Talk:Objectivism and homosexuality

Reversions
I can understand (don't necessarily agree) if someone wants to restore some of the material I cut in earlier edits, but I'm not clear on the objection to moving a statement made after Rand's death to the section titled, "After Rand's death". And pointing a wikilink for the article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) directly to that article instead of to a redirect seems to be the sort of thing that is entirely non-controversial. But for some reason it is being reverted. Some explanation would be appreciated. unsigned by User:RL0919


 * RL, I tried to separate the deletions from the other changes—I kept the improvements to the citations, for example—but I missed that move. I'm going to look for it now and put it back. Phil Spectre (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't re-done any of the deletions I made previously, so I'm not sure I follow this explanation. --RL0919 (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I was trying to undo only your reversion, not the other changes. I succeeded in preserving your improved citations but missed the move of the Branden paragraph.  You're completely right that it doesn't deserve its own section and instead belongs in the "After Rand's death" section, so I moved it. Phil Spectre (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I figured it out. I saw that the Branden paragraph had gone away and misread your comment, thinking you'd combined a few positive changes with a wholesale reversion.  Pardon the confusion. Phil Spectre (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Which "statement"?
In the first section of this article (Ayn Rand), there are around a dozen statements made by Rand regarding the morality, the aesthetics, and the role of the government regarding homosexuality.

And then the second section (After Rand's death) begins with this sentence:


 * After Rand's death in 1982, her heir, Leonard Peikoff, went on record disagreeing with Rand's statement.

That's ambiguous about twelve times over! Which of the dozen statements in the first section did Peikoff "go on record" disagreeing with? Did he disagree with some of them and agree with others? If he disagreed with all of them, that would mean he thought that the government should make homosexual activities illegal, but should prevent corporations from discriminating against gay people. I find this very unlikely.

I'd like to see something much more specific. For example, Ayn Rand is quoted as saying that she found homosexuality disgusting. If this is the statement that Peikoff disagreed with, does that mean that Peikoff publicly stated that Ayn Rand did not really find homosexuality disgusting? Or, if he disagreed with her view that gay people have no "right to be protected from discrimination in the private sector", did he specify any limitations on what the government may do to prevent such discrimination? &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 05:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I followed the edit trail and found that this comment was added on 27 December 2006 by an editor who hasn't made any Wikipedia contributions since March 2009. So I have rephrased the sentence to make it into a simple introduction to the paragraph. I have also removed the footnote, since it points to a web site where I can spend $12 to buy a 99-minute audio tape. Perhaps if I spent this money and played the tape, I might be able to learn exactly which "statement" of Rand's was disputed by Peikoff. But I just don't feel like doing that. (And btw, I don't think that this is a valid Wikipedia reference anyway.) &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying what sources support
There is currently a statement in the article about Ayn Rand's political views that says the following: "She endorsed rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government (such as apartheid), but rejected the right to be protected from discrimination in the private sector (such as employment discrimination)." There are three sources now attached to this sentence. The first one does not mention gay rights or homosexuality at all. The second one rejects "the notion that homosexuals should be prohibited from experiencing the joy of sex", but doesn't say anything about other types of discrimination, public or private. The third one is a 1998 essay on the subject by an Objectivist, so it may be relevant for the "After Rand's death" section, but doesn't attribute anything to Rand herself other than a general quote about the morality of altruism. Basically this sentence has no source. I've been marking these as "failed verification" in the hope that someone would come up with something, but at this point I think it just needs to be rewritten to say something that can be documented. --RL0919 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're as free to rewrite it as I am to put it right back to the way it is. MilesMoney (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Peikoff claims that Rand had homosexual friends whom she considered Objectivists
Leonard Peikoff, Rands chosen intellectual and legal heir, argued in his podcast that there was nothing against homosexuality included in the philosophy Objectivism. He also claimed that Rand had a number of friends which she knew were homosexual and that she "certainly considered some of them objectivists"

Hopefully this information and the source, a link to the actual podcast, will not be removed from the article.

78.69.217.113 (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I am re-inserting the source, this time editing the text more to fit what was actually being said in the source. This text is not in the wrong context or irrelevant to the article.
 * This is a clear improvement on the article. Please do not remove it without giving your reasons on this page.


 * QUOTE
 * "Further, intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff stated that there were people with whom Rand was "close, knowing full well that they were homosexual" and that "she certainly regarded some of them as Objectivists."According to Peikoff himself, he once asked Rand "What does philosophy have to say about sex?" to which he states that she answered "Only one thing: That it's good." http://www.peikoff.com/2009/05/25/is-homosexuality-immoral/
 * END QUOTE


 * 78.69.217.113 (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What was the real abomination; "Spiritual Sisterhood" or "Homosexuality" itself?
I think there are some questions that go unanswered here. Considering statements (please refer to the podcast in question) made by Leonard Peikoff, a - sometimes even described as "rabid" - original objectivist and who was made the intellectual and legal heir by Ayn Rand herself, is it really accurate to suggest that we know what Rands position was on differing sexualities as such?

I think we might need to be a little more carefull not to use too wide a brush when describing her views in the article.

78.69.217.113 (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I also remember once seeing a source for Rand calling "homosexuality" immoral, but I could not find it in the article currently. Can anyone help us refer to it, preferably without saying that "she said" unless we can quote her directly and source the exact quote properly?


 * 78.69.217.113 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is poorly written -- poor organization, poor sourcing, etc. But the general thesis that Rand considered homosexuality immoral is correct and can be sourced. As far as the specific comments about lesbians, I just did a re-write of that paragraph to make it match the sources better. We'll see how that holds up -- I've tried improving this article before, but it usually doesn't last. --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm very gratefull that someone at least tries! Would you mind mentioning, right here on the discussion page, what the original source for Rands exact statement that "homosexuality" as such is "immoral" is?
 * 78.69.217.113 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The most relevant comments were in the Q&A session after her 1971 Ford Hall Forum session, "The Moratorium on Brains". You can read the full quote here. --RL0919 (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Rand did not consider homosexuality immoral. This is so wrong I'm starting another talk section about it. Fairthomas (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The section titled "On sex roles" is totally inadequate in describing Rands views
This entire article is confused, but perhaps more revealingly so in this section...

Rand stated on multiple accounts that a "man-worshipper" could equally well be a man and that it never suggested one persons superiority over oneself. A woman was supposed to be a "hero-worshiper" in specific, because "hero" is the male variant of the word, while heroine is the female variant. She was (stated in particular) not supposed to be commanded, suppressed, viewed or treated as inferior to men; Both intellectually and morally, she should be considered an equal to man and she should be independent.

The sexual attraction itself, for a "woman" qua "woman" (not a "lesbian woman" qua a "lesbian") should stem from the expressed sexual difference between her and the man; from the metaphysical concept of masculinity. This is not a strange homophobic or even "patriarchal" statement, but simply an explanation of heterosexuality and it's role in a heterosexual relationship - and it was done quite separated from the issues of "morality".

- aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man-worship.html - aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/femininity.html

This is not to say that Rand was not still anti-homosexuality, I remain convinced that it was likely her personal opinion. But terminology should not be confused.

78.69.217.113 (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The section isn't obviously relevant to the article based on the current sources, neither of which connect Rand's views on this with her views on homosexuality. If there aren't appropriate sources to make the connection (rather than WP editors drawing the connection in their own minds), then the material should simply be removed. --RL0919 (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideas about gender are OBVIOUSLY relevant to ideas about sexual orientation. How could they not be so?  In fact, Rand's confused definitions of masculinity and femininty are the source of her ambivalence to homosexuality. She failed to recognize that her personal esthetic of man as hero and woman as hero-worshipper had no real objective basis. It's funny that RLO919 makes a snarky comment here about "editors drawing the connection in their own mind" considering that the full quote from The Age of Envy is:
 * "The sex views professed by Women's Lib are so hideous that they cannot be discussed -- at least, not by me. To regard man as an enemy -- to regard women as combination matriarch and stevedore -- to surpass the futile sordidness of a class war by instituting a sex war -- to drag sex into politics and around the floor of smoke-filled back rooms, as a tool of the pressure group, jockeying for power -- to proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians, and to swear eternal hostility to men -- is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the language I do not want to see in print"
 * Clearly Rand is against women having animosity toward men and tosses in a caricature of lesbians who "swear eternal hostility to men" among the hyphened statements for effect. Before and after this paragraph are many paragraphs about "Women's Lib", and no other mention of homosexuality. Fairthomas (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The POV is clearly biased, and the article author is interpreting Rand's ambiguous quotes in a manner that does not adhere to Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. Dm08plyr (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Rand did not consider homosexuality immoral.
The words spoken at Ford Hall contradict EVERY published exposition of Objectivist morality. Very likely, she was merely pandering. This ANOMOLOUS spoken expression was watered down in the same breath by her support of the decriminalization of homosexuality. In fact, her moral theory became an argument for activists, with great effect: Sexual orientation is not a simple matter of choice, and any moral judgement of orientation is invalid. This would evolve into the rallying cry "Baby, I was born this way"

"Moral concepts, including 'right', 'good', and 'perfect,' are norms formulated to guide human choice. Such concepts can only refer to that which is within the power of choice"

"The term 'objective,' let me stress here, does not apply to all values, but only to values chosen by man. The values that govern internal bodily functions...are outside the terminology..."

"Sex is moral, it is an exalted pleasure, it is a profound value. Like happiness, therefore, sex is an end in itself; it is not necessarily a means to any further end, such as procreation."

At worst, Rand views on homosexuality were AMBIVALENT. There are few instances of disapproval, and they cannot be logically supported by her standard of morality. The fact that she fearlessly and copiously wrote about sex and yet left no clear written condemnation of homosexuality speaks loudly on this.

Nick Carter, brother to her husband Frank O'Connor, was a very close friend and was also homosexual: "(quoting his niece, Mimi Sutton) 'Nick, with whom Ayn and Franck spent most of their free time...regarded her with a deep, affectionate esteem.'

"[quoting Mimi Sutton, Nick's niece],'For a while, he lived with a young man, who I suppose was his lover. In those days, it was not something one could talk about; Ayn suspected that he was homosexual, and Frank did too, but it was never discussed. Nick would talk as if he were a ladies’ man, and one sensed the pain he felt at having to pretend."

User:Fairthomas|Fairthomas]] (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A few edits became a major rewrite...still much to correct
>The full context of the quote from "Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice": "Hypocrisy is to be man’s protector against his professed moral convictions. What does that do to his self-esteem?

And what of the victims who are insufficiently hypocritical?

What of the child who withdraws in terror into an autistic universe because he cannot cope with the ravings of parents who tell him that he is guilty by nature, that his body is evil, that thinking is sinful, that question asking is blasphemous, that doubting is depravity, and that he must obey the orders of a supernatural ghost because, if he doesn’t, he will burn forever in hell?

Or the daughter who collapses in guilt over the sin of not wanting to devote her life to caring for the ailing father who has given her cause to feel only hatred?

Or the adolescent who flees into homosexuality because he has been taught that sex is evil and that women are to be worshiped, but not desired?

Or the businessman...

Or the neurotic..."

-->The full context of the quote from "The Disfranchisement of the Right": "Yet a rightist is threatened with public opprobrium for a susp~c~on of an unproved association with a group that opposes the income tax and the U.N. Women's Lib joins a common front with lesbians and prostitutes, but its indi�vidual members are treated as respectable women. Yet a rightist is regarded as disreputable because the leader of an organization he may have addressed,later joined the John Birch Society.

--> The full context of the quote from "The Age of Envy": ""The sex views professed by Women's Lib are so hideous that they cannot be discussed -- at least, not by me. To regard man as an enemy -- to regard women as combination matriarch and stevedore -- to surpass the futile sordidness of a class war by instituting a sex war -- to drag sex into politics and around the floor of smoke-filled back rooms, as a tool of the pressure group, jockeying for power -- to proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians, and to swear eternal hostility to men -- is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the language I do not want to see in print"

Still much to correct, including the statement at Ford Hall, also ambivalent. https://youtube.com/3RTcz5LmeQM?si=cq_s9HxOBAbPGe_W&t=3783

And many citations are superfluous, likely in service of promoting book sales. Fairthomas (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Rewriting an article to represent your own personal point of view on the subject is not appropriate. You removed material based on academic secondary sources and instead inserted your own evaluations, including obviously personal views such as describing the views of historical figures as "objectively wrong" and "ignorant". You should familiarize yourself with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines before editing further. --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)