RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : A Tool For Living: The Relevance of Ayn Rand's Ideas to Gay ...

Saturday
January 22, 2005

A Tool for Living: The Relevance of Ayn Rand's Ideas to Gay People by Jason Dixon

There is a group of people who – by and large – have an early impetus to investigate philosophical questions. Earlier in life than others, they find the “popular” or “traditional” answers to the question of morality in particular wanting and unhelpful. This group is gay people. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (53 messages)

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 8:38am

Nature or Nurture? Genes or Environment? Is it the cause of abnormal parenting?

No. It's clearly caused by just one force, which is the sole factor in determining sexuality: Judy Garland.

There are studies that show conclusively that repeated exposure to the "Wizard of Oz" can later result in homosexual tendencies. And now that PBS often airs "Judy Garland: The Concert Years," our society is definitely doomed to see an increase in the gay population. All this is the dastardly work of the Gay Agenda!

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 8:46am

A correction to my last post. Judy Garland is clearly not the only factor.

There's also SpongeBob Squarepants!

Jason, terrific article.

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 8:54am

Somewhere over the rainbow (flag)......

Remember, parents, if you want your parents to grow up to be straight, you must keep your musical tastes in check.

1. Absolutely no showtunes
2. No songs with rainbow references
3. No Madonna or Cher

Hmmm, I find it odd that my not very dominant mother did not follow any of these rules....

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:13am

Well done Jason. Well written, well argued.

If a gay gene (or set of genes more likely) were found or conclusively ruled out, it would put and end to the nature/nurture arguments. However, life is not always convenient. However, as you argued it makes no difference - we should not be detracted from the main issue.

What is truly sad is that many young gay people are running from the religious right straight into the arms of the collectivist left. Articles like this will certainly help.

Of course the same principle holds for every persecuted "minority".

"For those afraid of the consequences of a rule by majority, and who feel pressure to align themselves with any group that will promise them “tolerance” instead of condemnation, Ayn Rand offers a political theory that protects the smallest minority possible: the individual. "

Thanks for the reminder!

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 11:03am

Mark,

So, there are no homosexual cows --- I'll take your word for it; however, when I've read examples cited, cows have never been mentioned. You'll have to proceed to refute the other cases as well.

It seems like you're asking for a negative to be proven --- " If it can be proven that homosexuality is not a psychological pathology...", but generally this isn't possible. Since you dismiss any genetic theories to account for it because you're not familiar with them, I wonder what you'd consider as proof?

You write "I doubt very much that this proposition has been proven" --- that's correct. Therefore, since nothing has been proven one way or the other, it isn't reasonable to assume that it is a psychological pathology.

Kernon

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 1:55pm

What great replies! I only need to read through the list to have yet another confirmation that SOLO is the place for me. Thank you to those who thoughtfully and reasonably dismissed intentional (and expressly stated no less!) ignorance. Thank you very much also to those who injected some humor into this thread! Sometimes a desire for sincerity overshadows the necessity of just shrugging and laughing it off.

And I'm glad to see we have a fag hag in residence - things are so much better with you gals around!

Jason

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:28pm

Sorry, a goof.

(Edited by Mark D. Fulwiler on 1/23, 10:31pm)

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:28pm

My view is that a homosexual orientation is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. (Identical twin studies suggest a genetic component, but only half of gay identical twins have a gay sibling.) At at rate, while this is an interesting research subject, it should be kept in mind that oftentimes people are looking for the cause of something only if they consider it abnormal, evil or undesirable. And there may not ever be a definitive answer to this question.

Human ~behavior~ (in contrast to feelings or desires largely outside your control) has reasons, not causes, unless you reject the idea of free will. Nothing "causes" anyone to have sex with anyone else.

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 5:29am

Jason wrote: "As a philosophy for human beings living on this Earth, Objectivism applies to every human being. However, owing to the unique obstacles and challenges facing gay people, Ayn Rand’s ideas are particularly well suited to this group in coping with life and achieving happiness. In a perfect world all people would choose to exercise their reason and many of these challenges would be non-issues. Rand’s ideas teach one the methods to achieve perfection in one's own life, in spite of whatever state in which the world may find itself."

There is nothing more to add to this. Very well done Jason!

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 8:33am

Even if there was a "homosexuality gene", that is an inadequate defense for the morality of homosexuality. I remember reading psychological and scientific research has argued for the existence of physiological factors that explain obesity, serial killing, and child molestation. However convincing that research may be, physiological or psychological factors can be an explanation but should never be an excuse for any immoral behavior.

The one (and perhaps only) defense for homosexuality should be that the benefits outweigh the risks. Some have argued that the risks of homosexual sex are significantly greater than heterosexual sex, but I think those risks, if they even exist, can be managed to a reasonable degree.

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 9:20am

Byron,

There is credence to your argument if you're talking about obesity - a risky state with certain beneftis but higher costs. However, child molesters and serial killers are engaging in behavior that violates rights. There is a 180° difference between behavior that violates rights and behavior that is between consenting adults.

I think all of this talk is great but it misses the point of my article. If anyone wants to discuss the merits/demerits/etc of homosexuality, start a thread in the general forum. It's not a subject that particularly interests me, but it is one that I can contribute to.

Jason

(Edited by Jason Dixon on 1/24, 9:25am)

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 1:08pm

Jason - excellent article. One problem I have in the thinking of so many people regarding sexuality (such as Mark's earlier comment) is the fact that unfortunately, unlike decisions as to how to act in a relationship (say marriage, or cheating on a partner, or promiscuity), being gay to a homosexual simply is their nature, and in no way a "choice" or "lifestyle" or any such thing, regardless of its root cause(s). To deny it is to deny your fundamental nature just as much as it is for heterosexuals who in the past denied their sexuality (in some part or in all parts) as part of their religion. Thanks again, and hopefully we won't get any Reggie Firehammer clones here (though I liked some of his posts on other subjects even though I disagreed with most of them too).

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 1:47pm

Byron said: "The one (and perhaps only) defense for homosexuality"....

Is volitional consciousness and the quest for happiness without harming others. If Homosexuals prefer to have sex with each other freely and that makes them happy, then it is justified and moral. It would be immoral to repress (despite what a phew others have said) a tendancy to fit into some supposed ideal conjured by those who hate homosexuals for one reason or another.

Ethan

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 2:01pm

Ethan,

I agree with that sentiment, but I think it is also inadequate as an argument. Anyone can say doing this or that makes them happy, and whatever it is may not harm others, but that does not make it moral. For example, to extend my argument against obesity (my pet peeve), some obese people say eating food in excessive quantities makes them happy, and screw what everyone else thinks because they're not hurting anyone else. Now I read that there is some research claiming that there is a genetic factor which predisposes individuals to stuffing their faces. Does any of that make overeating and excessive obesity moral? By my standard of comparing benefits to risks, it is not for most if not all people.

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:41pm

Byron, your comments about homosexual sex apply equally well to heterosexual sex. There are several health risks and the risk of pregnancy (which in many ways can be a larger cost than many of the health risks). Are these risks worth it?

Obviously there's physical pleasure. There's also intimacy with a romantic partner that is unique to sex. Both our fairly substantial, with the second probably more important. And since risks can be minimized, it's probably worthwhile.

And then there's the question of what the alternatives are. For a guy who's attracted to women, sex with men doesn't provide the same value (and the reverse). So the choice is not between having sex with women or having sex with men. It's between abstinence or sexual intimacy. So your comment about heterosexual sex being safer than homosexual sex (which I'm not convinced of, especially if you throw in pregnancy) is irrelevant to the ethical issue.

It might have slightly more importance if you're talking about a bisexual, but even that doesn't add up. Romantic love is a very personal thing. You can only gain the value of romantic intimacy from someone you love. So you can't treat men and women as if they are all substitutable with one another. If a bisexual was in love with a man, then you can't argue that sex with a woman is safer (it might be, but that's only part of the picture) because the value of romantic intimacy wouldn't be there. You're changing two variables. The only way it would matter is if the increases risks were so huge, it overwhelmed the difference between abstinence and romantic intimacy.

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 1/24, 7:42pm)

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 8:25pm

Joseph, I'd like to thank you for two things in particular that to me were RIGHT ON:

"So the choice is not between having sex with women or having sex with men. It's between abstinence or sexual intimacy."

"So you can't treat men and women as if they are all substitutable with one another."

Jason

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:29am

This reminds me of another issue that gets me all fired up. Left-handed people try to pass off their left-handedness as "natural" saying that their "preference" is genetic. There is no proof of this, and it's quite obvious that the perversion of left-handedness really comes about from abnormal parenting or something that went terribly wrong in childhood. And then they'll claim that because their left-handedness doesn't hurt anyone, that makes it moral! These are empty assertions and I am not convinced that left-handedness is moral. And if it's not moral, than it must be immoral.

And when it comes to those ambidextrous freaks, well, don't get me started!

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 5:40am

Well, left-handed IS sinister for a reason, you know...

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:00am

Joe,

You wrote: "So your comment about heterosexual sex being safer than homosexual sex (which I'm not convinced of, especially if you throw in pregnancy) is irrelevant to the ethical issue."

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I said: "Some have argued that the risks of homosexual sex are significantly greater than heterosexual sex, but I think those risks, if they even exist, can be managed to a reasonable degree." (emphasis added)

In other words, I do not believe there is a significant difference in risk between heterosexual and homosexual sex. Some may argue there is a significant difference in risk but I think any risks from sex can be minimized by practicing "safe sex" (e.g. condoms).

In other words, I do not disagree with what you wrote. Capish?

Eric,

I am left-handed and I think left-handedness is morally superior to right-handedness. Some of the most enlightened minds in history (e.g. Da Vinci) were left-handed, and left-handedness is an indication that one has better access to the right side of the brain, which has to do with things like creativity.

Just kidding. What I really think is what hand you write in is amoral in most contexts. I have only experienced one context where it was a life-or-death issue, but such contexts are rare.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 8:59am

I know, and have known, several gay people (more and more, it seems, the question is "Who isn't gay?"). I am convinced that, much of the time, if not most, homosexuality is inborn. In any case, I do not regard it as having moral implications. It's a private matter and as far as I can see it hurts no one (on the contrary apparently).