| | Homosexuality hasn't been a matter of debate among Objectivists in a long time. Nobody (not even Peikoff) shares Rand's opinion. Case closed.
On the other hand, she did consider this part of her philosophy. If it's "immoral" and due to "evasions," it belongs to the province of ethics, and ethics is a part of philosophy. Further, in one of her letters to John Hospers, after he had invoked the distinction between what one believes qua philosopher and what one believes simply as a personal opinion, Rand says that she never opines on anything except in the former way. When Randians say that this or that opinion (homosexuality, cigarettes, woman president) was not part of her philosophy, it's a euphemistic way of saying that the opinion embarrasses them and they aren't prepared to defend it. Sounds nicer than saying she was wrong.
Whether or not homosexuality is a philosophical (specifically moral) question and whether or not Rand's judgement follows from her upstream positions are open questions. What she believed is not.
Peter
|
|
