About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 10:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
ROFL!  Joe, I thought that too!

And Wayne, you might be right.  ;)




Post 61

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 10:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason Dixon:

"...The truth is, being gay *is* an aspect of my life, goddamnit.  It influences more than you'd think (*especially* if I intend to find a mate).  It does not make me who I am but it certainly is a part of my identity.  And it's fundamental, meaning it influences many aspects of the structure of my life.  Your comments about collectivism are completely misplaced and have already been answered well on this thread.  And where oh where in any of *my* writing on this topic have you seen anything about "sticking together"?  Coming together, yes, but that's different than "sticking" together.  The former is about shared interests and discussions, the latter about ghetto-izing oneself.  "

Yes, I see the differences. You may like: "Queer as Folk" and I'll - along with the Lesbians - like, "The L Word".  Your sexuality is apart of your identity, but not one you can take PRIDE  in -  it just is. This does create differences between Heteros and Homos; but not to the point that Chris Sciabarra would have us *hype* it.  He has also hyped up differences between the sexes with his flawed view of "Feminism".  Jason, you can  be proud of being an Objectivist. That is more *you* than being a Homosexual.    




Post 62

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 3:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey,

It's not fair.

I don't see the new photo of Jason - I still have the photo of the mexican pimp!

Come on SOLO homo, if you want more gay conversions, start getting your act together!




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 63

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 3:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wayne writes:
This does create differences between Heteros and Homos; but not to the point that Chris Sciabarra would have us *hype* it.  He has also hyped up differences between the sexes with his flawed view of "Feminism".

I wish I knew what on earth I was responding to.  Do you care to explain that?  Where have I ever "hyped" the differences between "Heteros" and "Homos"?  My monograph on the subject goes out of its way to state that the issue is not "gay" liberation but human liberation.  And where on earth do I "hype" the differences between the sexes?  The book, Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, includes a number of essays on the question of gender and sexuality, but not a single essay in that collection was authored by me---except for the introduction, which was co-authored with my co-editor, Mimi Reisel Gladstein.  And in that introduction, I take no stand at all on the "differences between the sexes."  My only "view" of "Feminism" is expressed in a debate in the pages of The Free Radical (which readers may trace here). And that view is fairly straightforward:  That there were individualist and classical liberal roots to "Feminism" and that Ayn Rand's work could "speak" to feminists, especially those interested in the virtues of productivity and independence, and in the value of the integrated human being.  In other words, I took the same stand on "Women's Liberation" that I took on "Gay Liberation":  Insofar as Rand's work helps us to understand and achieve human liberation and human integration, women and gays (etc.) could profitably learn from it.  (I mention these positions not as a way of re-opening a debate that was utterly exhausted some years ago, but only as a point of reference.)

So, I must ask again:  What on earth are you talking about?

(Edited by sciabarra on 5/05, 3:49am)




Post 64

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 5:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, Chris - it does seem, even after exhaustive debates from years ago, the same keeps popping up - as if, almost, humans go thru a cyclic rounding like the lower animals do, that there is little paying attention to the second and third most important words  [after reason ] in Objectivism - integration and context.  Good thing records of the old stuff is kept, but it is a shame one has to keep saying - look, read, think.. remember.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 65

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 5:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can't believe this is going to start up again...

Wayne, get over it.

Chris, don't even waste your time defending yourself. You've got better things to do.

Jason, good for you. Stand tall.

Steven, I understand your concern, but no one is balkanizing. If it were, it would be ridiculous. But it just started, no one knows where it might go or what it will accomplish. But I'll tell you something, if someone who just starts coming out of the closet and rejects Christianity comes to SOLO, and finds this group where he or she can find some affirmation of their right to exist in contrast to the ARI or other homophobes who tell them they are flawed, and in the process decide not to kill themselves, then the group is justified.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 66

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 5:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And as far as perpetuating gay victimization...to stay silent and do nothing would be to perpetuate victim mentality. Speaking up and out and being aware that we don't have to be victims is what we are doing.



Post 67

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 7:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Obviously I've missed something with Wayne's comments and Chris' and Joe's responses to it, but I still have to ask, re

Your sexuality is apart of your identity, but not one you can take PRIDE  in -  it just is

What the fuck are you talking about here, man?  When, in any of *my* writing on SOLO have you ever seen me say *anyting* about PRIDE in being gay?!?

Several people on this site take their pre-conceived notions about the gay establishment and project those notions onto ME.  Unbelievable.  Did it ever occur to you that a gay Objectivist might actually think for himself, taking what works from that establishment and rejecting what doesn't?  Puh-leeze.  For the *record* since I haven't seen the *need* of commenting on it before, I DO believe in the awareness-raising and exposure that the notion of "gay pride" has fostered, but I reject any idea that being gay is a source of pride.

Joe's advice is excellent - wait and fucking see how this group turns out. 

And I have further advice:  STOP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS.

--Jason




Post 68

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 7:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now, on to sunnier subjects.  Joe, are you saying I look like John Travolta?  Or did I miss something? 

And Jennifer, ma chérie, I've been accused elsewhere of being a closet heterosexual.  But nobody's blasted off that closet door yet.  ;-) 
 
Mais on ne sais jamais quelle genre de pouvoir qu'une femme a, n'est-ce pas?

Jason




Post 69

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 7:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
C'est vrai, mon petit chou -- avec une femme qui est toute puissante, on ne le sais jamais.  ;)



Post 70

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 8:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oui.



Post 71

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 8:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer,

Je dit "mon petit chou" a Kelly toujours. C'est interesante!

Jason, you should put on a white suit and dance disco, baby! You'd be even hotter! ;-)

_____


Btw, anyone who has spent any time around gays must understand that they are DIFFERENT! They respond to the world differently than the heteros in their gender. So there's no reason why that experience of the world cannot be enjoyed and explored in a setting that focuses on the traits, feelings and thoughts pertaining to the world and being gay.




Post 72

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 8:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David, this is just a part of your Master Plan to bring back the disco days.  I won't be your pawn, baby!  But saying I'd be hotter than Travolta is a compliment that will get you everywhere.

Re your aside, this would be a hot subject to discuss on SOLO Homo.  I'm very curious about active-minded straight people's perceptions of gay people they've known, and in general.  I see you haven't yet signed up - hop to it, man!

For anyone who doesn't know how to join, visit http://solohq.com/Homo/ and click on the button "Join This Club."

Jason




Post 73

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 11:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Friends and others, I have joined a debate over at The Autonomist forum on this topic in defense of Chris Sciabarra--um, I think. 



Post 74

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 11:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

Your new picture looks awesome!!! You are one hot tamale!

Kelly



Post 75

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 11:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK, Jason, I've joined. Thanks for the reminder.

Oh, and I wasn't saying you would be hotter than John Travolta. Sorry. The guy was smokin' in the '70s. I was saying you'd be even hotter than you are now, Mr. GQ!

 :-)




Post 76

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 12:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
*Sigh*  Ok, David, fine.  I'll just settle for being the next Travolta.  Hey, with all of the compliments on my new photo, I ain't complainin'. 

Jason




Post 77

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 4:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason, haha, yeah, I did say your new pic looks like Travolta...now, STRUT!



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 4:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I’d like to suggest an alternative way of looking at the SOLO Homo group: It is a way of keeping a topic organized rather than a way of grouping people. If there were a young gay interested in objectivism but disheartened by what he/she may have read on other objectivist forums an Internet search would provide a very obvious link to this group. If there were--and there should be/probably will be—a SOLO Sexuality group, the “gay” posts wouldn’t be as obvious, and if they were they would, like all posts, eventually fall to the bottom of the list & be less obvious. Thus, this group can be looked at (and I see it this way) as merely being a collection of posts pertaining to one topic, but available to everyone. No self- or other- victimization identification segregation necessary or implied.

Please set me straight (or is it gaily [gay-ly] forward?) if this is too altruistic an alternative view.

John Banker



Post 79

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 7:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, it is certainly a way to organize discussion around a topic and also be a magnet for other gay Objectivists.  Nothing altruistic in that.  If romance is a value it's metaphysically necessary to know who's in the field.  It's also *psychologically* necessary to know you're not the only gay Objectivist.  Read that last with either emphasis you like.  Gay Objectivist.  Or gay Objectivist.  Either one is important when someone feels like he's completely alone in the world.

I'd like to add here that there aren't just a couple reasons for such a group.  It fills many needs and is important for many reasons (some overlapping, some mutually exclusive).  But the bottom line is that no one needs a justification to any one but the site owners for such a group.  I do welcome people piping up their objections because it gives me at least a *chance* to change some minds.  But at the end of the day, the group isn't going away.

Jason




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.