Any Rand's own words are so very appropriate for todays "out of control progressives" : She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]).
The "disgusting" word is the one that is particularly ignored by today's gay advocacy.
That was an unfortunate statement by Rand, who was, herself, vulnerable to criticism on sexual matters. Some might say her relationship with Nathaniel Branden was immoral and disgusting. What do you think?
bis bald,
Nick
According to Damian Moskovitz, in the FAQ section of the TOC:
Current psychobiological research indicates that Rand's conception of sex roles is, in part, mistaken. Biological factors such as genetics and prenatal development play substantial roles in determining sexual orientation. While the developmental mechanisms are not yet fully understood, it is known that many, if not most, homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex by no choice of their own. Moreover, to the extent that homosexuality is not a product of choice, it is not a moral issue. As Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged (New York: Penguin, 1957), "a sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality."
I may disagree with this guy on some things, like what he and Peikoff say about agnosticism, but I agree with him here.
Bis bald,
"That was an unfortunate statement by Rand, who was, herself, vulnerable to criticism on sexual matters. Some might say her relationship with Nathaniel Branden was immoral and disgusting. What do you think?"
It may have been, so what? That would not change her valid and accurate view of homosexuality. In fact, her objectivism philosophy has its roots in the immorality of homosexuals. "It is what it is", no matter how the air head progressives want to "mainstream" this behavior.
Hmm. I wonder if the Atlas Society Graduate Scholarship Committee would think you are the kind of person who is more familiar with the broader aspects of Objectivist philosophy than I am.
How do you know her view is valid and accurate? Can you support your and her claim? How do you define "validity"? Is Moskovitz's quote a valid point? Can both he and you and Rand all be equally right?
humptydumpty.....
Your quote:
'In fact, her objectivism philosophy has its roots in the immorality of homosexuals'.
Can you elaborate? I dont want a tirade against homosexuals just an explanation of what this means and how you determined this is 'fact'
Yes, yes, humptydumpty. We all know that whatever is, is. However, how does this answer any of my questions? How do you know her view is valid and accurate? Can you support your and her claim? How do you define "validity"? Is Moskovitz's quote a valid point? Can both he and you and Rand all be equally right?
I would suggest you either stop evading my questions or quit pretending to know what you are talking about.
Rand offered her opinion but no argument or evidence. The other author, Moskovitz, offered an argument based on "current psychobiological research" which contradicted Rand. It was a valid argument leading to a conclusion that also contradicted Rand, using Rand's own words: "... that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality."
You said her claim was valid, but validity is the property of an argument form, not merely a claim. To show that a claim is accurate, one must support it with argument and evidence, as Moskovitz supported his claim.
Things are not true or false, valid or accurate, (and those two are not the same), just because a certain person said them. Rand was not a Goddess. She did say a few things, like all humans do, that are not wise. She contradicted herself several times. She advocated equal rights for all humans, but she also said she would not vote for a woman for President because a woman's nature is to surrender herself to a man.
Perhaps the ARI supports everything that came out of Rand's mouth, like "ditto heads". They don't think for themselves. That's not what TAS is about. That's not what David Kelley is about.
I have nothing against gay people if they respect my rights. That's the way it should be. It was in Nazi Germany that gay people and Jews were exterminated. I don't support that at all. And, I don't support discrimination against gay people. They should have the same rights as I.
humptydumpty wrote:very simply, "what is, is". rand's foundation axioms support her speach in 1971. so, i would suggest either support objectivist philosophy as supported by its founder, Rand, or quit pretending to be a supporter of TAS.
I am not 'pretending' to be anything.
i haven't met very many gay people in my life, but every gay person i have met seemed pretty unstable and drawn to drama. this isn't a basis for any kind of conclusion though. i have met quite a few straight people with the same tendencies. but even if physical attraction to the same sex is genetic and uncontrollable, i think it would cause some very serious problems mentally for someone. the obvious is that the human species can't procreate with the same sex. ayn rand made statements about sex not being simply about procreating though, that it was a selfish act of pleasure (i really should have a quote to back that statement up, but i think all of the intimate love scenes in her book reflect this view). so, if it's more pleasurable for a girl to have sex with a girl, or a man to have sex with a man, and we can conclude that the desire is genetic and uncontrollable, wouldn't it be a sin, according to objectivism, for that male or female to "pretend" they are straight?
me personally, i don't believe it's genetic. i feel gay people are victims of taking the mind/body or soul/body dichotomy too far. spending so much effort to have the mind refuse the body's desire, the pleasure starts coming from succeeding in denying the body. these little philisophical tidbits are like a virus to a computer. they go in and change one line of programming and before you know it, down is up and up is down.
i don't want anyone to get the impression i don't like gay people. i believe people have the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights to do what they want. i'm very interested in trying to discover how people justify decisions, especially ones that seem to be destructive. why would someone chose to be self-defeating? i smoke cigarettes and this is terrible for my health and i really don't get much out of it, but i still do it. i want to understand why, and i think the reason is based in philosophy. let's hear some more on this "main-stream" topic. would be nice to hear a post from a gay person on this.
NickOtani wrote: Things are not true or false, valid or accurate, (and those two are not the same), just because a certain person said them. Rand was not a Goddess. She did say a few things, like all humans do, that are not wise. She contradicted herself several times. She advocated equal rights for all humans, but she also said she would not vote for a woman for President because a woman's nature is to surrender herself to a man.
Humptydumpty replies: the basis for one's philosophy is inherently human. if you are searching for perfection, then you need to believe in GOD. If you believe in GOD, you will find the answers you are searching. Rand got the HOMO lifestyle and the purposeful behavior for a woman and a man correct from a biblical perspective. Take it or leave it.
JOSH wrote: i'm very interested in trying to discover how people justify decisions, especially ones that seem to be destructive. why would someone chose to be self-defeating?
Humptydumpty replies: you are very wise and are searching for TRUTH. good for you.
Josh, not all human beings feel the need to procreate whether they are gay or straight – Ayn Rand had no children.
I have gay and straight friends, all are generally happy and balanced individuals, and they come across difficulties in life, as most of us do, they then do what they can to get over these difficulties and grow as a result. I know some people who are unbalanced and drawn to drama; I choose not to associate with them.
I am gay and in a long term relationship, and my partner majored in philosophy, then studied law and now practices as a lawyer and I am in human resources in a very fulfilling role….no room for drama in either profession I believe.
We try and run our personal lives as productively as we do our work lives and we have been together and faithful for 6 years. We are both strong individuals and are respected by our friends and colleagues alike, in turn we also respect them. That is how our friendships survive.
My point being, I am not unstable neither attracted to drama and do not consider myself to be unbalanced. I do not believe being gay has anything to do with the soul body dichotomy. I am not so much interested in why I am gay, I just am, and happy.