Ayn Rand and homosexuality

As someone who has been studying Objectivism for about a year now, I was quite disturbed when I read what Ayn rand thought about homosexuality. I was also quite disturbed when I got to the part of "A Virtue of Selfishness" (I forget which chapter) where she stated something to the effect of a child turning to homosexuality because of rebellion of some sort.
Being gay myself, I know that the above is total B/S. I never made a decision to be part of the most hated minority in America.
I was quite surprised to see Rand emulate something the religious right says today.
I like Objecvtivism so far.
But Rand was wrong about this.
This brings up a troubling question in my mind. If she was wrong about this, what else was she wrong about?

Post 1

Saturday, June 14, 2003 - 11:11am

Examine her writings and decide for yourself, primemover. Just don't let her mistakes detract from the things she got right. All I'm going to say is that, given that Rand was born around 1910, her prejudice against homosexuals and homosexuality was both common, acceptable, and expected in her time. It wasn't until after the 1950s that physicians stopped referring to homosexuality as a "sickness". At the time, she didn't know that people don't choose to be gay or bisexual (though some may choose to experiment, which I consider both natural and life-affirming).

Post 2

Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 3:00am

Hi Primemover...

Matthew is right, of course, that Rand was, in many ways, as much a ~child~ of her time, as she was "ahead" of her time. In fact, she was born even earlier than 1910: 1905. But even if she were born in the 1960s, it would not eliminate the need for us to read her---or anybody else---critically.

Part of the purpose of my series on "Objectivism and Homosexuality" is to separate the wheat from the chaff on this question. You can access all the parts of that series (and related discussions) at:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/homosexuality.htm

I should note that the series is being revised and expanded as a separate monograph, to be published by SOLO. I will post information when it is available.

Cheers,
Chris

Post 3

Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 3:45pm

Prime Mover, when u study objectivism, seperate her views of psychology from her philosophy. Unfortunately many philosophers have an armchair psychologist streak and Rand was no different. Some of her views concerning human psychology were right (second hander) and some were not (homosexuality).

Post 4

Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 7:52am

The Rand/homosexuality issue has always been a touchy subject, among other issues, such as questions regarding women, art, and so on. Don't let that scare you off from her fundamental work. She's an amazing genius, but she's still human and as all mentioned here already, sometimes a product of her era.

Post 5

Friday, June 20, 2003 - 7:39am

I just had an insight this moment and I would like to toss it out. I think there is a fundamental flaw in looking for an answer to the nature of homosexuality through philosophy�or even to psychiatry for that matter. Steven Pinker�s book the Blank Slate addresses many issues of human nature, including homosexuality, though he doesn�t give answers to the specific nature of it he does show how the theories lack enough objective evidence to be the basis for any sort of political policy. We know that it exists, and that it has throughout time, but we don�t know what causes it or the nature of sexual tastes. Indeed I think for sexual taste issues we should watch how the scientific discoveries unfold and simply enjoy enlightening our minds to the wonder of humanity.

The issue reminds me a little of the wonder of art, some people want to love pieces or hate them without understanding a lick about art; as if knowing more might destroy their emotional reaction. Obviously, I hold a different view in that the more you know intensifies the experience.

Michael

Post 6

Friday, June 20, 2003 - 7:43am

Qualifier: philosophy, politics, and law should make judgements on such things a consent, underage, rape, etc. I don�t those things a simply a matter of taste. Ha, ha.

Post 7

Friday, June 20, 2003 - 2:42pm

Oh, I missed up the above!!! Damn. It should read: I don't THINK those things ARE simply a matter of taste.

Post 8

Monday, June 23, 2003 - 5:12am

Ayn Rand did consider homosexuality to be immoral, but I think this was her mistake to intertwine her philosophical beiefs with psychological beliefs. This is her personal view, like every other person in the world has. Homosexuality can be a moral issue only to the extent that it is a matter of choice. Scientific evidence shows that, in many cases, people don't choose their sexual orientations�it is in their natures to prefer sexual relations with members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. On the other hand, people can choose whether to act in accordance with their natures, and since sex is essential to man's life and happiness, this is a moral issue. It is morally right for people to act in accordance with their natures, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or anything in-between

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.

A person who by nature, rather than by choice, is more attracted to members of the same sex than the opposite sex still has the choice to recognize and act in accordance with this fact or to repress or act against it. If a person wishes to achieve happiness and promote his life, then he must, in a realm as morally important as sex, act in accordance with his nature. For example, it is morally right for a woman whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a woman she loves and desires. In contrast, it is morally wrong for a man whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a man rather than seeking out a woman. So there are contexts in which homosexual behavior is immoral (just as there are contexts in which heterosexual behavior is immoral), but there is nothing immoral about homosexuality per se.

Post 9

Monday, June 23, 2003 - 6:47am

Nate--very well said.

Michael

Post 10

Monday, June 23, 2003 - 6:15pm

Yea you guys are right. And thanks for the intelligent and though provoking responses.
I'm just so use to Rand being so right about everything and the one thing that she was wrong about kind hit home of coarse.
I'm over it now.
:)

Post 11

Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 2:24am

I'm just tossing this out there...But what if Rand knew that Objectivism would be a sort of...perfect ideology for many homosexuals? I myself am not one, but I can see how many gays may feel that Objectivism is the only true all-inclusive philosophy, one that will accept anyone so long as they maintain the moral and philosophical views of it, no matter what unchangeable, born-with-it features that person may possess. I mean, I'm no census-taker, but I've noticed a significant number of openly gay men and women in the few Objectivist rings I've traveled.
I just can't see a calculating, insightful woman like Rand being so ~wrong~ on the issue of homosexuality. I mean...she ~had~ to see that consensual sex btwn two adults was a reasonable, moral act, no matter the combination of genders. I say this with a bit of candor and a lot of humor, but what if she just didn't want her philosophy to be known as "The Gay Philosophy"? It wouldn't gain quite as much momentum, then. At the time, gays were a reviled segment of the population (not that I think it's changed much since her death) and subjected to derision in ~any~ arena, political, philosophical, educational. So if a whole bunch of gay dudes and chicks popped up and said, "we really dig Objectivism cuz it doesn't reject us", the mainstream would naturally shy away, or at least not flock to it. So maybe Rand intentionally rejects homosexuality as immoral to prevent her philosophy from being scandalized (In the One Life To Live, soapy kinda way) and generalized as the philosophy tailored for gay folk (or outcasts in general). I know it's a big, floppy softball, and I really want one of you guys to knock it out of the park, just so I can stop wondering why Rand was so...odd on this particular issue. Anywho, hope to hear some good responses,
J :)

Post 12

Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 2:29am

A little add on....If Rand allowed her philosophy to accept gays (I speak of the times she was formulating Oism) it would be the only one to do so. I can't think of ANY part of society that accepted gays at the time...so if Rand's is the only philosophy that does, it becomes a big, bright neon sign for gays---and for the people that revile them.
Thanks,
J

Post 13

Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 5:03am

That's an interesting series of comments, Jeremy. Let me speculate why I think Rand was not so calculating in this regard.

First, Rand never seemed to have been the kind of person to put her finger up to judge which way the wind was blowing. This is a woman who didn't spend time taking popularity polls to judge the possible acceptance (or lack of acceptance) of her ideas. I doubt she would have spent anytime thinking in terms of the popularity of her perspective, if it were open to gays. Given her time, she was already moving against the current in so many significant ways, not the least of which was presenting strong ~women~ characters, who bedded multiple lovers in the course of a novel. For the 1940s and 1950s, this was quite simply: extraordinary.

Second, Rand actually didn't speak publicly on homosexuality until 1972, long after she had achieved major success as a writer---nearly 30 years prior with THE FOUNTAINHEAD and again, in 1957, with ATLAS SHRUGGED. Except for a few off-the-cuff comments here or there in the Objectivist literature (all negative), Rand never wrote on the subject formally. I suspect it just didn't register as all that important in the wider scheme of things (like fighting the moral traditions of 2000 years, as she put it).

As for an insightful person being wrong... believe it or not... it's possible. Insightful, after all, doesn't mean omniscient, and I'm not sure it's all that fair to her---or anyone---to expect them to be ~right~ about everything. All the more reason to think of Objectivism as a philosophy with certain core elements---and an open-endedness on applications and implications.

Not sure if I answered your questions here... but you do raise some interesting issues.

Post 14

Saturday, June 28, 2003 - 11:02am

Well, yep. You answered my questions, Mr. Sciabarra. lol...I hadn't really considered the breaking-the-mold attitude she took towards female charecters. I think you are correct.
It's just that her reaction to homosexuality seemed so...knee-jerk. A simple, unpersuasive agrument against something she didn't really understand. That just doesn't seem like Rand.
But I'll certainly bow to your greater knowledge of the woman, considering I'm not the one who's written a book or three about her!
Thanks,
J

Post 15

Sunday, June 29, 2003 - 7:56am

:)

Truth is, though, Jeremy, I never met the woman, never knew her personally, and I think that speculation on Rand's attitudes about sex are as much about her psychology and sense of life (neither of which we have intimate knowledge of) as they are about her philosophy. But, of course, I agree with you: I don't think Rand really understood homosexuality, and it would have been much better if she'd not painted in such broad strokes on the subject.

Cheers,
Chris

---
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog.htm
---

Post 16

Monday, November 17, 2003 - 9:46pm

Hello from an occasional visitor to Solo. The thing that disturbs me about the whole homosexual issue is the - its only moral if you didn't choose it - take. I would like to leave you with a couple of quotes from Paul Rosenfels ( a gay psychologist famous in the 60s and 70s in New York City).Although I don't always agree with him and find some of his theories very subjective still he makes some very thought provoking observations.
"...Since the espousal of homosexuality is not seen by them as a genuine choice, it takes on the character of an affliction to which they must adapt. TO BE PROUD OF BEING GAY UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.[ emphasis mine ] The homosexual world which is visible to conventional individuals is nothing but the tip of the iceberg. There is a kind of working agreement between the visible part and society. The one asks for tolerance, the other offers condescending interest and some measure of acceptance, provided that homosexuality itself need not be taken seriously."
and later- " A genuine homosexual does not confess that homosexuality has come to him without choice, like an attack of smallpox, being somehow a compromised state which he has learned to accept in himself and asks society to tolerate. Instead he affirms that homosexuality is inherent in the process of civilization itself, and has existed since the dawn of civilization and will remain as long as it lasts. He also affirms that the prohibition against homosexuality is damaging to the human growth process, setting up impenetrable barriers against the search for truth and right. And he also affirms that a fully developed and healthy personality can turn toward heterosexuality if it is in the individuals [ self ] interest....."
I hope this isn't too long but I found it very positive in my own search for affirmation.

Post 17

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 - 4:57pm

The problem here,and in our modern day of age, is the lack of knowledge when it comes to the LAW OF IDENTITY.The idea of sex is not only philosophical,psychological, it is at the root BIOLOGICAL. What is male and female biologically?There are the primary sexual organs and the secondary sexual organs.Ideally there is a very precise distinction between man and woman, we arent talking about physical retardations, but what a man really is and what a woman really is as an ideal in biology. Skipping past a couple of biological steps to what makes a living organism because i have to cook my chicken,one of them is how they reproduce, asexually or heterosexually? We must reproduce BECAUSE we are living organisms, to NOT reproduce is denying your own nature( something i always didnt like very much about Rand because she said having a child was a burden, that and her contradictions in Romanticism).Man and Woman CAN NOT reproduce as homosexuals. For man to be attracted to man sexual being qua sexual being, IS a irrational. It is an escapre from ones own mind and reality. I still have not seen any scientific evidence that homosexuals are homosexuals by genetics, i hear of it all the time, but i have never seen any actual proof/evidence.

Post 18

Monday, February 9, 2004 - 10:07am

Nate writes "Scientific evidence shows that, in many cases, people don't choose their sexual orientations�it is in their natures to prefer sexual relations with members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both."

My question is: where is this evidence? Dr. Peikoff has commented that he disagrees with such "scientific" claims on philosophic grounds. He argues that to believe that some set of biological factors can cause a psychological choice such as homosexuality smacks of determinism, that a person's sexual and therefore value preferences can be determined genetically. At my current level of kowledge I have to agree with him.

The genetic argument seems wanting. It also seems to minimize the decision to be a homosexual. "I'm gay because its in my genes." If I were gay, this would be insulting.

Post 19

Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 12:09am