, but I will not pretend to buy into "Jon Galt's" altruistic defense (doing us a service) of his perversity [because his sex is detached from values, not because of the mechanics involved] or by the authors adoration of him. (As a reader I simply assumed he was banging this Galt guy and trying to flatter him.)

As for "Species affirming" versus "Life affirming" I was refering to Galt's speach (quote approximate) That which creates or improves life is the good, that which threatens of destroys it is the evil.

Let me dissect that:

Creates life: this term can only refer to the biological definition of life

Improves life: This can refer to the quality of an individuals life, or the continuation of biological life.

The quality of life rests on the idea biological life. So while I have to admit my comment about "let everyone practice it for a generation" is not a valid argument against Sexual Collectivism, it is nonetheless a true observation that human life would end- and the quality of life issue would become moot because there would be no individuals to worry about.

Yes, an occasional kinky indulgence might improve the quality of life for a mortal being (someones gotta get gay in a threesome) but heterosexual love has the added value of creating life.

As for the "Duty to spread legs and multiply." I never said anything about duty. This conclusion was a nonsequitor and did not follow from my reasoning.

Still at work...Gotta go

PS for Peikoffs (surprisingly flexible) view on this stuff, check out his $13.00 tape "LOVE SEX AND ROMANCE"

Olivia Hanson
Post 60

Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 6:35pm
Anthony

Thank you for the nice compliment. In a sense, I think we are all in this together. So if some guy dehumanizes another by calling him names, I am first responding for everyone I know who is gay, and for the future.

Would like to engage you in a long discussion, but I am deluged with work. Unlike some people on this forum who get their info from the internet and who think gays are kink machines, I have a very responsible job and have to produce results. I do that because I am a responsible individual, enjoy productive work, and not because I am a gay women.

One other thing before I check off. Thanks for mentioning Camille Paglia. I think she is a very positive force for gay people, especially gay men. In a way, she is a little bit like Rand, in that she favors the male over the female, although for her it would be the gay male over the lesbian.

Well then, our -- what is the root of homosexuality -- discussion awaits us at some future date. Just wanted to say thanks so you don't think I am one of those domineering, nasty bitches that inhabit Myron Ford's Jon Galt brain.

Ed_Ronin
Post 61

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 5:40am
Ari C:

I read your response in more detail today- and it seems I must get into the habit of writing my posts on paper and reviewing my work a few hours later, I have made an important discovery thanks to your replies.

I have identified what repulses me, which I have stated above to be sexual/gender-collectivism and it's corollary attack on masculinity;

Relating "John Galt" to "Jon Galt" is evil and offends me.

The good thing that I must thank you (Ari) for is pointing out that while I am offended by the package-dealing of gender-collectivist premises into ideas of masculinity, I was guilty of some package dealing myself:

I equated rational gays with nihilistic stereotypes who claim to speak for a "gay community" (According to Objectivism a community is merely a number of individuals and as such, no one has the right to speak for them all)

So, to everyone outside the package deal, I offer an apology.

To those inside, let me paraphrase a conversation between Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff on the subject of nihilism(FROM PEIKOFFS ART OF THINKING COURSE)


QUOTE (more or less)

At the time Peikoff was doing his research for the chapter on nihilism "Ominous Parallels" he and Rand were watching the Academy awards on television. There was still an attempt at real glamour, and some concern about producing real art at the time.

In the middle of the celebration a streaker broke out of the crowd, ran past the camera, and into the living rooms of America.

Rand asked Peikoff what the essence of the event was. He gave a few wrong answers- "he's irrational...he's an exhibitionist" etc.

"No." She stated, "This is the most glamorous event in Holywood...and here comes this creature who wants to stick his bare-ass in your face."

END QUOTE (more or less)

Here's my point: I popped into this topic expecting to find an intelligent article defining the fine line between mindless tolerance and prejudice.

Instead I found a creature who wants to stick his bare penis in my face. (He even posted a photo- not of a nude adonis, but a flashing village people reject.)

Ronin

Anthony Teets
Post 62

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 5:52am
Ed,

Your very limited view of homosexuality is not only pathetic, but since it so uninformed, it leaves me with relatively nothing to work with at all. You say so little that makes sense, and your conclusions are largely drawn from...well who knows where you get your ideas?

In the history of mankind, heterosexuals certainly have no monopoly on the "natural", unless you mean, naturally ignorant. Even Aristotle observed that this was the case for the majority of humanity. This view that you propound, that heterosexuals are more natural, is simply ridiculous. I think it might be better if you back up and define what you mean by "natural" so we can tear your definition apart. I certainly am not about to correct your antiquated knowledge of any of these categories. What you say about biology is even more ridiculous.

In the history of heterosexuality I think you will see that child abuse has a lot more chance of happening in the family. It would seem that the primary abusers would be parents. In fact they are in contact with children a lot more than anonymous homosexuals. I also know that the history of child abandonment (read John Boswell's excellent work on this subject) is primarily a heterosexual "topic" and it is "natural" to straight people. Before you start making gay people the object of your attack, why don't you go back and reform everything you have said? Apology is very much in line and it is something that happens quite often on SOLOHQ:) I think your ideas are all based on hatred and prejudice. There is not a word of truth in any of it. In fact there is no difference at all between the hatred you write and the hatred that can be read in Myron's post. They are merely opposite sides of the same coin.

You seem to conflate the biological with the moral, and then you add your own brand of barbaric hostility toward others. You don't realize how much your argument depends on the naturalistic fallacy of deriving the "ought" from the "is". How do you get from "procreation" to "morally superior"?? You've got to decide in making your arguments whether you are going to base your prejudice on "nature" or on "morality" and the proceed from there. By conflating these two issues you are only confusing yourself and your reader. Somehow you think because you are straight, and I assumed that you are, you are morally superior to ALL gay people? I'm sorry. I am not convinced of your moral superiority or your intelligence.

Anthony Teets

Post 63

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 6:32am
Edit
Ed,

BTW, if you will take the time to read the thread you will see that the inclusion of Jon Galt's picture in the article has already been talked into the ground. We have concluded that the question of Sciabarra's moral position (is Sciabarra evil or good) cannot be determined on such a minor issue. In fact it seems like dicing hairs to remain stuck on that point. We have also determined that not only is it incorrect, but it is unkind to "psychologize". What we mean by this you can read from the Olivia Hanson-Sciabarra exchange above.

As far as the use of words such as "kink", I don't know what that means. I have heard of "kinky" but kink? I looked it up, and behold, KINK 1 : a short tight twist or curl caused by a doubling or winding of something upon itself.
2 a : a mental or physical peculiarity : WHIM
3 : a clever unusual way of doing something
4 : a cramp in some part of the body
5 : an imperfection likely to cause difficulties in the operation of something

It's amazing what gays get accused of on SOLO. Back in June, Mr. Chappelle said that gays were guilty of a long list of sexual perversities which he took the time to list. Not only was everyone confused by his blind anger over the issue, but no one knew what any of his words meant. "Micturation"? I had to look the word up. Mr. Chappelle had assumed that ALL gays would know what this word meant. It followed "logically" from his argument that ALL homosexuals were morally depraved.


BTW: How does one "pose as an Objectivist"? In what way is Jon Galt evil?

Joy Bushnell

Post 64

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 6:35am
Hello everyone!

I hate this 8k limit! LOL! Okay, once more into the breach to clarify! :)

Ronin replied:

So while I have to admit my comment about "let everyone practice it for a generation" is not a valid argument against Sexual Collectivism,
End quote.

That was my point.

Ronin continued:

it is nonetheless a true observation that human life would end- and the quality
of life issue would become moot because there would be no individuals to worry about.
End Quote.

I quite agree. But the important point is that it must be a choice and just as a woman has that choice (whether or not to reproduce) so too does a man.

I believe that those people who for whatever reasons don't want children, shouldn't have them and biologically speaking their 'line' will end with that choice while those who do choose to happily reproduce will, thereby continuing their 'line'.

Females aren't generally denounced for choosing not to have children, but men always seem to have this thrown in their faces by those who oppose homosexuality as a choice. Either something works both ways by virtue of the principle it is founded on or it is just subjective whim.

Ronin also wrote:

Yes, an occasional kinky indulgence might improve the quality of life for a mortal being (someones gotta get gay in a threesome) but heterosexual love has the added value of creating life.
End Quote.

Yes, heterosexual love has the added value of creating life, no argument there from me :). But many heterosexual people also choose not to have children. If heterosexual or homosexuals do not want to have children, that is their right. And that is the point. Having children is optional for everyone exactly because we are not bound by duty to create life and even have the right to destroy life before it leaves the womb.

Ronin:
As for the "Duty to spread legs and multiply." I never said anything about duty. This conclusion was a nonsequitor and did not follow from my reasoning.
End Quote.

I disagree here, and as you said yourself above, your argument concerning this was not valid, yet you continue in the same vein .. If one were to follow the reasoning of your admittedly invalid argument of 'let everyone practice that for a generation' and your 'quality of life statement above' it would lead down the path to duty to reproduce. By basing 'moral' reproductive choices on the fact that without reproduction there would be no more humans and by morally sanctioning homosexuals BECAUSE they won't/can't have children you head down the road of duty to reproduce ... eventually.

Olivia:

Unlike some people on this forum who get their info from the internet and who think gays are kink machines,

LOL! I have no idea if you were referring to me Olivia, but I will ask one question -- What is the Internet? How does it generate information?

Behind every monitor we use to converse with others on the Internet is another human being. As far as I know, humans are the only ones that currently use the Internet. When I get information from websites, some human being has produced that information. When I chat on the Internet, there is another human being at the other end, chatting back. The Internet can only function with individuals on the other end of the line. The physical Internet, the wires, routers, hubs, servers, and workstations do not produce conversations, share ideas, or share personal information about themselves.

I get my information from other individuals -- just as everyone else does. I get the added bonus of being able to speak and listen to a much wider audience that would be possible in person, one on one. I also do get information one on one, but in regards to speaking with people who are either homosexual or kinky, the number of individuals I have spoken directly with (including my best friend) numbers only 6.

Ari wrote:

Joy Bushnell alludes to homosexuality and kink repeatedly in her posts, but this is an expression of inexperience and lack of personal knowledge of the full homosexual world. In fact, as homosexuality moves out of the closet, more and more gay people appear who are living healthy and rational lives. (Kink inplies an unhealthy, non-intimate, non-romantic aspect. And yes, while homosexuality is rooted in a dark, underworld past, much of it extremely kinky, this is changing very rapidly.)

LOL! Okay, I have to ask -- why is all this kink attributed to me, when it was Ronin who lumped it all together with homosexuality and even simple 'turn ons'?

Another thing, is this thread the exclusive domain of gay people? Yes, I have no personal experience of homosexuality, but what on earth does that have to do with advocating the freedom of personal choice in regard to sexual orientation or interests as it relates to Objectivism? Especially when I'm FOR personal freedom -- free of denunciation! LOL!

Ari, just what is it that heterosexuals are supposed to know about the 'full homosexual world'?

I don't have to know anything about that 'world' to understand that Individual Rights, morality and judgment on these matters depends on using reason. If Objectivism embraces above all the rights of Individuals to do as they choose so long as it does not violate the rights of any other individual, then of what importance are the specific particulars?

And to repeat, I did not equate kink with homosexuality -- they are in fact two different forms of sexual expression, though they can appear together in some individuals. It seems that you are sensitive about appearances, wanting homosexuality to appear as distinctly different from kink. Fine.

You also believe that kink is bad, non-intimate, negative, non-romantic, whatever. Fine. I disagree, but you are free to believe what you will.

None of that alters the fact that what I am speaking of is the right for each individual to pursue his own sexual interests, whether homosexual, heterosexual or kinky -- so long as those choices do not violate the rights of anyone else.

Then there is the next level of discussion where we include judgments about the difference between sustaining life and having added value features, or what is 'healthy' and life affirming and what is not. This is where I introduced my own little continuum theory which basically said that there are extremes in the various sexual expressions of some people, whether homosexual, heterosexual, kinky, overeaters or alcoholics or otherwise. My conclusion is that people who live in these extreme areas are damaged in some way, and hopefully they are working on it. I also said that I believe healthy sexuality includes much more than man and woman in missionary style doing it twice a week. I should put the last sentence in caps! By my reasoning, the last sentence includes any number of choices and sexual practices including homosexuality and yes, *gasp* kink. These forms of sexual expression have been around as long as man has been and you know, in the 'good old days' many of these sexual expressions were revered rather than condemned. And advocates of these various sexual expressions were not dismissed and insulted for championing the cause. LOL!

I also said that no matter the level of damage, level of extremeness, we should respect the rights of those people working through their issues instead of just denouncing them. I don't know how to be any more clear.

As a writer it is quite disconcerting to me that my words, which I thought were so clear, are so easily misunderstood! Guess I had better keep my day job for a while longer. *grin*

Joy :)

Anthony Teets


Post 65

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 6:42am
Olivia,

Nice to hear from you. If you are interested, I will be posting some new articles on my blog in the near future. I would love to get your comments and feedback.

http://3.avatarreview.com:8081/WildeGuy/

Cheers,

Anthony

Anthony Teets

Post 66

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:13am
Hi Joy,

I suspect that you know that Ed's argument is a logical fallacy. To throw out the challenge to practice homosexuality for a decade and see what happens is not only irrational and says nothing because it so painfully obvious, but it is being used to back up a point: the supposed moral superiority of heterosexuality. It is just as fair as Hume's argument against the common sense view that "because the sun has risen every morning for a billion years, we have no right to infer that it will rise tomorrow."

Ed is confusing the natural with the moral. I think we all know that males and females have particular anatomies that makes procreation possible. BIG DEAL! Can we arrive at any conclusions from this information? Are heterosexuals more moral because they choose to procreate? Since when does procreation figure up there with rationality? I think that people who don't really have strong arguments to back up their irrational fear of homosexuality fall upon stupid arguments "ad natura" and give it a try. Ed doesn't seem to notice how similar his argument is to environmentalists and religious fanatics. Watch:

1 Religious: A preacher on Sunday morning pounding the pulpit with his fist: "Sodom and Gommorah, there go I but for the Grace of God. Imagine what the world will be like when it all ends and fire consumes everything. There will be gnashing of teeth and crying, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah blah."

2 Environmentalist: "For over a century now Western culture has slowly been depleting the earth of her natural resources. If we keep this up, at this rate of speed we will finish the earth off in a decade. Imagine a world with no water, no animals, with nothing but dark black stumps where natural green healthy trees used to grow, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"

3 Ed: "Homosexuals are immoral and do not follow biological principles. Imagine what would happen if we all became homosexuals. Why I challenge you to try it for a generation and you will se what happens, blah blah, blah, blah,blah,blah."

Ed_Ronin
Post 67

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:23am
Joy:

I agree with your reasoning and pose the following questions for my own clarification:

1.All things being equal in terms of personal fulfillment life experiences etc., can it be said that a heterosexual relationship OFFERS A CHOICE (to create life) that a homosexual relationship does not?

2.As life is the standard of value (to objectivists) does it follow that morality can not totally disconnect from biology?

3. Does the fact that homosexuals can only make children via a heterosexual act make those who use surogates second-handers? Should they limit themselves to adopting? Can a same sex couple rationally decide they want to have children without asking "whose children?"

4. Is homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality or is it a disorder (heterophobia?) [that is of no concern to anyone]

These are complex questions, and I am interested in finding "the objectivist answer" from someone who does not think it fallacious to state "for every is there is an ought.

Thats it! For all the IS's of homosexuality, What are the Oughts?

Also, would you care to comment on Mr. Teets comment on my last post?

And Mr. Teets: Obviously we were posting simultaneously when you demanded an apopology- because I had already apologized to anyone who matters. After reading my follow-up, any further input?

Ronin

Joy Bushnell


Post 68

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:44am
LOL! Hi Anthony!

Is that what it is called? Logical fallacy I mean. I often see these terms bandied about but for whatever reason, I'm generally not exactly sure of their meaning. Not even if I read a definition of them. LOL!

But yes, no matter what I may personally feel on an Objectivist issue, it is critical to at least argue rationally and that seems to be hard to do in many cases .. notably about homosexuality and issues like abortion.

The funny thing is, on the surface, I agree that procreation is a good thing -- not as in more moral or our 'destiny' or any such thing ... I just love having kids. But I also know that a lot of people don't like kids and having been a kid myself once, I'm glad there is a choice because a unwilling parent is not a good thing for kids!

But I don't need to look in Objectivism for 'justification' for wanting to have kids or not having kids. LOL! In some ways, philosophy doesn't need to answer that type of question directly, but does address the question 'higher up' on the scale by promoting the idea of Individual Rights, choice, responsibility and such.

This leads to so many other related topics but I do have work to do as well and may address other isses some other time. *grin*

Besides, this page takes so long to load now that I'm getting too impatient!

Joy :)

Anthony Teets
Post 69

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 8:22am
Hi Joy,

With that kind of an attitude about procreation "I just love having kids" we are in no danger of having the kind of world Ed has described:) I do however think that with your enthusiasm about having children we can certainly expect a little population boom in Rochester County:) I still don't see why it is more moral to have kids than not to have kids. It seems a little worthless to point out the argument that serial homosexuality leads to the "Darwin Award" for extinction. I am working on the thesis that Rand reached her conclusions about the "moral inferiority" of homosexuals not from her "biocentric ethics" but because she saw how difficult it would be to reason from biology to morality. It would not follow from her argument of the origin of morals being REASON.

ED: I was not aware that Objectivists held that morality springs from biology. I thought that was the premise of sociobiology and social Darwinism. I think that if you hold that "ought" may be directly derived from "is", then your position is considerably at odds with Objectivism. I mean, of course, in the context of biology. Ayn Rand broke with Herbert Spencer's Darwinism over this particular issue (see the Journals of Ayn Rand and TPOAR, Peikoff's assessment of Spencer). She stated that his defense of capitalism based on this line of argumentation ("nature red in tooth and claw") was dangerously incorrect. I would infer that if she found it inappropriate to use biology to defend the morality of capitalism, then she would find biology equally insufficient to prove the morality of heterosexuality (particularly in its association with procreation). In fact both of the above statements are correct observations of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, but they are not compatible with your attitude. Ayn Rand did not hold your elaborate defense of procreation (you might want to read her essay(s) on abortion) I don't think you have a philosophy, just a series of opinions.

Anthony Teets

Post 70

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 8:34am
Adoption is not an instance of "second handed" argumentation. You are arguing that 1) it is morally superior to be procreative biologically, it follows therefore that, 2) it is less moral to adopt a child because it is further away from the procreative act. In your eyes "adoption" is merely "living off" of the morally superior act of another set of human beings. I do not how you arrived at that conclusion. You seem to be confused about the Second-hander argument. There is a big difference from "living off" of the intellectual or physical property of another person. It is totally different from what you are arguing, that adoption is "second-handedness". I cannot believe that you think that adoption is morally inferior to procreation!!! That is absurd. It is a consequence that follows directly from your first acceptance of the naturalistic fallacy.

sciabarra
Post 71

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 8:35am
I must admit that I'm reading the forum and enjoying the exchanges. I do have to answer, however, another few innuendos that have been dropped here for all the world to see.

Ed Ronin writes: "I mentioned in an earlier post, or at least alluded, that sexual preference (pick your favorite type for this monologue) has many causes some moral, some immoral, but I will not pretend to buy into ‘Jon Galt's' altruistic defense (doing us a service) of his perversity [because his sex is detached from values, not because of the mechanics involved] or by the authors adoration of him. (As a reader I simply assumed he was banging this Galt guy and trying to flatter him.)" Ed adds: "Relating ‘John Galt' to ‘Jon Galt' is evil and offends me."

All I can say is: We started out with innuendo, and we've returned to it. Wow.

This one, I have to admit, has had me HOWLING with laughter, however. Thanks for the comic relief.

Since Anthony suggests taking a look at the previous Hanson-Sciabarra postings on this subject, I'll simply add: railing against "nihilists" like me (without mentioning my name), Ed seems incapable of distinguishing between reportage and evaluation. As I say above in this very thread, I ~reported~ the comments of a person who was nauseated by homosexuality... just as I ~reported~ my interview with Jon Galt. That doesn't mean that I should be identified with any of the comments. I interviewed more than 100 people for this series, and ~reported~ on the life experiences of scores of them, without needing to distance myself from them, without feeling the need to defensively Seinfeld-my-way out of it by saying "not that there's anything wrong with that." The paragraph on Galt was reportage, not evaluation.

If Ed was looking for an intelligent article, I would hope that he would have found it and that he would have read the whole 15,000+ word five-part series before passing judgment. That he and others persist on seizing on this 300-word paragraph dealing with the now (in)famous Jon Galt is context-dropping writ large.

Cheers,
Chris

Anthony Teets
Post 72

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 9:03am
Ed,

Sorry I am getting a little disorganized in my posts. This last one was for you as well. Now I have to ask you on point 4:

Are you referring to "normal" in the medical sense? Is there a current medical or biological argument that asserts categorically that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality, or that the former is "abnormal"? In biology when we speak of an abnormal gene (a mutation, or a mistake in genes) we mean something quite different from YOUR conclusions, that such a thing is good or bad. Most scientists believe that homosexuality is the result of many factors but do not attribute it to any one specific factor, neither do they conclude that questions of morality can be answered corelationally with questions of biology. That is bad science, and it makes really bad ethics. I mean, keep thinking that way and you will arrive at a justification for enforced sterilization (eugenics).

You don't seem to be very aware of what the current status of science is. In the next century we will probably see a lot of human cloning and we will learn a great deal more about how to improve the quality of human life through gene research.

The Human Genome Project is making very modest claims, but to have that kind of information (I refer to mapping the genes) is an enormous step in the right direction. In fact Ed, some of knowledge may be derived from biology, and some from ethical reasoning. But biological knowledge as the exclusive way to arrive at ethical reasoning, or ethcal reasoning being completely devoid of biological knowledge, seem equally paltry.

As far as psychological knowledge, I don't think Rand cared much for that either. I know that it was not until 1975 that the APA passed a resolution to remove homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem. Much objective scientific research over the past 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is not associated with emotional or social problems. As I said before, I don't know where you get your ideas, but they are very much in need of sound facts.

Cheers

Joy Bushnell

Post 73

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 9:07am
I'm glad you asked these questions!

"1.All things being equal in terms of personal fulfillment life experiences etc., can it be said that a heterosexual relationship OFFERS A CHOICE (to create life) that a homosexual relationship does not?"

The issue of choice comes at a different point altogether -- the real question of choice is -- does an individual have the choice to either have this type of relationship or that type of relationship. The type of relationship does not matter, just the choice of being able to choose one type of relationship at all.

What is individually fulfilling to one person can be just as UNfulfilling to another.

While you or I may find the most joyous fulfillment in having a dozen kids, there are many others that would consider that to be a death sentence. The choice to create life comes with great responsibility and should not be taken lightly.

" 2.As life is the standard of value (to objectivists) does it follow that morality can not totally disconnect from biology?"

Hmmmmm. I think again, the issue is the 'point of entry' for this question. We cannot escape our biology, but our own control of our own individual biology is the key here, not the biology of mankind in general or society.

My husband could never hope to conceive and bear a child from his own body -- that is a fact of biology that he must take into consideration in his life. If for some reason he desperately wanted to bear a child, biology would make that impossible (or at least right now :), and therefore, he would be foolish to base his life on the hope of bearing a child from his body.

However, again, the choice to actually reproduce is a choice. I have that choice because biologically I am a female, other than that, biology has no bearing on whether or not I *should* have children. Biology only determines that I *CAN*.

"3. Does the fact that homosexuals can only make children via a heterosexual act make those who use surrogates second-handers? Should they limit themselves to adopting? Can a same sex couple rationally decide they want to have children without asking "whose children?" "

Second-handers? Then would infertile heterosexual couples also be second-handers? There are heterosexual couples that pay for surrogate women to bear their child, or use medical procedures to get the egg and sperm together. There are many sperm and egg donors and I don't think the people that buy these services are asked if they are homosexual or heterosexual .. whose children are they then, whether for a homosexual or heterosexual couple? I suspect more heterosexual couples use these types of services than homosexual couples, are they too to be asked 'whose children'?

" 4. Is homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality or is it a disorder (heterophobia?) [that is of no concern to anyone]"

For the purposes of philosophy in general, and Objectivism in particular, I don't think the question matters, again, a point of entry question.

Objectivism is a philosophy where the supremacy of the Individual is key. Not God, not destiny, or social whatevers. How anyone feels about homosexuality, heterosexuality, kinkosexuality or any other aspect of human behavior is really beside the point in regards to the right of an Individual to pursue his own happiness with all that entails.

Morally? What is moral exactly? Objectivism defines (in most basic of terms)morality as whatever is in one's own rational self interest. By that criteria alone, it is okay for anyone to be what they want. I know that is a terribly simplistic statement that implies a lot more .. but that's beyond the 8k limit of this post. :)

Numbers of people doing one activity or another doesn't make it more 'normal' or moral or anything. Masturbation used to be considered immoral, a sin, degenerate, and very abnormal! Today, scientists are discovering that it is harmless and perhaps even necessary activity.

Sexuality of any kind is something that the individual in question should always have complete control of. I don't believe anyone has the right to dictate what is proper, correct or moral in that regard -- again, assuming that I take responsibility for my own actions, that I don't violate the rights of others, and that I'm not being self-destructive (which of course, would not be in my rational self interest).

The point is, you are free to 'feel' any way you want about anything. If you dislike homosexuals, you are entitled to that belief -- but you cannot use Objectivism as a justification for that belief .. well, actually, as originally Objectivism denounced homosexuality .. maybe you can. LOL!

However, I believe that philosophy, even Objectivism isn't the way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that homosexuality (or any other deviation from the 'norm') is 'normal' or 'better'. It depends on the individual and the individual in question is the one that takes responsibility for those choices.

Ronin:

These are complex questions, and I am interested in finding "the objectivist answer" from someone who does not think it fallacious to state "for every is there is an ought.
End Quote.

Okay, I'm not sure what that means, and I'm not sure I can claim the status of Objectivist as I do disagree with some key elements ... but these are my answers and I'm sticking with them. *grin*

Ronin:
Thats it! For all the IS's of homosexuality, What are the Oughts?
End Quote.

What is an Ought?

Ronin:
Also, would you care to comment on Mr. Teets comment on my last post?
End Quote.

Huh? Why?

*grin* Okay, I do know why you are asking, but I generally don't comment on how others react, I'm not responsible for their thoughts and actions and I often agree or disagree with lots of great people around here. It's just how it works. :)

Think of it as the 'good cop' and 'bad cop' ploy for our erstwhile audience. *grin*

I just know I'm going to regret that bit of whimsy ... LOL!
Joy :)

Anthony Teets

Post 74

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 2:01pm
Hi Chris!

I am glad to see you have not left us completely. I was thinking that your ears must be ringing a great deal over this last bit. I do still hold that you were correct in your first observations that homosexuality in Objectivism or among Objectivists is a hot topic, and the fact that so much time has been devoted to it is a significant indication of that truth. I am still very much alarmed by what I see as an accusational stance against you personally. The kind of ad hominem argumentation that takes you on personally is very discouraging to say the least. I agree with your assessment that many of the responses here begin with a voiced opinion against your work in general and somehow end up with direct assaults on you personally. This kind of nauseating and uncritical reacting is counter productive. I do not share the view that because you interviewed Jon Galt that you are being rewarded on the side. That kind of comment is undeserved and I cannot believe that others have not voiced a response against such things.

I have consistently thrown ideas out there in the hopes of getting some kind of proactive response, or an exchange of ideas. I have announced to everyone that I do not presuppose any claim to absolute knowledge. When I see anger being voiced at you personally through "innuendo", or otherwise, I reply with hints of anger. I am not angry about these issues, I am interested in locating the source of the anger, and I think that it comes out in these comment sessions. Sometimnes the best way to counter an angry voice is through anger. I really don't think any of this would occur in meatspace, your chihuahua Blondie would certainly not allow it:)

One such instance is I believe indicated in Ed's responses to homosexuality. Since Objectivists don't have anything to say about these issues, individuals are left to develop their ideas independently. Yes Rand said negative comments about homosexuality. When people are left without a reason for rejecting or accepting homosexuality they may turn to any number of rationalizations. In Ed's response I think I have uncovered a logical fallacy being used to counter homosexuality, but in previous exchanges I have seen "disgust" being advocated as a reason to form an argument. A response is not sufficient reason to adopt an attitude, and it is no substitute for an argument.

I do think that FEAR is definitely a factor underlying both of the topics that you have raised in your articles on "partisanship" and in your installment on homosexuality. I may be wrong about this, but I see that Rand's refusal to deal directly with the latter issue has left a void in the wake of social progress.

I am very interested in the precise line of demarcation between philosophy and social.biological.psychological issues. Some posters think it is evidence of postmodernism or nihilism creeping into Objectivism, but if this were the case, then I don't think that Objectivists should comment on any issue raised in society. I don't think that Rand held herself back from making all kinds of comments on societal concerns. So why is homosexuality being constantly placed on the back burner or rejected from Objectivism if it is an issue that causes so much anger/constrnation/concern?

Myron Ford

Post 75

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 6:12pm
According to Ronin's logic, if one is repulsed by heterosexuality, one must be a latent heterosexual. Very amusing. Only, as a gay male and an admirer of Jon Galt, I must say I despise heterosexuality, and especially the brainless slut types who package their sex and doll it out to stupid guys, who fawn all over them.

Cindy Crawford is an example. A stupid, incompetent c... with a pretty face who has guys falling all over her, in order to see her naked, and get a chance to enter that horrid piece of hair pie between her legs.

Brittany Spears is another example, a shameless little whore who mindlessly packages her body, as a temptress without scrupples or morals.

Except for the noble gay women, straight women are mostly whores and flirts, without ability or brains. They are also terrible hypocrites. They talk about morality but only want to be f....d by some crazy, wild, irrational stud, who will end up beating them and abusing them.

As for me, I prefer intellectual males, who will be my brother, understand me instead of lying to me, cheating me, and abusing me like the Whore of Babylon.

Joy Bushnell

Post 76

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:04pm
Hi there Myron,

You actually raise a very important point here in your otherwise quite humurous reply!

This is something I've had on the back burner for a while regarding relationships in general, no matter who the particpants are.

In speaking with many that have become disillusioned with relationships of one kind or another the one thing that is clear is that often one partner was living a kind of fantasy or illusion, literally wearing rose colored glasses as it pertained to what they expected from the relationship and in essense suspending their rational self interest in order to gain a certain sense of belonging or security from the relationship.

When that illusion is destroyed, they are often devastated and blame the entire circumstance on being cheated, lied to, or otherwise manipulated.

A healthy relationship is one where each partner has a strong sense of self, is rationally objective about expectations and is aware and conscious of what the relationship and their partner has to offer. If there is deceit, or a lack of morality, or any other negative thing, it is up to each individual to be alert for things until real trust is established, using all our tools of cognition and reason.

Yes, there are many unscrupulous people out there, but often, it is those people unwilling to face reality as such that get sucked into bad relationships and they continue the cycle because they seek security and salvation from others rather than from themselves.

Sadly, such relationships have devastating effects that forever make a healthy relationship out of reach and forms a cycle of bad relationships to the point that they are no longer able to interact with other people in general, seeing everyone of a certain type as evil, manipulating or whores of either gender.

Abuse is a terrible thing, but it does not have to define a person forever. If one choses to have a victim mentality, they will forever be a victim ... of their own negativity. There is such a lovely world out there for those that choose to be conscious, who choose to use reason, who refuse to be defined by a victim mentality.

Joy :)

Joy Bushnell

Post 77

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:13pm
Hi there Myron,

You actually raise a very important point here in your otherwise quite humurous reply!

This is something I've had on the back burner for a while regarding relationships in general, no matter who the particpants are.

In speaking with many that have become disillusioned with relationships of one kind or another the one thing that is clear is that often one partner was living a kind of fantasy or illusion, literally wearing rose colored glasses as it pertained to what they expected from the relationship and in essense suspending their rational self interest in order to gain a certain sense of belonging or security from the relationship.

When that illusion is destroyed, they are often devastated and blame the entire circumstance on being cheated, lied to, or otherwise manipulated.

A healthy relationship is one where each partner has a strong sense of self, is rationally objective about expectations and is aware and conscious of what the relationship and their partner has to offer. If there is deceit, or a lack of morality, or any other negative thing, it is up to each individual to be alert for things until real trust is established, using all our tools of cognition and reason.

Yes, there are many unscrupulous people out there, but often, it is those people unwilling to face reality as such that get sucked into bad relationships and they continue the cycle because they seek security and salvation from others rather than from themselves.

Sadly, such relationships have devastating effects that forever make a healthy relationship out of reach and forms a cycle of bad relationships to the point that they are no longer able to interact with other people in general, seeing everyone of a certain type as evil, manipulating or whores of either gender.

Abuse is a terrible thing, but it does not have to define a person forever. If one choses to have a victim mentality, they will forever be a victim ... of their own negativity. There is such a lovely world out there for those that choose to be conscious, who choose to use reason, who refuse to be defined by a victim mentality.

Joy :)

Joy Bushnell
Post 78

Friday, November 1, 2002 - 7:15pm
Uh, sorry guys, I don't know why my reply showed up twice. :(

Joy

Myron Ford


Post 79

Saturday, November 2, 2002 - 2:30pm
Ms. Bushnell

I imagine you are referring to me when you speak of that beautiful world out there when we refuse to be victims.

Yes, I think it is a beautiful world when there are no straight women in it. I enjoy being a gay male a great deal. But unfortunately in this oppressive society I was forced to attend high school and suffer through the oppressive effects of a heterosexual culture, a culture that says a boy is nothing unless he has a girl, and is a good lover, able to please and satisfy her.

I wonder if you have an idea what it is like to grow up knowing your whole day is a lie, and that if you tell the truth, your whole world will collapse, and most everyone in it will reject you. In my senior year, when I did come out and tell everyone I was gay, I was beaten repeatedly in gym class, scorned and called fag by the popular girls, and rejected by my whole family, who refused to accept me. Teachers turned the other way when I was being mistreated and when I struck back I was punished to the max.

So Ms. Bushnell, your letter doesn't surprise me. It is just like a straight women to define others but her own experience, an experience of being pampered and treated preferentially. To be very frank, I have little respect for the intelligence of straight women, and their fairy tale views of the world. Maybe when you go out in the world, and make your way like many gay women with out the financial support of a man, your opinion will hold more weight.

Ari Cohen
Post 80

Saturday, November 2, 2002 - 7:03pm
I think this conversation is veering off course, and entering into areas of subjective feelings about sexuality. Or what is homosexuality or what isn't. Yet, in reality it is discussion of Chris Sciabarra's articles on homosexuality and Objectivism, and all the issues related to this, for example, why are so few gay Objectivists willing to announce themselves publically, or why have so many homosexuals been treated disrespectfully in the past?

I think Chris contributed tremendously to the advancement of Objectivism as a social entity by these articles, and he deserves to be respected not only as an individual but as an intellectual. In this sense, Ronin your cheap remark about him and Jon Galt is way out of line, and I know for myself, I will not respond to you anymore.

Personally, the only thing I think is important about individual Objectivists who are homosexual, is are they quality individuals who are guided by the basic fundamentals of Objectivism: people who are intelligent, productive, creative, and living a rational life.

If they are partnered with someone of the same-sex, that is their business, and they should be fully accepted as they are, without any reservations.

Although I don't speak for Chris, I think that would be one of the goals of his articles, a better understanding of gay Objectivists and acceptance of their lifestyles within the parameters of Objectivism.

As such I don't think homosexuality or heterosexuality offers anything to Objectivism, but individual people of both sides do, and will, and this is what is important.

Joy Bushnell


Post 81

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 8:25am

Hello there Myron,

I debated whether or not this was worth my time to answer, and finally decided that it was, even if it is off topic to this particular discussion.

"I imagine you are referring to me when you speak of that beautiful world out there when we refuse to be victims."

Yes, I was referring to you and to anyone one else that defines themselves by their suffering.

"Yes, I think it is a beautiful world when there are no straight women in it. I enjoy being a gay male a great deal. But unfortunately in this oppressive society I was forced to attend high school and suffer through the oppressive effects of a heterosexual culture, a culture that says a boy is nothing unless he has a girl, and is a good lover, able to please and satisfy her."

Well, in a bizarre sense I almost agree with you. Had there been no straight women around, you would not have been born to suffer what you have apparently suffered. You aren't unique in your suffering either. Perhaps if you would care to look around, there are many gays and non gays alike that have suffered for a variety of reasons. Religion, economic status, ethnic origins, physical deformities, mental deformities, gender, and the list goes on. Some people have suffered at the hands of others for no more reason than the misfortune of being born to abusive parents, drug addicts, mentally incompetents or in a war zone. Many of these people have overcome their abuse and don't try to use their suffering as some kind of badge of honor to gain special sympathy or consideration. Of course, many do and that is a sad fact.


"I wonder if you have an idea what it is like to grow up knowing your whole day is a lie, and that if you tell the truth, your whole world will collapse, and most everyone in it will reject you. In my senior year, when I did come out and tell everyone I was gay, I was beaten repeatedly in gym class, scorned and called fag by the popular girls, and rejected by my whole family, who refused to accept me. Teachers turned the other way when I was being mistreated and
when I struck back I was punished to the max."

And you blame me or other straight women for this? Was I one of the students that beat you up in gym class? Was I one of those teachers who punished you? Was I your mother you turned against you? Did not a single man/boy inflict suffering on you? You were completely traumatized by the women in your life? I find that hard to believe, yet you would blame all your problems on women? I find that line of reasoning difficult to follow.

In case you were unaware of the fact, many kids were beaten up in gym class, called names, rejected by family, and otherwise abused by 'society' for a great many more reasons than the choice of their sexuality. Surely you don't believe that only gay children were treated in this way?

"So Ms. Bushnell, your letter doesn't surprise me. It is just like a straight women to define others but her own experience, an experience of being pampered and treated preferentially."

LOL! Now this is humorous. Perhaps you missed your history lessons as you were getting beat up so often. Women didn't even get the right to vote until 1920! Owning property, running a business, or any other freedoms were non-existent for a very long time. Yes, perhaps women were pampered -- but it was the equivalent of being pampered chattel, not being pampered as a free woman with all the rights that men enjoyed for centuries and which were denied women throughout history.

"To be very frank, I have little respect for the intelligence of straight women, and their fairy tale views of the world. Maybe when you go out in the world, and make your way like many gay women with out the financial support of a man, your opinion will hold more weight."

LOL! Frankly, I don't care whom you respect or don't. But what makes you believe that you hold special knowledge of me to even make such a ridiculous assumption? You think only gay women go forth in the world to support themselves???

Just what fantasy world are YOU living in?!

I quite agree with Ari -- the original subject of this discussion of Chris's work is the topic here, not the various whining about suffering. Gays don't have the exclusive right of suffering, neither do blacks, women, Orientals or any other group anyone cares to define. The world isn't a fair or just place at times. Every single individual has suffered something of some nature by virtue of elements beyond their control. That is life. What Objectivism offers is a way to change that, to make the world a more rational place where the rights of individuals are respected above all else -- where individual choices are respected so long as they don't violate the rights of others. You Myron, are free to hold any belief you want. It doesn't matter to me what you believe and I fully support your right to believe anything you wish, live any lifestyle you wish.

That is what we are all here for.

Or at the very least, that is what I am here for.

Joy :)

Anthony Teets
Post 82

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 11:04am
Edit
My my my my my ....my my my my my!

(That's a quote from Chris Sciabarra! Just to keep things in context Ari)LOL

Joy you queer basher:) I didn't know that you were the original source of all evil and human suffering. How original of you. How selfish of you to keep it all to yourself.

I think we should take Myron, dress him up in nasty drag and go to a straight Objectivist cocktail party. We could all learn a great deal from that experience. Of course straight-as-an-arrow Lindsay Perigo would have to be our gracious host.

Myron, again, and it bears repeating: I don't want to live in a world without females. Just keep chanting that to yourself as a mantra, it oughtta work. You are providing ample reason to believe why re-programming, at least a modicum of it, may have some virtue:) BTW Did you know that Ayn Rand was of the female persuasion? It's not Ian Rand, originally her name was Alissa Rosenbaum. SHE was an INTELLECTUAL! Oh, and my mom, she's getting a degree in philosophy at CUNY. Somehow my dad doesn't feel that her intellect diminshes his masculinity. Oh and my sister-in-law just passed the bar exam and she has a Phd in English (NYU). My sisters are both pretty sharp too. There is reason to believe that at least one woman possessed an acute intellect. Look around, get out more, you will see that the world is full of bright, successful, mature, happy females. What is more, you will learn that women generally like to be treated as individuals. Objectivist don't believe that language is encoded with a hidden political agenda. There is no great conspiracy against gay males. All actions against gay males can be traced back to individual agents operating on irrational premises. When you look at the forrest don't forget the trees that make it a forrest. Likewise, don't forget the forrest for the trees.

Oh, and Kernon, did your wife finally discover your comments here? Or are YOU your wife?:) HMMM!

sciabarra

Post 83

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 12:20pm
Just a couple of random thoughts:

1. I'm rather astonished by some of the stuff I've seen on this thread---the words of Myron Ford among them. In fact, I'm most astonished that any person identifying themselves as a gay man would harbor that kind of animus toward straight women. What happened to all those anecdotal stories we've heard about gay men and straight women being compadres? Or all the stories we've heard about gay men (or men perceived as being gay) getting beat up... by straight men (or men perceived to be straight) ... in gym class? I must admit that the kinds of experiences described by Myron are outside the framework of testimonials I myself have heard through the years; all the more reason, Myron, not to make your own unique experiences a comment on a whole segment of the human population.

2. Getting back to the actual thread, I think it is important to note that this series was designed, partially, to give voice to self-identified Objectivists who would share their experiences concerning homosexuality's acceptance---or lack thereof---in Objectivist circles. By giving voice to these concerns, I had hoped that the series would rip open the closet door on this topic, and allow us to move the discourse forward---hopefully to a time when this topic becomes the non-issue it should be.

3. I do believe that any movement dedicated to freedom, individuality, and authenticity, has a lot to give to those claiming to adhere to its core principles, regardless of sexual orientation, and I second Ari's comments above.

I think it is also important to enter into a discussion that goes far beyond the Objectivist movement.

For another purpose of this series is to show how Rand has made a huge impact on gay men and women of many different walks of life. This cultural impact can be traced not simply on a gay adult film star. It can be traced in Rand's presence in the "Gay Russian Hall of Fame"; in her impact on the development of a central character in Showtime's "Queer as Folk" (referred to as the "love child of James Dean and Ayn Rand"); in her impact on a whole generation of so-called gay-right intellectuals, including David Boaz, Camille Paglia, Paul Varnell, Norah Vincent, Andrew Sullivan, and others, who routinely challenge "gay left orthodoxy." And I tried to highlight each of these in my series.

The point here is that Rand's legacy is, indeed, one that belongs to all rational men and women of whatever orientation, and that the time has come to hold that banner aloft proudly as we move toward a more general culture of individualism.

But in moving toward that culture, it is all the more important to affect our own sub-culture. Changing the world is paramount---but it is a task that can never be separated from changing ourselves---our attitudes---when that is necessary. Embracing more humane ways of dealing with difference should come naturally to those of us who are individualists, and who celebrate individualism as our credo.

Cheers,
Chris


Joy Bushnell

Post 84

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 5:07pm
Hi Everyone!

Anthony my love, didn't you know that I am indeed the original source of evil and human suffering? Even my husband calls me the 'pyschotic bitch from hell'. Most lovingly of course. *grin*

Ever since I became my own individual, I've just been accused of all kinds of things. LOL! Amazing how changing from a doormat to an individual will change your life.

But don't be too hard on Myron. Believe it or not, I used to be somewhat like that. Not hating any gender per se, but hating the world because of what 'it' did to me. *gasp* Yes, I know, who would have guessed. LOL! But that got old really quickly and I've been much happier these years just being me and putting all that behind me. Not repressing what happened, but putting it in a rational perspective. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it was Objectivism that enabled me to take back my life and I hope that others find the same value in the 'Objectivist toolkit' -- and by that I mean using our minds, shunning the mystical, knowing that reality is real, that we are able to perceive it and that we are not powerless! Sad to say, I did kind of believe that fate had power over my life, that perhaps everyone but me was 'in the know' about life, and I felt as if I had zero control over anything! That is a bad place to be, believe me! Learning how to question what I come across, how to reason effectively, how to act on my beliefs and convictions has literally changed my life!

If you've suffered, don't let it have double impact by imprisioning yourself because of what happened. It's like deadly double coupon day for those that abuse -- they abuse you and hurt you and then you become unable to get past it and continue that hurt forever, losing out on what life has to offer.

Cut the abuse and the abuser short -- show them you can go on and flourish despite their evil actions! Show them that they can't get you down, that you're made of sterner stuff .. that you will take life by the horns because you have value, you have something to offer, because you are YOU and damn the abusers who will never amount to anything in the long run. They are losers and YOU can negate what they've done just by letting go of it and exceeding your own expectations.

That's all I'll say right now on that subject as it is rather off topic. ;)

I have to admit, every time now I see 'My my my my my my my .... my my my my my .. I just bust out laughing! I've never met Chris in person, but having seen his picture and gained a sense of him via his writing and personality on-line it just cracks me up. I can just picture it so perfectly!

Hopefully I'll have the pleasure of meeting him someday just to hear that in person. :)

Chris wrote:

The point here is that Rand's legacy is, indeed, one that belongs to all rational men and women of whatever orientation, and that the time has come to hold that banner aloft proudly as we move toward a more general culture of individualism.
End Quote.

Yes!!! Exactly! It is absolutely about being Individuals in every way! I didn't realize how hard it could be to really, really be an individual but it sure is worth it. It's a process, a journey and at times it is quite difficult .. but the rewards are incredible.

*grin* You too can become a 'psychopathic bitch from hell'. :) Or bastard if you're male I guess. LOL!

Okay, I'm joking there, but I have to tell you that the reason my husband teases me with that nickname is because while he's challenged me in so many areas, I've also challenged him -- especially as it relates to free thinking, validation, and just not blindly accepting what others take for granted.

In many ways I've turned his life upside by making him question EVERYTHING with an active mind .. then again, he's turned my life upside down in ways that are best left for another discussion. *grin*

But yes, I too look forward to the day when sexuality of any kind is not an issue, not swept under the carpet or treated in that sick way of avoidance a la Objectivism.

Recently on SOLO, someone (I want to say Michael?) posted a great analogy to describe that damaging sense of suspicion that arises when people refuse to name the truth. It was not a topic on sexuality, but is so perfect to describe what Linz and Chris are so actively fighting.

The poster described a scene from an Agatha Christie mystery. A maid was under suspicion of having stolen a broach from the lady of the house. However, rather than expressing their suspicion, or even asking questions, they simply assumed that she had needed it very desperately because of some family situation she happened to be going through. She was an old and trusted servant who had served faithfully for many years and so they chose to 'look the other way' because of her long years of service and her apparently dire circumstances. So, her status never really changed, she was not accused, but everyone began treating her slightly differently because of the suspicion they harbored.

Sadly, the maid died before any of this came to a head. Later it was discovered that the brooch had been stolen by the laundress.

That silent suspicion though must have been terrible to live with and I believe it is a similar feeling that gay Objectivists must feel when dealing with other Objectivists. It's in the air, but no one wants to address it. That dynamic is very devastating.

It shouldn't be an issue, yet because of Rand's words and those that believe her word was ultimate truth, we have that attitude among supposedly rational individuals who think for themselves. But all they've really done is to give a nod in the direction of individual choice and rights while kneeling before the altar of Rand.

I look forward to the day there are a great many more real individuals in the world! :)

Joy

Myron Ford

Post 85

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 5:29pm
Ms. Bushnell

I enjoy your positive New Age line of thought. I always find that this type of propaganda comes from people who have never suffered. I mean what happened to you in life? Were you beat up in gym class for being heterosexual? Did your father throw you out of the house for being a bimbo? Did your sister tell you would burn in hell? Did you sell yourself on the streets in order to live? Did you live with men in order to go to school? Have you ever lived alone in a big city with only yourself to help you survive?

Yes, very easy to be positive with Daddy and Mommy, and the whole family supporting you, and your community looking at you favorably.

And yes, you are right, straight males did beat me up, but anyone knows straight males in high school are completely dominated by girls, who manipulate them with their sexual wiles. Straight males hate homosexuals because they fear the contempt of girls, who would be helpless in the world without males to protect them and provide for them.

I know you think you are an individualist, and I would be unable to know something about you, but in reality you are women, and most women follow the herd, using the powers of sex and manipulation to win a man so they can live a risk free life. Ayn Rand was an exception, and there are exceptions. But let us remember Ayn Rand disliked most women, considered them inferior to men in regards to rationality, and much preferred the company of men.

I think Ms. Bushnell, what I am saying is touching something inside you, and you are trying to defend that doubt in writing. However, no matter how much you protest, you can not escape the fact that most women are Brittany Spears types, with one redeeming asset, their sexuality.

Although you never hear it because you are a women, most men have contempt for the intelligence of a women, consider them a poor choice to make a rational decision in an emergency, and really only want that "one thing" from you.

As a gay male, I have transcended that barrier. I live a fantastic life, free and without the burden of supporting children and a wife. I probably get more sex in a month than most heterosexual men get in a year, men who have to fawn and beg for sex from a women. Not only that, I have the support of a community, and don't have to face the terrible rejection and scorn so many heterosexual men face in the dating world.

So if you want to think I am a victim, please do. I know that I wake up a free man, and I don't have to answer to some nagging bitch so that I can laid once a week.

And Anthony. If you love women, good. By why so vociferous in your defense? Are you afraid they will think I am the homo norm?

OLOS

Post 86

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 6:03pm
Edit
Uh, folks, hasn't it occurred to any of you that this person is a troll?

Joy Bushnell
Post 87

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 6:43pm
Huh? Who? What? LOL!

Hi Olos,

He may indeed be a troll, but I never speak to trolls, my mother told me not to. *grin*

He and I aren't the only ones reading this forum and for the people out there that are silent, that are looking for rational answers, that just want to know, to understand, to look at things from a different perspective .. well, it's to them I write. These issues aren't unique, they affect everyone to some degree or another.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind about anything, but if someone does come across what I wrote and it happens to ring a little bell with them, if it helps them on the way on their own journey, my time will have been extremely well spent.

That's why I write, even if it seems I'm answering trolls. I don't believe trolls are even trolls per se .. I mean, these people are obviously searching for something (even if just attention) and while I can't address their needs I can address the issues they raise for others who might be more open minded.

So, I hope you don't mind if I keep answering. *grin*

Joy :))

Joy Bushnell

Post 88

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 6:50pm
Besides my dear Olos -- **I** have been accused of being a troll on this forum! *grin*

Believe it or not! LOL!

Now, if I can be mistaken for a troll, well then, what else is there to say?

*grin*

But then again, judging by the most recent post, I think I have to at least agree that maybe that poster does not understand basic principles of Objectivism, but that is hardly a capitol offense .. well, it isn't here. Maybe we should send him over to the 'dark side' of Objectivism .. you know, that evil military camp run by that tea guy .. what's his name .. Pekoe?

(Yeah, I know, a really cheap shot! But hey, I do have my limits! I'm not totally reformed!)

Joy :)

OLOS
Post 89

Sunday, November 3, 2002 - 7:01pm
Ms. Bushnell,

The Oversight League on Objectivist Standards is in a bit of a tizzy – I meant conflict – on this one. While we are partly of the opinion that one is merely shadow boxing a ghost when engaging the mindless banter of a troll, a majority opinion holds that you are well within your rights to pursue such battles as you deem rationally in your self interest.

Myron Ford

Post 90

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 3:28pm
Ms. Bushnell:

Accuse me of what you like, troll, anti-Objectivist, etc. Accusations are not answers, and now you seem to be running away from what you iniciated.

This is what I refer to with women. When the going gets rough, most straight women run for cover and protection, and hide behind their sexual privilege.

You iniciated this correspondence, and I responded. Now, you are unable to answer me so you resort to slurs and attacks. Is this an example of your ability and talent?

You are on a forum about homosexuality. Do you have any real experience in this subject, or are you relating what you hear from an internet forum?

Even more, why are you here? Do you have something to say about homosexuality and Sciabarra's articles? Or are you getting some vicarious thrill by associating with the homo crowd?

When push comes to shove, you bail out of the ship crying feminine privilege. If you want respect, why not prove it and earn it? I doubt you have the ability, but I am willing to be proved wrong.

OLOS

Post 91

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 4:40pm
You see NOW Ms. Bushnell? It's so stupid it can't even keep track of who is responding to what and accuses YOU of bringing up "troll"! LOL!

Joy Bushnell

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 92

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 5:12pm
Edit
I'm not quite sure what you wanted me to answer Myron, you don't want answers from me as you don't respect women at all, nor do you treat them with even common courtesy. You insult me with every word and then pout and accuse me of not answering you? Why on earth would I? You are wrapped up in your own little version of reality and until you decide to open your eyes, you'll never see anything differently.

There was nothing in your post for me to answer.

Did you want me to 'prove' I've suffered as much as you? I don't deal in that kind of currency. If you want that, I'm sure there are enough television shows that deal in that kind of subject and you will find people that have really suffered. Enjoy it. I'm sure the shows are listed in some on-line guide.

My accusations are based on your last post in which you said:

Quoted of course:
I enjoy your positive New Age line of thought. I always find that this type of propaganda comes from people who have never suffered. I mean what happened to you in life? Were you beat up in gym class for being heterosexual? Did your father throw you out of the house for being a bimbo? Did your sister tell you would burn in hell? Did you sell yourself on the streets in order to live? Did you live with men in order to go to school? Have you ever lived alone in a big city with only yourself to help you survive?
End Quote.

I was supposed to answer what exactly? Your incredibly prying questions? For what purpose? You certainly don't have a right to these answers from me.

You whined on as if you had a clue:

Yes, very easy to be positive with Daddy and Mommy, and the whole family supporting you, and your community looking at you favorably.
End quote.

Actually, the entire post is there above ... read it and tell me what exactly you wanted me to answer before accusing me of running away, retreating to pampered and favored status. Myron, you have a very warped view of reality. You fail to even understand the words written here in basic English. How do you expect anyone to answer you when you won't look beyond your own misery?

But I had to quote one or two more things you wrote:

Although you never hear it because you are a women, most men have contempt for the intelligence of a women, consider them a poor choice to make a rational decision in an emergency, and really only want that "one thing" from you.
End quote.

Please Myron, don't judge all men by your own standards. Most men I know are not like that and if those are the only men you know, you might want to reconsider your lifestyle choices.

And I was relieved to hear you say:

As a gay male, I have transcended that barrier. I live a fantastic life, free and without the burden of supporting children and a wife. I probably get more sex in a month than most heterosexual men get in a year, men who have to fawn and beg for sex from a women. Not only that, I have the support of a community, and don't have to face the terrible rejection and scorn so many heterosexual men face in the dating world.
End quote.

I'm very happy for you Myron. You have found your little fantasy niche in life and that is a good thing. If having sex is all you seek in life, then I'm happy you've found it. Most I know don't define themselves by how much sex they get in a month, but I guess when there is nothing else in your life other than hatred and misery, sex makes a good pacifier.

You went on and whined in another post:

"You iniciated this correspondence, and I responded. Now, you are unable to answer me so you resort to slurs and attacks. Is this an example of your ability and talent?"

What have I said about my ability and talent? I was having a discussion with others about Chris's article. You have given me nothing at all to respond to except rudely worded requests for incredibly personal information. Where is your reason, objectivity or even courtesy?

You wrote:
"You are on a forum about homosexuality. Do you have any real experience in this subject, or are you relating what you hear from an internet forum?"

Myron, I'm truly sorry you have never learned to read. This is NOT a forum about homosexuality. It is a forum about Objectivism -- Chris's article dealt with how Objectivists deal with the issue of homosexuality. I already made clear in previous posts about my interest in homosexual issues as it relates to Objectivism. Surely you are not that dense? Why are you actively pretending that you have no idea what this forum is about or what I've written earlier. It's all there in black and white or whatever colors you have set your browser to.

And you whined some more:

"Even more, why are you here? Do you have something to say about homosexuality and Sciabarra's articles? Or are you getting some vicarious thrill by associating with the homo crowd?"

Myron, believe me, if I thought you were the norm in homosexual circles concerning Objectivism, I would forever give up Objectivism on that alone. I can not honestly believe that you have no idea where you are or what this forum is about!

You finally concluded with the most laughable statement:

"When push comes to shove, you bail out of the ship crying feminine privilege. If you want respect, why not prove it and earn it? I doubt you have the ability, but I am willing to b proved wrong."

Myron, I have nothing to prove to anyone here, and most especially I have nothing to prove to someone like you. I don't need to earn anything. You've made your views quite clear and I respect your right to shut out the world and live in your own fantasy world. But don't expect others to buy into it, most especially Objectivists who do make an effort to live in reality. Are you familiar with that term? REALITY.

This is my last post on the subject because it has been made abundantly clear, even to me who is normally quite forgiving and tolerant that you have no wish for discussion -- all you want is a whine fest so that you can prove you've suffered more by evil cruel women/straights/whoever and that you should have some special dispensation. You want someone to come and comfort you, protect you from the big bad world, save you from your own poisoning hatred. Why on earth you think I should prove anything to you or to anyone here is completely beyond me.

OLOS my dear, you were quite right when you first suggested this person was not interested in discussion. I will defer to your superior judgement in the future. *grin*

Well, you know I won't, but you did win this round. LOL!

Joy

Ari Cohen

Post 93

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 7:47pm
I am still very curious about a certain aspect of the series written by Chris, and that is the lack of public response by gay Objectivists.

I know Chris gave us some insight, but I wonder if others have thoughts on the subject? Surely, this is more important than what is going on right now on this forum.

Anthony, I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. I mean how do gay Objectivists improve their lives if they won't go public with what they are? I think self-esteem is crucial here, and hiding oneself is counterproductive to self-esteem.

And to Joy Bushnell, why not put your efforts into a positive post rather than answer someone like him? He has his viewpoint, and no one will change it, so why try? Kind of like talking to Andrea Dworkin.

Joy
Post 94

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 8:11pm
LOL! Hi Ari,

I wasn't trying to change his mind, but even heterosexual women have to make their point once in a while! Perhaps my own baggage of being a victim makes it necessary for me to make myself perfectly clear and accept no abuse or foulness from anyone else. Besides, I'd written several positive posts that got negative replies so I thought I would try the reverse and see if a negative post got a positive reply. :)

But I quite agree, that isn't what we are here for and my apologies for trying to clarify a situation. As I mentioned with the Agatha Christie example, I don't like unspoken doubt of any kind lingering and festering. And I often write for all the people that actually never post ... just read and learn.

Joy

Anthony Teets

Post 95

Monday, November 4, 2002 - 10:53pm
Hi Ari and Joy,

First of all I feel rather embarassed because I personally encouraged Joy to share her thoughts here. She has consistently raised very pertinent questions and I consider her presence here a Joy:) I think furthermore, that Joy has defended herself admirably, especially in the face of such an incredible attack. Furthermore she has gone very far in proving her interest and showing benevolence where it was not her duty to involve herself. It is just another example of the general benevolence of SOLOHQ participants to go the extra mile. In my opinion Myron is a perfect example of how repression can have such a negative and detrimental effect on a developing mind. I am personally moved by the expressions of anger and sadness, and think that these must have some deep root, I wish Myron well. I do not think that one should dwell on anger though, it has a very destructive effect. Certainly you can use your mind to make your life happy and successful.

I do not think that it is necessary to hold on to negative experiences. many people have suffered incredible pain in their lives and gays certainly have no monopoly on suffering. I have done a lot of research on gay issues and I have encountered this central problem continuously arising in the literature and culture of gay males. I speak of suffering and the negative life destroying force. I have also seen hatred against females as an issue among many gay males as well as lesbians who hate or distrust straight males. All of this is a dreadful boring waste of time.


I share Dr. Sciabarra's point of view though. I believe that gay males and straight females have historically fought similar battles against rigid social codes. I also agree that we have been compadres all along the way. All the more reason to have Joy here joining the fray.

Moving back into the specific parameters of philosophy however, I see that the social.cultural problems have indeed a common root in mistaken philosophical premises.

I do not mean that homosexuality or heterosexuality is rooted in poor logic. The existence of individuals as I stated in a post above, is largely a metaphysical issue. If you embrace metaphysical pluralism as Ayn Rand did, you might see that there are many ways in which entities may be said to exist. Why they exist should not be the question that concerns us. What we want to know is how entities exist, what are their defining qualities, and what are the aspects that make them be what they are, operate as they do, etc. In this context we are talking about establishing an identity or a set of defining atrributes that make the members of a group similar to one another. Why do we call certain people gay and others straight? Some are of the opinion that this question is trivial and unimportant. Others tend to fall on either side of the issue, never affirming either. In order to answer you question Ari, which I think is the crux of the matter, we have to know if there really is any such thing as a gay identity in reality. Ari wants to know how do gay Objectivists improve their lives if they won't go public with what they are? In order to go public I think you have to assume that there is something to go public about. Right? There is indeed something very life-affirming about knowing that you can share your life with your friends, be open, etc. One of the options that use to arise among Objectivists was the idea of re-programming, becoming straight. In my case that is not an option.

I personally think that gay Objectivists can use Objectivism to form an identity within the movement. One would have to side with the moderate realist position in order to keep the philosophy consistent. The problem is that since no Objectivist has worked consistently in this area, there is a lot of confusion and Objectivists tend to take sides with whatever level they feel comfortable with personally. Others brush it off completely and say that it is not an issue at all. I am not concerned with diehard Objectivists who will never change. I am more concerned with those gay males and lesbians who identify with Objectivism as a philosophy but who have also embraced a gay identity (at whatever level they feel comfortable). This is the group that you seem interested in as well Ari. Since Objectivism is a philosophy and philosophy deals with identity, I don't see why homosexuality cannot be rationally discussed.

The moderate realist position (that position Andrew Sullivan defends) is called "essentialism" and it holds strongly to the concept of identity. In this case the gay identity does indeed exist in an objective reality. The opposition to this is called "social constructionism". Social constructionism holds the nominalist position that society creates identities and we merely adopt them and adapt to them in some arbitrary selective process. Just so you don't think I am making this up, you can do a Google search with the words and see what you get. I think Ayn Rand herself slipped into this latter position when she decided to make homosexuality the product of WHIM instead of reality. For her, homosexuality became a moral problem. It is my opinion that she focused on gay liberationists and Communists since the more vocal gays at the time were affiliated with leftist groups.

I think that one of the more intelligent observations I read in Ed's posts above mentioned "sexual collectivism". I think that Ed showed quite a bit of sexual collectivism in his posts by condemning a group of people, gays. In fact the epistemological point I was making about identity is that its opponents have to accept that it exists in the act of denying it. Ed's problem is not denying homosexuality, but in opposing it, not on rational grounds, but from biological argumentation. Sexual collectivism is very much what makes Queer theory operate. Queer theorists tend to conflate the epistemological with the political and thus understand social issues as arising from group warfare. They explain it as binary operations heterosexual/ homosexual, male/female, good/bad, etc. Those who prefer a linguistic bent tend to view language itself as encoded with a hidden agenda built in over the centuries to diminish women and males who have feminine traits. Many feminists and queer theorists still hold rigidly to the belief that "patriarchy" is a common enemy, not realizing the futility of embracing matriarchy as an alternative. Coming from a philosophical perspective I am more prone to understand the problem as epistemological. I am not saying that there are no political issues at stake here. That would be naive. I am saying however, that there is a common element that can be detected in individuals who embrace irrational premises and proceed directly into political explanations. If we don't get the identity problem right, we probably won't get ethical or political problems right either. ***Here I'll add my usual disclaimer that I don't profess absolute knowledge about these issues***

Obviously forums like SOLOHQ provide ample space for individuals to come out. One of the wonderful things about SOLOHQ is that our participants are not all gay, indeed some are armor-plated diehard heterosexuals who don't feel at all diminished by the fact that some of us are coming out on a 24hour 7day basis:)

Myron Ford


Post 96

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 10:00am
Ms. Bushnell

You weren't even on this forum when I wrote my first post. I was talking generally about my feelings and about women. I had no consciousness of you whatsoever.

You somehow personalized MY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS and took it as an attack against you. Really, if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it. It is your own feelings within yourself you are responding to. All I am doing is relating my feelings and my perspective of the world. I only personalized my responses after you start addressing your posts to me, and offering your uninformed opinion of my life. You had no right to patronize me with your victimization line.

And to Anthony also. You are much the same way with your soft apologies. You seem to be versed in philosophy but yet you lack the ability to see past your own experience, and know that my life has been different. Yet, I get up in the morning and live a productive life to the best of my ability, so I really don't need your unctious pity, nor your guilty apologies for what I am saying.

Myron Ford
Post 97

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 10:09am
One other thing about Ms. Bushnell. As with other people always preaching the positive approach to life, she doesn't seem to want to know about the dark side. They just don't want to know about it. And don't want to hear about it. Possibly, because it hasn't happened to them, and to focus on it, would very possibly be a threat to their defence system. They don't want to know about those crippled by hatred, prejudice, and violence. Don't be a victim they cry. Yet, it always seems to me the people who haven't suffered, are the ones doing the preaching.

If someone like Matthew Shepard had he lived through his terrible, terrible trauma said the same thing I would be ready and eager to listen.

Kevin W.

Post 98

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 12:10pm
Dear Myron,

Please learn to read and comprehend the written word before opening your mouth and showing the world what a foolish fellow you are.

Your first post to this forum was nothing but an insult to another poster, and every post since then has been strewn with insults and innuendo. You have yet to contribute a single positive thought to this discussion.

It is one thing to listen to the events of a persons life. However it is something completely different to lay there and wallow in self-pity with every word and action. And you, sir, get a medal for wallowing. You have perfected it to a high art. I applaude you for your accomplishment.

You wallow, in your anger and pain and the past. You are seeking some sort of status as being a suffering gay male. GET OVER IT. You suffered, I suffered, we all suffered at different times in our lives. You do not have the monopoly on suffering.

The topic at hand is the flaw in objectivism regarding homosexuality, and how can we change that perception. What actions are needed to help foster an acceptance?

So, if you want to suffer, go do it and leave us out of it. Those of us who want a positive, rational world will continue to work for it, while those like you will continue to attempt to drag it down to the lowest common denominator.

To conclude, I leave you with this:

To quote from the LoTR

Frodo: I wish none of this had ever happened.

Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times, but it is not for us to decide. All that is for you to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.

End Quote

Kevin

Adam Buker
Post 99

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 2:20pm
Edit
I'm sure many of us who have are in the process of becoming Objectivists have suffered (some perhaps immenslely). I just don't believe that suffering is the norm. In my life I try to place emphasis on the good. Although I am not gay, I've been beaten up and insulted for making my stance known as an atheist, and later as an Objecitivist by the very same people who I thought I admired and loved. I know what it is like to grow up in an opressive right-winged environment, but that doesn't mean I should hate and despise those who attempt to believe in Christianity(though I obviously dissagree with its practice).However, I don't attribute my suffering as an overwhelming significant part of my life. I don't know you personally, so it is hard for me to know if the above fits, but given your history of posts, I tend to believe that it might. As for comments reguarding Joy, I find that you have obviously not done any exploring on SOLO, as she has written 13 articles and has been in almost every discussion on this forum. I find her presence on this site very valuable and positive. I would suggest that if you are a decent person, which you might very-well be, then you owe her an apology.

Reguards,
Adam

Adam Buker
Post 100

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 2:23pm
ps, Lord of The Rings RULES!

Myron Ford

Post 101

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 5:25pm
Edit
Kevin W.

You post is just another illustration of a frustrated, inarticulate fellow traveler, without the ability to put forth something in his own words. Another positive type who can't face the dark side of life, and wants to do away with someone who has. Get over it, you say. But have you gotten over your traumas, your deep resentments, your terrible rejections, or are you just reacting strongly to mine?

And Ms. Bushnell, as I said before, I only personalized my response when you patronized me with your post. I never referred to you specifically in this way. If you are a capable, intelligent women, I salute you but that doesn't chance my view of women. Surely, there are good straight women, but they are the exception by far.

Alright, Kevin W. so you want to talk about Objectivism and homosexuality. Let's talk. I think Rand's fiction is filled with homoerotic examples, and I think her writings encourage homosexuality amongst men. Her males figures are unreachable supermen, and many males feel inadequate under this spotlight. They feel unworthy of women, or they feel guilty for chasing after a whore, or they endulge in celebacy. Guilt and sexual deprivation. Ever wonder why there are so many gay priests? Ever wonder why there are so many gay Objectivist men?

I think Jon Galt exemplifies Objectivism, a strong, muscular male living without a woman. Almost all the men in Rand's literature are women-less. This is obvious. And Rand herself often expressed contempt for the majority of women. What was that quote of hers when asked if she wanted to be a man. A big no, because then she would have to love a WOMEN.

Her literature bursts with homosociality. In fact it is a monument to homosociality.

Sal Barbella

Post 102

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 4:11pm
Myron

The thing about most Objectivists is they can't think outside their parameters. Take them outside the world of Ayn Rand and they are paralyzed. Now, you assert that Objectivism encourages homosexuality, and is a monument to homosexuality.

I believe you have a point but these dolt-minded followers will never discuss it. Too frightening, to bold, too different. They are just more middle class conservative types accustomed to their privileged world. I think they know little about the real world, the suffering of many people, and lives many people face.

While I don't agree with you on women, you have made some interesting points. Certainly Ayn Rand had a strong bias in favor of men, and seemed to dislike most women.

Glenn


Post 103

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 9:07pm
Interesting that you claim that once most Objectivists are taken "outside the world of Ayn Rand ... they are paralyzed" and in the same breath assert that Ayn Rand "seemed to dislike women." Surely then, most Objectivists would favor Myron Ford's view.

I think we can dismiss Ford's arbitrary misogyny. Notwithstanding his own unfortunate, albeit limited experience, it's groundless, it's baseless, it's not convincing. They're not "interesting points" at all.

The thing that does concern me about the turn of this thread is the idea that Objectivism is compatible with Ford's bleak world view - wallowing in the "dark side of life" and focusing on "trauma," "resentment" and "rejection." It's not. While these occurrences exist and we recognize that and we don't evade them, we certainly shouldn't focus on them. They’re not, as Adam pointed out, the norm. If they were, a rational philosophy would be of no use as Objectivism rests on the context of an objective, benevolent reality.

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to comment, as I've never been violated or otherwise abused, but note Ford and Barbella's implicit polylogism: that exposure to suffering and trauma reveal a reality unknowable to those of us that are merely rational. No, Ford's ideas aren't frightening or different. It's the same tired old nihilism in a different guise.

I've never been able to understand how so many people manage to grasp Objectivist politics and (to some extent) ethics, metaphysics and epistemology, yet fail to make the connection to esthetics and sense of life.

G.

Sal Barbella


Post 104

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 9:58am
Glenn: "I think we can dismiss Ford's arbitrary misogyny. Notwithstanding his own unfortunate, albeit limited experience, it's groundless, it's baseless, it's not convincing. They're not "interesting points" at all."

This is your subjective view, totally based from within your own experience. You very well may be correct, but you offer no evidence, no facts, no concrete visions of your view. What you offer is your personal distaste for his view, nothing more.

Also, I think the fact that Ayn Rand favored men over women, and expressed dislike and contempt for average women is something many people have commented on, including Chris Sciabarra. However, you conclusion that most Objectivists would favor Ford's view is again your opinion without evidence.

My view is you abhor what he is saying, but don't possess the ammunition to counter him. Yes, his view of women is distorted, but in other areas he has expressed a positive view of life. He says he is happy, enjoys sex, and seems to be able to articulate his position much better than the people who are opposing him. I think it is you and a few others who are labeling him as the Prince of Darkness but I don't agree. He says he loves Jon Galt, he says he loves men, and he says he doesn't like straight women. And he wants to live on an island with all men.

While it may not be our view of the world, I don't see it as negative position. In fact, if he has suffered the trauma he describes, I would take my hat off to him, and say he is doing much better than a lot of people I know.

As for you, what proof do I have besides your words that your sense of life is superior to Ford's? Many Objectivists simulate and pay lip service toward a heroic life, but in reality stay safely within the circle. You have expressed a superior attitude but what else to you have to show us?

Olivia Hanson
Post 105

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 5:30pm
Myron

I am glad someone like Sal Barbella is taking your side. I have been reading the posts and I can see the way they are trying to demonize you. I think they are afraid of what you are saying and want to dismiss you. I think you are saying a lot of things Chris Sciabarra talked about out in his articles. But I doubt anyone will address that.

I think it is obvious Rand devalued women, and expressed hostility to them on more than one occasion. I mean what does it mean when one says I don't want to be a man because then I would have to love a women.

I suffered a great deal of abuse also, and my mother disowned me when she found out her daughter was a lesbian. But I am surviving and living happily and you seem to be doing it too. So don't let some of these cold hearted, polylogistic snobbish types bother you. You have some friends.

Glenn

Post 106

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 1:11am
Edit
My last post on this thread. I'm running out of troll-bait.

Sal Barbella writes:

"This is your subjective view, totally based from within your own experience ... you offer no evidence, no facts, no concrete visions of your view. What you offer is your personal distaste for his view, nothing more."

Well, this is YOUR subjective view... nya, nya, nya.

Your argument above is essentially my argument against Ford's. HE has offered "no evidence, no facts, no concrete[s]" in favor of his misogyny. That's what I was referring to with my “it’s not convincing” comments. I would have thought that was clear.

I don’t think this is the forum for me to validate that (straight?) women are “cruel creatures, heartless and unforgiving,” “bitches,” implicitly cowardly and whatever else Ford has accused them of. It’s unfortunate that you think this validation is necessary.

While Ayn Rand might have expressed a preference for men over women, I don’t accept that she “expressed dislike and contempt for the average woman.” Her female friendships and admiration for her sister Nora are well documented.

It is NOT my opinion that “most Objectivists would share Ford’s view.” That was my attempt to reconcile YOUR comments that (1) most Objectivists are “paralyzed” once taken “outside the world of Ayn Rand” with (2) her supposed dislike of women. I hold that ALL these ideas are false. Since spelling out seems necessary, I do NOT think most Objectivists share Ford’s view, I do NOT think most Objectivists are paralyzed once take outside the world of Ayn Rand, I do NOT think Ayn Rand dislike most women.

What do I offer that my sense of life is superior to Ford’s? I am implying from Ford’s comments that he places value on the disvalues of the “dark side of life” characterized by “hatred,” “prejudice” and “violence.” These are incompatible with the concept of a benevolent universe where such occurrences are considered metaphysically insignificant. Again, I don’t think this is the forum to validate something as fundamental as the benevolent universe premise. If you’re unfamiliar with it, look it up on www.importanceofphilosophy.com or in other Objectivist literature (e.g. OPAR p. 342-343.) Then come back to ME with some “ammunition.”

And Olivia, it astounds me that you’re defending someone whose last public reference to you was as “just another bossy c... trying to get her way. Even she admits she is bitch, as are all women, straight or lesbian.”

G.

Glenn

Post 107

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 1:21am
Of course, my 6th paragraph should read:

I don’t think this is the forum for me to validate that (straight?) women are NOT “cruel creatures, heartless and unforgiving,” “bitches,” implicitly cowardly and whatever else Ford has accused them of. It’s unfortunate that you think this validation is necessary.

Yikes! That was close!

Olivia Hanson
Post 108

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 1:00pm
Glenn said:

"And Olivia, it astounds me that you’re defending someone whose last public reference to you was as “just another bossy c... trying to get her way. Even she admits she is bitch, as are all women, straight or lesbian."

I think a lot of things would astound you, if you took the time to understand the world, instead of defending against it with your knowledge of philosophy, which seems to blind you to a big part of the world. All I am seeing in your post is another carbon copy Objectivist spouting dogma, absent of experience.

You don't listen to what others say, you attack using philosophy.

Myron offered his view of life. He is not trying to convert you. Why can't you just let him be? Is it that what he says threatens you?

What he says doesn't threaten me. I understand him. But then I am psychologically oriented, have a heart, and often can see beyond the words into the personalities of people who have been bruised by the world.

Olivia Hanson

Post 109

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 1:31pm
Is this your profile Glenn?

.........Glenn works for a hi-tech company in Miami, Florida and has a business card without a title. While attending university in New Zealand, he was one of the first students to publicly speak out in favor of voluntary membership of student unions at the University of Auckland. His philosophic interests lie in the field of the Objectivist ethics, particularly in the elevation of benevolence as a virtue - he has no time for malevolence or ugliness. His goal is to lead a "stylized life," where exotic locations, beautiful women, fine food and liquor, romance and reason are the norm. So far, he's pretty happy with the results..............

So you don't have time for malevolence or ugliness. And you like those beautiful women, eh Glenn, and that fine food and liquor.

So good for you, but what are you doing on a forum dedicated to Objectivism and homosexuality?

If you want to live in a pure world devoid of ugliness, better avoid gay people because so many have experienced ugliness and malevolence.

I love that statement that you don't have time for malevolence or ugliness. So what do you when your stepfather is raping you? Tell him you don't have time for this?

I think what you are saying, is you don't want to hear about malevolence and ugliness because you life is free of it. So then why, come to this forum and invade and dishonor the experience of others?

Is it that you think male homosexuality is part of that ugly and malevolent universe?

Hermes the Messenger

Post 110

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 4:01pm
Again, why in hell's hot flames are you talking to a trollette Glenn?:) My idea for this message is taken from Classical Greek
mythology. The story of the Greek hero Perseus (thank you Matthew G., HA) who set out on a death mission to capture the head of Medusa from the three headed Gorgon. Bellerophon accomplished his mission and was rewarded with
the hand of a beautiful bride (Andromeda). His noble attempt was aided by the Goddess of REASON and protectoress of heroes, Athena.
But a trollette Glenn? Why go for a trollette like Olivia when you could have the head of the Medusa in your bag?:)

Witness Olivia's attacks. Are they not loathsome? She uses pieces of your bio to show you that you are contradicting yourself. This is a variant of ad hominem argumentation, an attack on the person rather than an appeal to his arguments. She did this with Chris and was shot down the
chute. But she is a healthy cockroach and has crawled back up out of the sewer to scurry around in the dark again. I agree with Uncle
Linz, that the root of the problem is scepticism, the kind of philosophy that postmodernism embraces. Olivia has stated that BECAUSE Myron has suffered abuses, and some lesbian was raped by her stepfather, there is no possibility of maintaining an objective approach to moral issues, including gay issues. I conclude that this is an attack on my position in a prior post as well. I attempted to explain that we cannot infer that because some gays are morally
depraved, ALL gays are depraved. To center our knowledge of these issues in suffering is no sound basis for an argument that has as its aim, the promotion of homosexuality in Objectivism.

What is happening in the diminishing discussion is what I call "philosophie dans l'escalier" ("philosophy in the staircase")
What I mean by that, is the ignoble attempt to refute someone's arguments on the way out the door (going down the staircase). It is
not philosophy, it is a last ditch attempt to refute an argument by hurling an insult while taking the escape route. Clear?

I think that all of us can take a lesson from this for the future. I don't mean to reprimand you Glenn, but I think your heroic efforts to
defend women, a benevolent universe, and positive affirming sense of life are/were being wasted on a trollette:) Therefore I COMPEL YOU not to take
up this mission lest Athena question your heroic nature! I have counseled with Senator Lindsicus Perigus Maximus, and we hereby decree that all heroic Gladiators should report to the SOLO forum in Rome. Diana and her vestal virgins await your arrival. Well, more or less. LOL!

Yours for good causes, Hermes

ash



Post 111

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 4:17pm
I think that many of us are on the SOLOHQ forum because we are, as the SOLO credo says "at war with the current culture: the culture of anti-heroes, nihilism, destruction & dishonesty." We are trying to live rational and passionate lives, and we come to this forum to take part in life-affirming conversation with our peers. I recognize that this may not be the goal of every participant, but generally speaking, it is the purpose of *the forum*; so it should come as no surprise that Glenn has no time for ugliness and malevolence in his life. Neither do I.

Francois Tremblay

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 112

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 4:51pm
I disagree with a number of things said on both side of this discussion, but... I'm more interested in knowing how this board is a "forum dedicated to homosexuality" ;)

Matthew Graybosch
Post 113

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 8:53pm
Olivia, when did SOLO become a forum dedicated equally to homosexuality and Objectivism? Speaking as one who made your mistake, I suppose I should take your advice and avoid your kind; I gain little from dealing with people who have let their pain define them. On the other hand, I think that something has to be said about your appropriating a mantle of virtue for yourself because you faced abuse.

I don't think that Glenn denies the existence of ugliness and malevolence; I think that he knows better than to evade reality in such a manner. However, he is unwilling to grant significance to evil. Why treat the antics of cockroaches with respect, Olivia? Why let the abuses of others define you? Are you that weak a person that you have to find your identity through others?

Linz


Post 114

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 1:48am
Obviously enough, I would hope, SOLO is not a forum dedicated equally to Objectivism & homosexuality. Rather, one - JUST one - of SOLO's purposes, as stated in the Credo, has been to drag Objectivist homophobia out of the closet. Mission accomplished. We've done it, well & truly. Time to move on. There are many other things SOLO is concerned with. Changing the entire Objectivist culture, not just its homophobic aspect, is one of them. Changing it from the mindless, malevolent, evil ARI-type religiosity diplayed here by certain trolls is part of that. And so it shall be. Vinceremo!

Olivia


Post 115

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 7:24pm
This thread is labeled as Homosexuality and Objectivism, article five by Chris Sciabarra.

This is the thread I am posting on.

So far I have not heard one of you in the Glen crowd address the subject, or even talk about your experience.

Hermes the Messenger lacks the courage to even state his name but he snipes at me like a little coward, and mislabels what I am saying to his own end. You are nothing but a contemptible little fairy, a gutless little dork that is probably still living with his mommy.

As for the rest of you little fairies like Glenn who lives in a dream world, trying walking down Biscayne Boulevard at night to test your theory of a benevolent universe.

What a bunch of pussywhipped little fairies!

Francois Tremblay


Post 116

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 7:37pm
Actually, I don't believe in the "benevolent universe" premise, but even those who do would say that it's not about people in particular.

But of course you would know much about nasty people, now would you.

Oh, how I kid.

Adam Buker
Post 117

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 7:55pm
If the issue that you're wanting to address is the question of whether homosexuality is part of a malevolent universe then this is the issue I'll address.

I believe that homosexuality/bisexuality is not always a choice due to many contributing genetic and physiological factors. If something of this nature happens not by choice, then it cannot be thought of as a moral choice. Given that it is not always easy to live with one's sexual orientation, I do believe that it is imperative to one's happiness that they do just that. Sexual orientation (hetero, homo, or bi) cannot be thought of as being malevolent or benevolent. It simply is.

If the issue is concerning Glenn's alleged evastion of issues concerning malevolence (in terms of homosexuality or otherwise) then this is my reply. I am aware that there are many in the world who do not understand the issues of homosexuality, and therefore will act out of ignorance, fear, and hatred. I've experienced such as an atheist. The point I am trying to make--and I think this is Glenn's point as well--is that even though there is malevolence in the world and it's existence cannot be denied, it is not what life is about. One can lead a positive and productive, happy life while being aware of evil. In fact, knowing what evil is and how it works is half the battle in learning to fufill the irreplaceable value that is your life.

If neither of these replies adresses the issue, then I will ask for clarification on what the issue at hand is.

DrDialectician

Post 118

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 11:17pm
THE TRUTH ABOUT AYN RAND AND GAY PORN STARS

The people getting all upset over the fact that there is a Jo[h]n Galt porn star who reads Ayn Rand...as if that were some kind of betrayal of Objectivism or opposition to Objectivism or to the Randian spirit...are just plain out-to-lunch. They are so caught up in the mythological Ayn Rand that they miss the _real_ Ayn Rand, the _historical_ Ayn Rand. Rand the _man_-worshiper. (Underscoring _man_.)

Many people do not realize that despite some caveats, Rand herself was a great fan of gay porn movies and of homosexual love.

"Zis is ze ideal," she would say. "Ze man luffing ze man--can zere be any more intense and idealistic, thoroughgoingkh form of ze man vorship? Nyet! You get ze double man quotient in the single psycho-epistemological, sense-of-life nexus. I vould hate to be a man and haff to tool around mit a boring woman all ze time."

We are lucky to have transcriptions of the metaphysical-sex seminars Rand which conducted at some time in the early 1970s, and which have just been released (albeit in somewhat bowdlerized form) by The Ayn Rand Institute.

In these transcripts, Rand notes that, "Ze clash and union of man wid ze man, sexually, is de most dramatic form of value conflict and, ultimately, of ze romantic conquest and ze surrender--but not a literal surrender! For no man can truly surrender qua man. Zat is why zey all have ze cocks--de moral-metaphysical equivalent of ze warrior's sword."

On the issue of transvestites and the like, Rand makes the following observations:

"If a man dresses up like a women, yes of course, zat is disgusting--especially if zey follow de social-metaphysical value of going only by ze latest fad. I would not concede zat a man should dress up as a woman in anyzink but maybe Adrian or ze Gap. Are you going to tell me zat a man looks good in de pantyhose?...well, maybe _zum_ of zem do. I will give you zat. Ze ones mit de nicely-shaped legs."

Despite some stern reservations--reservations that exemplified her more moralistic side--Rand was not totally opposed to orgies, either. And she was more forgiving of all-male orgies than of all-female orgies.

"An orgy is de metaphysical horror--it constitutes ze de-peopling of ze sex act by merging ze sovereign individual mit de mob. It is de collectivizing of ze orgasm and everything which it presupposes, subsumes and implies. You cannot get off zat way--not truly and objectively. And it is a consciousness-fragmenting experience. You never know what to grab or, for zat matter, what is grabbing _you_. It is nothing but cocks and bozoms flying around everywhere in a Kandinsky-like tangle. Everyzing becomes ze Heraclitean fucks.

"If you have ze all-male orgy, zat is better zan ze all-female orgy, but still metaphysically disgusting and an affront to all de cosmic order. Observe zat no person can engage in ze orgies unless he drops his minds and his premises. De only exception is when everyone in ze group is _very_ cute. And I just zink, zat is a very tall order to meet given ze rotten culture dat we haff today."

Could John Galt ever be a male porn star?

"If he were objective about it, and he treated it as a profession, radder zan zum kind of semi-serious lark or hobby. Alzo, his equipment must match his ambition. Dat would be true of any porn star."


# #

Admin


Post 119

Monday, November 11, 2002 - 1:53am
Some people have asked whether certain participants of this discussion are the same person. We only have their IP addresses, and sometimes these are shared. The following people have the same IP address:

Olivia Hanson
Myron Ford
Sal Barbella

Francois Tremblay

Post 120

Monday, November 11, 2002 - 2:03am
Looks like the troll is undone...

Anthony Teets

This post was transferred from the old forums and so no user info is available.



Post 121

Monday, November 11, 2002 - 1:06pm
olivia-myron-sal, (that could be formulated using a counting method, and you are quite a probability problem aren't you?) All three of you have written:

"This is the thread I am posting on."

How can you refer to yourself as "I"?

Well, I am Hermes the Messenger, and I am glad that you responded to me in the way you did. I am not a coward at all. I was actually hoping that you (as olivia) would take me up on the invitation to discuss philosophical issues elsewhere. It would have been a dreadful waste of time. You responded (as olivia) that you were deluged with work. Yes you were very busy being sal, olivia, and myron. You described yourself (olivia) as defending Sciabarra, yet you waste his time as well. Why do you prey on people in this manner? No need to answer me. Just read this and start working on reforming your life.

I actually didn't have the empirical evidence that Admin has provided, but I was VERY suspicious when all three of you started defending myron simultaneously. My observations from your posts proved correct. Similar grammar, typoes, spelling. Your arguments are all the same, and you have a general dislike of women. All three of you say that Rand disliked women and provided this as evidence and a justification. You attack people on the grounds of personality and judge them for what they like or who they are. You used bio from Glenn's spot on SOLO, and you viciously attacked Ms. Bushnell for being a woman!

My mythological references are perfectly applicable here. It was Perseus (Glenn, but I think he fancies the name Bellerophon as well) who fought the three-headed Gorgon (you) and it was Athena (Goddess of reason and protectress of heros) and Hermes (me) that aided him in his quest. In the Greek myth it was Hermes that provided Perseus with a sack in which to place the head of Medusa. (Matthew, please correct me if I'm wrong)

So how do you like that? You are exposed! Good grief, why am I talking to a troll? Go crawl under a rock somewhere and meditate:)

Anthony Teets

Post 122

Monday, November 11, 2002 - 2:32pm
Dr. Dialectician,

Oh boy! You slay me. Since you don't identify I am going to start thinking that you are Dr. Ruth. Do you have an opinion on cucumbers and peanut butter as well? :)
Anthony

Reuben Chapple
Post 123

Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 7:26pm
Sciaberra wrote: "[Anti-gay] brutality was practiced in such Communist countries as China, Russia, and Cuba, but it was also practiced in Hitler's Germany, where those notorious 'anti-Marxists,' the Nazis, discovered the virtue of the Pink Triangle as a way of identifying-and systematically murdering-homosexuals."

To claim the Nazis "systematically " murdered homosexuals is sheer casuistry. Scott Lively and Kevin Abrahams' excellent book "The Pink Swastika" demonstrates conclusively that the National Socialist police state was used by the militaristic bull queers who controlled the Nazi Party to eradicate the effeminate, womanish nancy boys whom they despised as enfeebled. Bogus accusations of homosexuality were also trumped up to marginalise and imprison political opponents.

Being an objectivist, it's hoped you're not one of those people who has no conception of evidence, but simply regards evidence as somebody else's opinion.

I'd suggest, Mr Sciaberra, that you acquaint yourself with the above book, and stop quoting inaccurate gay activist cant.

A number of assertions have been made by other commentators regarding various aspects of the homosexual lifestyle. As this is a lengthy thread, I won't trouble myself overly with going back through it to address these individually. Below is a general response.

It has been disputed that homosexuality is a dangerous and unsanitary lifestyle. Gay activist, Gabriel Rotello is certainly prepared to concede that it is.

In "Sexual Ecology," Rotello wrote, "gay men created almost laboratory conditions to amplify STDs within highly active core groups of individuals and spread these diseases throughout the gay population."

As detailing the ways in which AIDS and other STDs are spread among gay males invariably leads to accusations of closeted obsession with these practices, I'll refrain this time if you'll all hold the ad hominem arguments.

In any event, combined with the existence of core groups of men who engage in extraordinary levels of sexual behaviour, and high rates of sexual mixing between people in those core groups and the rest of the gay population, such practices often prove lethal.

According to US statistics, the average gay man has 36 different partners a year at commercial sex establishments (bars, saunas, bathhouses), at parks and in public toilets. Some have upwards of 1, 000.

Rampant infection with a bewildering array of pathogens is the inevitable result. The American Journal of Tropical Medical Hygiene reported as early as 1968 that certain gay communities had begun to display rates of STDs and gastrointestinal parasites equivalent to those of a third world slum in Uganda or Bangladesh.

In Surviving AIDS, Michael Callen wrote: "It wasn’t until I was officially diagnosed with AIDS that I faced squarely up to just how much sex and how much disease I’d had. I calculated that since becoming sexually active in 1973, I had racked up more than 3000 different sex partners in bathhouses, back rooms, meat racks and tearooms. As a consequence, I had already had the following STDs, many more than once: Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C; herpes simplex types I and II; venereal warts; amoebiasis including giardia lamblia and entomoeba histolytica; shigella flexnari and salmonella; syphilis; gonorrhea; non-specific urethritis; chlamydia; cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus; mononucleosis; and cryptosporidiosis."

In the interests of delicacy (and to afford the ignorant the amusement of looking them up), I won’t translate the more obscure diseases into plain language or explore their modes of transmission, but anyone interested can find them in a good dictionary of medical terminology. No wonder obituaries culled from gay magazines and journals show that many gay men die early deaths.

Gay apologists often claim that: "It isn’t possible to make of a man something he was not already inclined to." Isn’t it? According to noted US child sex abuse expert, David Finkelhor, "boys victimised by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual sexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who’d had such an experience ... Further, the victims themselves often linked their homosexuality to their victimisation experiences."

(Of course, these kindly sodomites were just helping the kids to "come out," right?)

Evidence shows also that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. Indeed, individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of all sex crimes against children.

This surely lends weight to parents’ fears that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even "recruited" into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle if evangelical gay activists are allowed into schools and scoutmastering.

The original argument from gay activists was that what took place in private between consenting adults was their own business. I totally agree.

Now, they're demanding that their sexual behaviour be everybody's business, and branding those who object to homosexual lifestyles being thrust in the public's face at every turn "homophobic."

If you want to pack the fudge, just go do it, and stop loudly broadcasting it to everyone else all the time.You'll be surprised at how tolerant most people are if that's your approach to life.

It seems a lot of you are looking for validation for your homosexuality through objectivism. As stated in an earlier posting, objectively speaking, homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. Heterosexual intercourse potentially creates life. Homosexual intercourse creates nothing but bacterial life.

All obejectivism does is validate anybody's right to go to hell in their own way as long as their interactions with others are engaged in volutarily and without force or fraud. It can never validate the objectively unsustainable as some of you would like it to.

Francois Tremblay

Post 124

Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 7:44pm
"homosexuality is a dangerous and unsanitary lifestyle"

There goes my Collectivist Terms Alert *again* !

sciabarra


Post 125

Monday, December 30, 2002 - 7:03pm
If Mr. Chapple wants to focus on how some people use the state to oppress other people, he'll get no argument from me. But if he wishes to start his post by denying male homosexual oppression under the Third Reich, then maybe he ought to better acquaint himself with the amendments and applications to Paragraph 175 in the Reich Penal Code.

The stats show that the Nazis arrested approximately 100,000 men as homosexuals. Approximately 10,000 to 15,000 of these were incarcerated in concentration camps forced to wear the Pink Triangle. Most were marked for slave labor, medical experimentation or castration.

Happy New Year.

Cheers,
Chris

Matthew Graybosch

Post 126

Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 9:35am
Mr. Chapple could take the things he says about promiscuous gay sex and just as easily apply them to promiscuous heterosexual sex; he makes no reference to monogamous (monoandrous?) relationships. Yes, you're going to get sick if you sleep around, and it doesn't matter what your tastes are.

Reuben P. Chapple

Post 127

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 5:29pm
Mr Sciaberra is again directed to "The Pink Swastika," which entirely rebuts his assertion that homosexuals as a class were targeted for Nazi oppression.

A couple of quotes will suffice to make my point:

"As we have noted, revisionists have attempted to define homosexuals as a class of people who were 'targeted for extermination' by the Nazis. One homosexual group went so far as to stage a high-profile 'pilgrimage' to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem in May of 1994. They were met by a delegation of Jewish Holocaust survivors who were so overcome with outrage that some of them had to be restrained from physically assaulting the contingent of (mostly American) political activists. One man cried, 'My grandfather was killed for refusing to have sexual relations with the camp commandant. You are desecrating this place...' (The Jerusalem Post, May 30, 1994).

"Yet, as we have noted, some homosexuals did in fact die in Nazi concentration camps. We do not diminish the tragedy of any life lost under the Nazi reign of terror; however, we must reject the implication that homosexuals as a class should be given moral equivalency to the Jewish people and other victims of genocide. There are five reasons why we must reject this claim of the revisionists.

"First, we know that regardless of Himmler’s anti-homosexual rhetoric, homosexuals as a class were never targeted for extermination, as their continued role in the Third Reich demonstrates. Second, those homosexuals who died did so primarily as the result of mistreatment and disease in slave-labor camps -- not in the gas chambers. Third, though we cannot condone the form of punishment meted out by the Nazis, homosexual sodomy was a legitimate crime of long-standing for which individuals were being jailed both before and after the Nazi Regime (and in this country during the same time period). This is in contrast to the internment of Jewish people, whose ethnicity is morally (and in pre-Nazi Germany, legally) neutral. Fourth, the actual number of homosexuals in the camps was a tiny fraction of both the estimated number of homosexuals in Germany and the estimate of the camp population. The camp homosexual population, estimated at 5,000-15,000 by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum (Rose:40), contained an undetermined percentage of non-homosexuals falsely labeled as homosexuals (see section titled 'Anti-homosexual Policies' above). Homosexuals who died were 'a small fraction of less than 1 percent' of homosexuals in Nazi-occupied Europe (S. Katz:146), compared to more than 85 percent of European Jewry. Fifth and last, many of the guards and administrators responsible for the infamous concentration camp atrocities were homosexuals themselves, which negates the idea that homosexuals in general were being persecuted and interned."

"Dr. Judith Reisman, in 'The Pink Swastika and Holocaust Revisionist History,' wrote this comparison of the fate of the two groups under the Nazis:

Were homosexuals treated like Jews, 2-3 million out of 2-3 million German homosexuals should have lost their businesses, their jobs, their property, their possessions and most would have lost their lives. Homosexuals would have been forced to wear pink triangles on their clothing in the streets, they would have had their passports stamped with an 'H,' been barred from travel, work, shopping, public appearances without their armbands, and we would have thousands of pictures of pink triangle graffiti saying 'kill the faggots,' and the like. If German homosexuals were not Nazis, these 2-3 million men would have been homeless, walled in ghettos, worked as a mass labor pool, then gassed and their abuse recorded in graphic detail, as were the millions of Jews. And, if Germany’s several million 'gays' were not Nazi victims, they were Nazi soldiers, collaborators or murderers (Reisman:Culture Wars, April 1996).

Reuben P. Chapple



Post 128

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 5:29pm
Mr Sciaberra is again directed to "The Pink Swastika," which entirely rebuts his assertion that homosexuals as a class were targeted for Nazi oppression.

A couple of quotes will suffice to make my point:

"As we have noted, revisionists have attempted to define homosexuals as a class of people who were 'targeted for extermination' by the Nazis. One homosexual group went so far as to stage a high-profile 'pilgrimage' to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem in May of 1994. They were met by a delegation of Jewish Holocaust survivors who were so overcome with outrage that some of them had to be restrained from physically assaulting the contingent of (mostly American) political activists. One man cried, 'My grandfather was killed for refusing to have sexual relations with the camp commandant. You are desecrating this place...' (The Jerusalem Post, May 30, 1994).

"Yet, as we have noted, some homosexuals did in fact die in Nazi concentration camps. We do not diminish the tragedy of any life lost under the Nazi reign of terror; however, we must reject the implication that homosexuals as a class should be given moral equivalency to the Jewish people and other victims of genocide. There are five reasons why we must reject this claim of the revisionists.

"First, we know that regardless of Himmler’s anti-homosexual rhetoric, homosexuals as a class were never targeted for extermination, as their continued role in the Third Reich demonstrates. Second, those homosexuals who died did so primarily as the result of mistreatment and disease in slave-labor camps -- not in the gas chambers. Third, though we cannot condone the form of punishment meted out by the Nazis, homosexual sodomy was a legitimate crime of long-standing for which individuals were being jailed both before and after the Nazi Regime (and in this country during the same time period). This is in contrast to the internment of Jewish people, whose ethnicity is morally (and in pre-Nazi Germany, legally) neutral. Fourth, the actual number of homosexuals in the camps was a tiny fraction of both the estimated number of homosexuals in Germany and the estimate of the camp population. The camp homosexual population, estimated at 5,000-15,000 by Joan Ringelheim of the US Holocaust museum (Rose:40), contained an undetermined percentage of non-homosexuals falsely labeled as homosexuals (see section titled 'Anti-homosexual Policies' above). Homosexuals who died were 'a small fraction of less than 1 percent' of homosexuals in Nazi-occupied Europe (S. Katz:146), compared to more than 85 percent of European Jewry. Fifth and last, many of the guards and administrators responsible for the infamous concentration camp atrocities were homosexuals themselves, which negates the idea that homosexuals in general were being persecuted and interned."

"Dr. Judith Reisman, in 'The Pink Swastika and Holocaust Revisionist History,' wrote this comparison of the fate of the two groups under the Nazis:

Were homosexuals treated like Jews, 2-3 million out of 2-3 million German homosexuals should have lost their businesses, their jobs, their property, their possessions and most would have lost their lives. Homosexuals would have been forced to wear pink triangles on their clothing in the streets, they would have had their passports stamped with an 'H,' been barred from travel, work, shopping, public appearances without their armbands, and we would have thousands of pictures of pink triangle graffiti saying 'kill the faggots,' and the like. If German homosexuals were not Nazis, these 2-3 million men would have been homeless, walled in ghettos, worked as a mass labor pool, then gassed and their abuse recorded in graphic detail, as were the millions of Jews. And, if Germany’s several million 'gays' were not Nazi victims, they were Nazi soldiers, collaborators or murderers (Reisman:Culture Wars, April 1996).

sciabarra

Post 129

Saturday, January 25, 2003 - 7:08am
Mr. Chapple: I am an individualist. If just ~one~ person were murdered for being a homosexual, it would be no less a tragedy than if that person were a Jew, a gypsy, or a Nigerian. The fact that ~some~ were murdered ~because~ they were gay men is ~enough~ for me. (An interesting documentary called "Paragraph 175" recently discussed this whole issue.)

And it doesn't matter if some of the killers were ~homosexual~ themselves. There are a lot of self-hating people out there who seek to destroy that which they hate most about themselves. That's the whole point of creating a more humane society, and a more humane way of looking at sexual orientation. (Now, we're starting to hear stuff about Hitler himself being gay... wonders never cease!)

It is also a fact that many Jews were co-opted into the machinery of death in the concentration camps; in that nightmare existence, where moral choices have been inverted and distorted beyond recognition, the tragedy is compounded in ways that are unfathomable.

Chris

Discussion After the Announcement of the Homonograph!

 Andre Zantonavitch
Post 0

Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 2:52pm
One of the saddest aspects of the Objectivist movement is the way you seem to have to tip-toe around certain issues, be sensitive to the point of infinity discussing them, be ultra-careful they rarely or never come up, and then brainwash yourself that no such issues or controversy even really exist. This is all quintessentially religious -- and absolutely alien to reason and philosophy.

On the issue of homosexuality, AR and ARI really seem to distinguish themselves with their intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice. I welcome anything Chris and Lindsay can do to improve this. The ~whole~ Objectivist movement will benefit.

Alex
Post 1

Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 8:48am
Now, can we excise the following abomination too:

Under The Death Penalty:
"Rights stem from man's nature as a rational being, and a man living irrationally has no rights."

And under Rights:
"Rights are absolute"

Finally, under Rationality:
"It means using logic to weed out any contradictions."

So, are rights absolute? Or do they belong only to "Rational Beings"? How do you weed out this contradiction?


FYI, I agree with 90-95% of what you have on the site, especially the Trader Principle and Benevolence. Those two concepts have changed my life for the better. I no longer feel guilty for not helping out a mooch.

My aim with this post is to provoke a wholesale attempt at Rationality. If we can weed out those inconsistencies, such as Homosexuality and Absolute Rights, we can produce a completely rational system that will truly change the world.

Jeff Landauer

Post 2

Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 3:50pm
Hi Alex,

I don't think that there is a contradiction between rights being contextual and rights being absolute. I think that rights are "contextually absolute". Absolute is not the same as intrinsic -- absolute means that they are unconditional and can not be abrogated by any government or person, given that the rights exist. It doesn't make sense to say that rights aren't absolute because plants don't have rights or that rights aren't absolute because a rock doesn't have rights, because rights simply don't apply to plants or rocks. But to those people who live by rationality, rights are absolute. To parasites and thugs, rights don't apply.

To complicate things, I think that different people, due to age, capacity, or behavior, have different rights. A child might have the right to life but not yet the right to property. But those rights that a person does have are absolute -- they can't be taken away because those rights are the metaphysically given and determined by the identity of the person.

Does this make sense?

Jonathan Barrett
Post 3

Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 12:25am
Alex,

Who/what were you quoting above?

Thanks

Jeff Landauer


Post 4

Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 1:23am
He's quoting from the extensive Objectivism 101 section of this site which is mirrored from ImportanceOfPhilosophy.com.

Linz


Post 5

Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 1:46am
The second part of the following is a non-sequitur, & wrong:

"Rights stem from man's nature as a rational being, and a man living irrationally has no rights."

I'm seeing a lot of confusion here on the nature & status of rights. Then, too, I'm seeing confusion on another thread, where I'm reading that all evil is *equally* evil. It's alarming that folk can imagine that such bizarre conclusions are Objectivist.

Yup, there's work to do.

Duncan Bayne


Post 6

Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 3:22pm
My understanding is that rights aren't contextual at all.

E.g., I have the right not to have force or fraud initiated against me.

If I assault you, and you defend yourself, you're in no way violating my rights, because *you aren't initiating force* against me, merely retaliating.

So there's no 'weighing up the rights of the victim & the criminal' - in the above example, NIOF and retaliatory force are perfectly compatible. If it were otherwise, I'd question whether either or both are genuinely rights.

Alex
Post 7

Monday, November 17, 2003 - 2:35pm
Jeff, no it doesn't make sense.

"to those people who live by rationality, rights are absolute"

So, how about I (a rational being) unilaterally declare you an irrational being. Sounds like dictatorship to me.

I'm not suggesting rocks (or Rand-forbid) animals have absolute rights, but humans. Once upon a time, you could lots of terrible things to people who were of an "inferior" race. The irrationality argument works the same way. Who determines who is being irrational, but more importantly, shouldn't I be able to live irrationally if I want to. I think there's this thing called Freedom of Speech that allows people to say all kinds of crazy, irrational things.

Jeff, you do raise an important point about children. How do you apply Objectivism to children. Incorporating the "sacrifices" required by parents into self-interest requires adopting concepts from evolutionary biology such as Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene. I'd love to see (or perhaps write) an article with this perspective.

Jeff Landauer

Post 8

Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:23am
Alex, I think that rights are metaphysically given, not declared by you, me, or the government. We can try to determine whether or not someone has rights, but we can not declare whether or not someone has rights. That's what Jefferson means, I think, when he says that rights are unalienable. So you can go right ahead and declare me an irrational being, but it doesn't make me an irrational being. Only my use or evasion of reason makes me an irrational being.

You say that all humans have absolute rights, but I absolutely 100% do not think rights have anything to do with Homo sapiens DNA. That would be totally arbitrary. Rights must be based upon a person's (or alien's or genetically modified chimp's) ability to reason and live in a harmony of interests with others.

As I said, I think that different people have different rights based upon their capacity and behavior. Children are no exception. Yes, there is freedom of speech, which is the recognition that merely saying most things is not an initiation of force. But that doesn't give some idiot the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, because so doing IS an initiation of force.

(As a caveat, I don't think Rand explicitly says what I'm saying here, but I think that some things that she writes on rights are vague and contradictory, and my above conclusions are clarifications and choosing the correct stance out of contradictory stances.)

Henry Ermich

Post 9

Monday, December 22, 2003 - 8:43am
1. I emphatically do not buy this "parental sacrifice" idea -- nor that it has to incorporate anything from "evolutionary biology". Not in and of itself.
(Especially not from Dawkins. Dawkins seems like the wrong approach, personified: having made "evolution" into a substitute for the Christain God he supposedly dislikes so much, he then makes grandiose claims -- like trying to justify social evils like oppresive government or "conformity for it's own sake" or what have you, as "just human nature".
That does nothing for us, and it in fact, serves as an attempt to undercut the capacity humans have for rational action: if we're all just genetic drones -- then we have no capacity to actually THINK about our actions. it's just another form of that behavioral-determinism crap, really.

I admit that Dawkins has done some halfway decent work -- but much of it is laced with a very literally "dehumanizing" premise.

Now, on to the idea of 'parental sacrifice" being incompatible with self-interest. That's patently absurd. Rand amply covered the nature of 'sacrifice" -- and it's distinction from "giving" of other sorts.

"Sacrifice" -- in the Objectivist value system -- is defined as the "giving up of a value, for a LESSER value, OR A NON-VALUE." Anything else -- any other form of "giving" -- is trade-based (IE, BOTH parties get something out of the deal.)

Until and unless we snap ourselves OUT of this Behavioral-determinist "let's just turn every human action into a non-volitional response to our 'primate past', we're never going to make any headway whatsoever.

Sorry, Alex, but Dawkins "selfish gene" paradigm is not the way to proceed.

Francois Tremblay

Post 10

Friday, December 26, 2003 - 9:58pm
Edit
Is Dawkins a statist ? I'm very dissapointed to hear it.

His idea of the selfish gene is correct, though. It's simply the fact that it is genes that are selected for, not individuals or species. It is about biology and has nothing to do with ethics or politics.

Of course free will is true, but I think Objectivists are too ignorant of evolutionary psychology, and consider free will as an absolute. No offense Henry, I'm not talking about you, but I think some Objectivists are simply afraid of science contradicting them.

Ron Merrill did good work in that subject. I would invite you to read his article :

http://www.monmouth.com/~adamreed/Ron_Merrill_writes/Miscelaneous/EddiesEnigma.htm

It's long, but it should be mandatory reading on SOLO HQ. Science must inform philosophy whether you like it or not.

Michael E. Marotta
Post 11

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 5:49am
 
This was a Blast from the Past. The thread went to some interesting places. Much of that has been discussed and argued here these past nine years. It is difficult to know whether it is the ideas that are intractable or the people who propose them.

I like the Archives at logout.