| | Wayne, to my knowledge, neither Sciabarra nor Perigo has criticized ARI exclusively or TOC exclusively on the question of homosexuality. My own SOLO HQ monograph (for which Linz wrote the Preface) does not single out either organization. I can say that of the 100 or so interviews I conducted (90% of the interview subjects asking for anonymity) for that monograph, there were probably an equal number of ARI and TOC members represented.
In the second chapter of the monograph, I do survey the various pronouncements, tapes, and other statements about homosexuality made by members of both ARI and TOC; all are now agreed, it would seem, that homosexuality is not a moral issue. That was not always the case, btw---since Rand herself thought homosexuality was "immoral" and "disgusting" and Nathaniel Branden, who has come a long way on this issue, suggested similar views in various Rand-approved essays.
But even though all are seemingly agreed now that homosexuality is not a moral issue, the facts remain: Peikoff is still peddling the view that homosexuality is "abnormal" because it "presupposes a problem or error of a major kind." Edith Packer, when she was associated with ARI, had the same view. This is not some organization-dictated view; it's not a statement of purpose or policy, but it does seem to be the view among a number of vocal ARI-associated individuals.
TOC, by contrast, published a much more "tolerant" FAQ by Damian Moskovitz on this question (see here). That was the extent of TOC's statements on the subject, but it shouldn't be ignored since, to my knowledge, ARI-affiliated periodicals have never published a single essay on homosexuality (virtually all of the post-Randian statements by ARI-affiliated individuals have come in lectures or radio broadcasts).
Now, aside from a "single-issue" organization like the Rattigan Society, it is only The Free Radical and SOLO, through the guidance and insistence of their founder Lindsay Perigo, which placed this issue at center stage because, at the time of their creation, the issue had been relegated to the sidelines or into utter oblivion, as if it were some deep, dark, embarrassing, closeted secret (given the now documented previous intolerance toward gays and lesbians in Randian circles). SOLO aimed to fill a gap in the intellectual marketplace----and it did so, resoundingly, not only through my own work in this area, but in essays that Lindsay encouraged from other contributors (including, for example, David C. Adams, Nick Wiltgen, etc.). And since my last statement on this subject on September 18, 2004, "It's Time To Move On," I think SOLO has moved on as well. There have been other discussions of gay sexuality here, but I don't think it is the issue it once was even on this site.
As Lindsay says in the Preface to Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation: "Mission Accomplished."
Let's move on, indeed.
|
|
