Ayn Rand and homosexuality

I haven't read scientific research into this one way or the other, so the genetic argument is beyond me at the moment. But if it weren't, I'd still believe that there's no need for a gay person to say "it's in my genes, so I can't help it". Does consensual sex between two adults need exculpatory scientific evidence to deflect claims of immorality? I don't think so.

Post 21

Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:44am

I don't think that Peikoff would argue that a "blank slate" means no genetic influence on psychological makeup. His argument as I understand it is that the decision to chose a romantic partner depends on chosen values and these cannot be determined by genetics. They may be influenced in countless ways by both heredity and by the environment but the decision to value one person over another, one gender over another, remains volitional.

Lastly, as for Dr. Peikoff being disconected from reality. Yes the man has flaws. But still, I wish I could be so disconected from reality too.

Post 22

Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 5:50pm

If determinism is an anti-truth...if we are not simply a collection of cellular protoplasm controlled by our genes...then how can you relate anything to our genetic make-up? Homosexuality is either a choice, or an unavoidable consequence of birth. Whether hetero- or homo-, you would have to revile against the idea that you have somehow made the conscious choice to prefer a particular sex.

Post 23

Friday, March 5, 2004 - 10:31pm

I am by no means a biologist, psychologist or even well-versed enough in Rands writings (I'm working on that) to dare call myself an Objectivist, but regarding the eventual biological "stamping" of an individual, at birth, to specific sexualities I think it is easy to find reason to say it would make sense.

Men are, as a part of being men, "engineered" to be attracted to women, in order to reproduce.
Women are, as part of being women, "engineered" to be attracted to men, in order to reproduce.

So far, no homosexuality.

However, there is one thing that IMHO could easily be the ground for a "mixup" of sorts to the secuality of an individual: suppose the genetic "code" for the reproductive instincts is in fact not separated by the XY and XX chromosome issue, but rather housed somewhere inthe "common" code. Then I'd say it would be nothing strange if sometimes strange things happen in the "allocation" of "proper" reproductive instincts, just as some researchers (admittedly hotly contested by many of their peers) have found signs of transexual people having a certain part of the hypothalamus (or whatever the name of that particular hormone gadget was) "wrong". Just as Downs Syndrome gives the child an erroneous number of chromosomes.

No psychologising, loud speaches about determinism etcetera are needed. We are made to have sex. Our genetic code is made of parts that evidently get wrong sometimes. I think that is the case with homosexuality.

(Please, however, note that with "get wrong" i mean from a biological standpoint - it has been said that left-handedness is the effect of an other "error" in the genetic code, but I've never heard anyone propose that a left-handed person has "chosen" to be lefthanded just to be different and rebel. Also note that I am neither gay nor lefthanded, and be reminded that I can only by a very generous reader be named as someone who "knows what he is talking about" above. =)

Post 24

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:20am

Ayn Rand's rejection of homosexuality, which has been attributed to her 'lack of understanding' seems to me more characteristic than some of you would be happy to admit. Rand's arguments against other philosophical and ethical positions are often very much 'simple knee-jerk' reactions based entirely on a system of reasoning that demands justifications she cannot meet. Why should her response to a sexual or psychological position be different? And to those who suggest that she is simply a child of her time, dont you think that there is just a hint of moral relativism there? I am not an objectivist (as you may be able to tell) I am simply interested in philosophy, but what I see here worries me. Please, I'm sure you are all capable thinkers - why let someone else do your thinking for you? Be aware that you have bought into the philosophy of one person to the extent that a challenge to values that you personally cannot change underminse a range of values that you can.

Post 25

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:23pm

It seems to me, one step is left out of every discussion of homosexuality. It really does not matter what involuntary desires one has. We all have therm, and must objectively decide which ones are appropriate to act on, and which ones are inappropriate.

If no one ever had a desire to do something immoral, self-destructive, or just stupid we would all be perfectly successful and never guilty of wrong doing, but, completely devoid of moral character. Who would need character if they were never tempted.

The first question about homosexuality that needs to be asked is not if some people have homosexual desires, but if homosexual behavior is normal. By normal, I do not mean, what is common or usual. There are plenty of practices that are quite common but technically, abnormal. By normal I mean appropriate to the nature of the organism in question, in this case, appropriate the nature of human beings.

We know that many human beings have involuntary desires for things which are obviously abnormal and self-destructive. Anorexia and bulimia are familiar examples. If a gene or some other non-rational cause was found for the tendency toward these behaviors, those discoveries would not be used to justify the abnormal behaviors and would probably be used in an attempt to find a cure for them.

Normality ought not to be determined by what one feels, or what desires one has, but by the requirements of one's nature. The question, "is homosexual behavior normal human behavior?" is the first one that must be answered. It must be answered before either of the questions of morality or the nature of the desires themselves can be answered.

If we determine homosexual behavior is normal, for example, it does not really much matter where the desires come from; but, if we determine homosexual behavior is abnormal and self-destructive, discovering the cause of the desires that lead some to those practices might help those who choose to overcome them, like the anorexic.

The morality question also cannot be answered without first determining the normality of homosexuality. If it is perfectly normal, it certainly cannot be immoral. Even if it is abnormal, its practice would not necessarily be immoral. Its practice could only be immoral if an individual knew the practice was abnormal and self-destructive, and chose to act contrary to their own nature. Even in that case, the immorality would be strictly, "individual," and its only victims the one acting immorally and those who cared for him.

I saw only one post on this thread that even seemed to be aware of this question of normality, or, in Objectivist terms, identity.

Regi

Post 26

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 8:16pm

Regi,

Ugh. This is just sad.

"By normal I mean appropriate to the nature of the organism in question, in this case, appropriate [to] the nature of human beings."

'Appropriate' is a term of judgment. Saying something is appropriate just says it's good, and saying it's inappropriate just says it's bad. You're talking about morality. You're just equating "normal" with "moral" here.

This is just a way of bypassing any thought on it's actual moral status. Instead, you want to say that because it's not common, it must be bad. That you've switched back to this definition of 'normal' is obvious here: "If it is perfectly normal, it certainly cannot be immoral."

That would be obvious if you used the word "moral". So obvious, it's ridiculous to state out loud. And the use of the phrase "perfectly normal" is a huge indicator that you're actually talking about "common", but with moral approval. "Masturbation is okay. It's perfectly normal to have those urges". Certainly it's not "perfectly moral" to have urges, since there's no choice involved.

Also, you say: "aware of this question of normality, or, in Objectivist terms, identity." Not so fast. None of your uses of "normal" have anything to do with the Objectivist term 'identity'. Appropriateness has nothing to do with identity, which says what is. You can argue that there is an is-ought connection, but that they are the same. More likely, you're using normal in the "common" sense, trying to elevate it to a higher status. I'm not buying it.

Arguments from "normalcy" are just arguments against "being different". You're equating morality with what is common. You've dropped life as the standard, and elevated conformity.

Post 27

Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:15am

Joe,

Ugh. This is just sad.

I'm sorry it made you sad.

You quoted me, By normal I mean appropriate to the nature of the organism in question, in this case, appropriate to the nature of human beings. then said: 'Appropriate' is a term of judgment.

Technically, it is only an adjective, but, I suppose it is a judgement to say something is appropriate, if it is, just as saying something is red, is judgement.

Saying something is appropriate just says it's good, and saying it's inappropriate just says it's bad.

That is incorrect.

According to The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language appropriate is an adjective meaning, "suitable for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place; fitting; set apart for a specific use."

You're talking about morality. You're just equating "normal" with "moral" here.

I specifically said, normality has to be determined before the question of morality even comes up. Normality is a completely different concept from morality. For example, it is abnormal for a fish to be out of water, not immoral, and it is abnormal for a bird (except for certain aquatic birds) to be under water, but not immoral. Normality is determined by the nature of the organism, morality pertains to choice.

Normal also does not mean "natural," as many seem to imply. Nature produces an endless supply of abnormalities, such as this three-headed frog.

In the philosophical sense, normal means fitting the requirements of an organism's nature. Every organ has a specific function or set of functions determine by their nature. Human beings must discover what those functions are, in most cases. To use one's organs in a way contrary to their nature is abnormal. In the process of learning what the appropriate use of one's organs are, simple abnormalities are only inconveniences, such as when children put small objects in their noses or ears.

More serious abnormal uses of one's organs, such as pica, eating things not appropriate to a human stomach, such as dirt, ashes, chalk, hair, soap, toothbrushes, burned matches, are frequently deadly. For example, a French man recently died as a result of his very abnormal behavior; xrays revealed hundreds of coins in the patient's belly.

Also, you say: "aware of this question of normality, or, in Objectivist terms, identity." Not so fast. None of your uses of "normal" have anything to do with the Objectivist term 'identity'. Appropriateness has nothing to do with identity, which says what is.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the Objectivist term, identity.

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." [Ayn Rand, "Galt's Speech," For the New Intellectual, p125]

Now the odd thing is, most Objectivists understand their mind has a specific nature which determines how it must be used, what is appropriate and what is not, a thing most other people do not understand, but Objectivists seem to have forgotten, all aspects of their beings have a specific nature with specific functions and requirements, which determine what is appropriate to them and what is not.

"Man's consciousness is his least known and most abused vital organ. Most people believe that consciousness as such is some sort of indeterminate faculty which has no nature, no specific identity and therefore no requirements, no needs, no rules for being properly or improperly used.... Men abuse, subvert and starve their consciousness in a manner they would not dream of applying to their hair, toenails or stomachs. They know that these things have a specific identity and specific requirements, and, if one whishes to preserve them, one must comb one's hair, trim one's toenails and refrain from swallowing rat poison." [Ayn Rand, "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation," The Objectivist, April 1966, p 1]

Arguments from "normalcy" are just arguments against "being different".

Hardly. Normal means, "true to identity." It is certainly conceivable a single individual might be the only normal person in an entire community. While often used the way you described, philosophically, normality has nothing to do with what is "common" or "customary." As I said, "by normal I do not mean what is common or usual."

In all of this, I have never said whether homosexual practices are normal or abnormal. I will be glad to address that as a separate question if you like, once we agree on what we mean by normal.

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 3/24, 10:29am)

Post 28

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:16am

Regi,

Your definition of appropriate just confirms what I said. Suitable means the same thing. It means it should be some way. And should is normative. You're still talking about ethics, even if you say that normality has to be determined first.

And the equation of 'normal' with 'identity' is completely wrong. One cannot act against one's identity. Not in any literal sense. My nature as a human being makes it impossible for me to spread my wings and fly. It wouldn't be "abnormal" to do it. It'd be impossible. That's the Objectivist meaning of identity. You can't go against your identity. Normal, on the other hand, just means what's common. And I maintain that this is all a rationalization on your part to elevate the common to be the good.

The rest of your talk about normal vs. non-normal indicates you're using the standard of life as your measure. But again, that's simply morality. The only possible purpose for trying to equate the terms is so that you can equivocate on the meaning of normal later. I assume that'll be when you condemn homosexuality as being not normal (not common), and thus not normal (immoral). Your choice of words serves to confuse the issue, not to clarify it. I reject it entirely. You don't need to bother continuing if your entire effort at this point only serves to open the door to a later (obvious) equivocation.

Post 29

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 7:17am

Joe,

One cannot act against one's identity. Not in any literal sense. My nature as a human being makes it impossible for me to spread my wings and fly. It wouldn't be "abnormal" to do it. It'd be impossible. That's the Objectivist meaning of identity.

I mean Objectivism as Rand meant it. She does not believe it is impossible to "act against one's identity," or to use one's organs in a way contrary to their identity. She said, speaking of "hair, toenails or stomachs," for example: "these things have a specific identity and specific requirements, and, if one whishes to preserve them, one must comb one's hair, trim one's toenails and refrain from swallowing rat poison.

It is certainly possible for one to swallow rat poison which would certainly be against the requirements of one's stomach determined by its identity. If one could never act contrary to the requirements of their nature determined by their identity, no one would ever act in ways which are harmful to themselves. In fact, we know many people do act in ways which are both harmful to themselves and contrary to the requirements of their nature all the time, both psychologically and physiologically.

FYI

According to The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, the second meaning of normal (which pertains to exactly what we are talking about) is: "2. Biology- functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies."

Regi

Post 30

Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:43pm

Regi,

You quoted Rand as saying "specific identity and specific requirements". I agree one can act against one's requirements, as the example you gave. This is obvious. That's different from acting against your identity, which is impossible. The two are different concepts, and combining them into a package deal is not fruitful.

The definition you give means little, because again it hinges on what "natural way" means. I say it means a "common" way. If you want to dwell on the very last part, i.e. deficiencies, then just say so. But to judge a deficiency, you have to evaluate it not on whether it's the usual or the most common, but whether it promotes or hinders your life. Life is the standard. You can use the term "proper" if you want, or "good", or in the case of actions and values, "moral". But "normal" is just a way of conflating the moral with the common.

Give it up.

Post 31

Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 3:22am

I've got a good one for ya. I'm not familiar with the writing that you refer to in which Rand blames homosexuality on youthful rebellion but I am familiar with what the bible says about it. It plainly states that those that use their bodies in an unnatural way have turned their backs on the true God. In other words, homosexuality according to the Word of God is a choice made by those who have decided that they themselves are the power over their own lives and that which is natural and good no longer governs their lives. This isn't the only form of rebellion against God but it's certainly one of the most profound. Obviously the whole idea of objectivism is based on a complete rebellion against what God would have us follow. Instead of giving it seems to revolve around taking. Total opposite of what God would have us do.

Post 32

Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 3:28am

I absolutely agree that most of what you are discussing concerning normality is based mostly on morality.
But what is life and how abundant can it really be when you eliminate morality and only focus on individuality? Could one really and trully believe that their only purpose in creation is to fulfill their own desires oblivious to all the others around them. Sounds childlike in it's simplicity, "Mine".

Post 33

Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 3:42am

Maybe this 'great intellect and creator' wasn't as wrong as you think.

Post 34

Thursday, November 25, 2004 - 4:03pm

Hmm, all right. I'll bite.

Obviously the whole idea of objectivism is based on a complete rebellion against what God would have us follow.

Hardly. Objectivism is based on doing what is right, completely without regard for any god's whims. If we were to consistently do the opposite of everything some god tells us to, then we would be being ruled by that god as surely as if we unquestioningly followed its every edict. So, no, we pay no heed whatsoever to what your god would have us follow�sometimes by coincidence our morality coincides, and other times it doesn't.

To paraphrase: What do we think of gods? We don't.

Instead of giving it seems to revolve around taking.

Nope. Try neither giving nor taking, but making.

Could one really and trully believe that their only purpose in creation is to fulfill their own desires oblivious to all the others around them. Sounds childlike in it's simplicity, "Mine".

Could one really and truly believe that his only purpose in creation is to exist as a tool for some god (or some dictator or some ideology or some community or some ecological feature or...), oblivious to the tortured suffering of his own soul beneath the weight of his master's will?

And being �oblivious� to others is not the same thing as injuring others or using them as tools in pursuit of a goal.

Post 35

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 9:44am

Ok,
"Objectivism is based on what's right, completely without regards for any God's whims." Wow. So now all it takes is to say that I like something and that makes it right? In order to even state something is right makes it imperative that this idea be based on something other than one's own desires. I may have the desire to cut myself to see how it feels but I would be unwilling to accept this desire as being right. I believe if you were to study history you'll find that religion, even when incorrect or false, has been the basis for the determining of right or wrong in every major civilization. That should be a pretty good indicator that it means something. Many negative effects have been created by religion I agree but that doesn't eliminate the need in order to maintain. It's only in modern times that we see people or cultures when given the freedom to do so eliminating God from their lives and the immorality that follows.
I am not really familiar with the writings of Ayn, only came here to find out who she was in relation to the destruction of morals in this country and Europe. I will say this though, there seems to be something to what she wrote that attracts homosexuals. If homosexuality is anything other than a rebellion against what is right and sure I challenge anyone of this 'choice to be gay' to explain how this is not completely and utterly contradictory to the nature of the human species. If it were natural to be be 'gay' of what assurance would we have of a future. I would never deny that man inherently has desires contrary to his nature but that doesn't change the fact that this is degenerative behavior not progressive as some like to think. To go against ones nature is to be forced to change ones whole nature in order to survive. If something is made as good as it gets to think you can make it better is simply foolish pride or maybe just deceiving oneself. I personally have never met a gay person who was not rife with phobias and psychosis. Most almost seem delusional in their views on truth. Stands to reason that when you decide to lie to yourself the truth no longer is accepted or even considered.

Post 36

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 12:39pm

I am not really familiar with the writings of Ayn, only came here to find out who she was in relation to the destruction of morals in this country and Europe. I will say this though, there seems to be something to what she wrote that attracts homosexuals.

You got it Michael. We are another bunch of immoral people, part of the destruction of decency and upright moral values. We are also a bunch of fags that get off on the fact that Mrs. Rand described homosexuals as 'disgusting'. So now that you have the low down on this particular segment of the morally debased, feel free to move on to another website.

Now remember Mike, you love all of us morally depraved atheist, you just hate what we do. Don't forget Mickey, "Judge not, least ye be judged."

It was a pleasure speaking to you, remember me in your prayers.

George

Post 37

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 3:14pm

Wow. So now all it takes is to say that I like something and that makes it right?

Yup, sounds pretty stupid�though no different in principle from the claim that all that is necessary to make something right is for some god or community or government to say that they like it. Fortunately, that's not what I said.

If you want to understand Objectivism at all, what you need to understand is that every thing which exists has a specific nature, which determines the manner in which it interacts with the rest of the universe. For living things, their nature includes the fact that certain things preserve their life, and certain things are destructive to it. No matter your wishes, your government's whims, or your god's decrees, food will always help you live, and poison will always kill you. This is the basis of an objective morality rooted in the nature of man�that which is condusive to human life is the good, and that which is destructive of it is the evil.

I would never deny that man inherently has desires contrary to his nature

See, it's that �inherently� thing that'll get you into trouble philosophically. Desires (and emotions) aren't magical things that get put into your head by demons or genetics. And once you accept that they are, and you set yourself up to �resist� them, then you have begun the road to a life of fear and mistrust of your own �uncontrollable� mind. And there is no surer path to suffering and unhappiness than a lack of trust in your own consciousness.

As far as homosexuality goes, I'm not going to address the issue directly, since I have no idea myself whether it makes sense from the perspective of the nature of human sexuality. But what I will say is that homosexuality, for whatever reason, exists. Despite how difficult most of the cultures of history have made it for homosexuals, they have kept on doing what they do—and by most accounts that I've seen, lovin' it. More, it's not just humans who seem to be guilty here. Another article posted a while back on this site talks about the occurence of homosexuality in animals. There seems to be something going on with homosexuality, and something more than just a bunch of immoral humans indulging in an “inherent” “degenerative” desire.

Oh, and given this gem:

If something is made as good as it gets to think you can make it better is simply foolish pride or maybe just deceiving oneself.

Should we assume that you also oppose shopping in supermarkets, since man was “made” as a hunter-gatherer?

Post 38

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:00pm

We continually seek some meaning to our simple and short lived lives all the time changing and fighting within ourselves to understand the truth. I think that every person on the planet if given time to stop and think about it realizes that Love is the ultimate goal that we could ever hope to attain. I can think of nothing that makes each of us feel more secure and accepted than this. If each of us were to offer what we have to help others and they were to do the same what more could we possibly hope to accomplish. There would have to be some sort of collectivism for this to even be started much less completed. The individual is nothing more than what he can offer to help others. When we fight this need we must replace it with something else and at this moment we begin to be unwell. The teachings that each of us is seperate and it's OK to only desire to please oneself is totally destructive and makes way for anyone with a new way to do it a guru of sorts with plenty of lost souls eager and willing to follow. If there were no laws to govern our behavior almost every single one of us would steal and kill in order to obtain what we desire.
Fortunately for us that live in this country our forefathers were a mostly Christian bunch that based most of our laws on the things that they had learned from the Bible. Seems funny that these brilliant men would accept some silly information from a book that only a weak moron would accept as fact. The problems that we all face right now at this present place in time are the results of the collapse of true spirituality and the destruction of the family unit. At one point the individual that seeks the truth and meaning behind this life has to realize that it's not a mistake and there is a reason for it. To deny this is to deny purpose and to constantly be at odds with the nature of life itself. Once one is capable of accepting that there is a meaning it doesn't take long to find the truth. The hardest part is that once we find this truth it's a lot more difficult to live it than to simply 'do what thou wilt' and shirk the responsibity of trying to do what's right. If given the opportunity everything in nature will do what's easiest rather what's best. Sexuality was not a mistake that just happened. Everyone must realize each form of life on this planet was given specific genetic instructions concerning the process. Obviously men and women were given the tools necessary for reproduction and the simple desire to use them in an unnatural way doesn't change the fact that they were designed for a SPECIFIC purpose. You could screw a chicken but that wouldn't be using your reproductive organ the way it was designed to be used.
I never used the word fag, or intentionally said anything to indicate that gays are anything other than confused. I do believe that when the community as a whole begins to accept abberant behavior as the norm then only problems can result. Some say that gays are born this way. I disagree. I believe that's it's choice. But then some frogs are born with three heads. This doesn't change the nature of all frogs or indicate that the three headed frog is Not a mistake simply because it exists. It simply makes the one an oddity But if homosexuality is a choice instead of genetic inheritance they are not oddities but rather choosers of behavior contrary to that which is natural. Nothing new when people choose to do things against the nature of their humanity. Never forget though, the ability to choose that which is against our nature and choosing it instead of following the corse of our nature can never be a benefit and only bring about confusion and headaches and possibly even the destruction of our culture as we know it. Without true spirituality, family and culture what's left but caos.
I now leave you fellows and gals in peace. Didn't come here to hurt feelings, just read the thread and thought I'd add a little bit of reality instead of fantasy. Take care and don't forget that even though it's unpopular in teaching or practice in our current social environment, Love is the answer and without it we are nothing other than lost animals.

Post 39

Saturday, November 27, 2004 - 5:06pm