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.