Homosexuality is Not the Issue

by Reginald Firehammer

Some time ago now, shortly after I was banned from a certain forum, in answer to some questions about that banning and my position on the questions of homosexuality, I attempted to provide answers in a series of emails. While these emails specifically addressed the homosexuality issue, the principles pertaining to human nature and the requirements for living successfully and happily in this world were essential to these discussions.

One of the recipients of those emails has requested me to turn the essential content of those emails into an article in order to preserve those ideas and make them available to a wider audience. This is that article.

Playing With Dogs

It began with one question from a certain philosopher: Why does homosexual conduct needs [sic] to be justified–does playing with a dog need to be justified?

I answered: Absolutely. Everything a human being does has to be “justified.“Justified, not in the moral sense, not in the legal sense, not in the sense of getting anyone else’s approval, but in the sense that every thing a human being chooses they must know the reason for choosing and why it is the right choice. A whim or desire is not a reason. It is an excuse.

Play with the dog? When he is being paid to do something else? When he should be taking care of his children or paying his bills? Damn right he better justify it; not to anyone else, but to himself.

The philosopher added: The onus of proof lies with those who would condemn a peaceful activity to demonstrate that there is something wrong with it.

I answered: First of all, why do you (and those on S—) keep using the word condemn. What is it with you people? Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is condemning you?

Here’s what I said to [quoting my answer to another questioner in this answer to the philosopher]:

I personally do not care about what anyone does, individually or collectively, by their own free choice. Even if I totally disagree that their choices are the best thing for them, it is none of my business or anyone else’s. I even defend their right to promote their view of what they believe are right choices, no matter how much I disagree, and if they really believe them, they ought to promote them.

Now the problem with your question is this. It has to do with, “happiness,“and means this, if people can be happy having sex with people of the same sex, what’s wrong with that? If they can, nothing. But even if they cannot but insist on doing it, there is still nothing wrong with it in the sense that it is anybody else’s business. It’s their choice. Finally, other’s happiness cannot be judged objectively, because we cannot know what others will believe their happiness is. If they believe they are happy, even if it looks like misery to me, since I cannot possibly know what their experience actually is, I have to take their word for it.

Now I wish someone would have the moral courage to admit I do not condemn anyone.

Frankly, homosexuality not only looks like misery to me, I believe it is a terribly mistaken choice to make, and know exactly why I think that. But while I grant homosexuals (and those who believe what they do is just lovely), not only the right to do what they choose and promote it, I even encourage them to follow their best understanding of what is right for them. How come you don’t grant that right to me? Are you and the homosexuals condemning me when you express your disagreement with me?

And exactly who is it that I must prove my view to? I am not the least bit interested in convincing anyone, I am only interested in presenting the truth as I understand it. Those who come to understand it in the same way have, in my opinion, profited. This isn’t a trial, [philosopher’s name]. If you do not agree, good, and so what?

But you should not have challenged me. Homosexual practice is physiologically harmful. There is no questions about it at all. It has nothing to do with promiscuity or AIDS. For example, anal sex is harmful, always. If you want to know how harmful, spend ten minutes on the WEB looking up the statistics for the diseases caused by anal sex. The structure of the anus is adequate for one function only, the elimination of solid waste. Using the anus for sex always damages the tissue of the anus, making it vulnerable to numerous terrible diseases a healthy anus is not vulnerable too. The number of deaths caused by this single unhealthy practice is inestimable.

The diseases caused by anal sex are not established merely by statistics, the way the supposed health risks of cigarette smoking are. The precise pathology by which the practice causes the disease is exactly known. Most people consider cigarette smoking a self-harmful practice, even though there is no known pathology by which smoking causes disease, if it does. You and others pretend homosexual practices are “harmless,” and, “peaceful,” when it is factually known that it is not only harmful, but frequently deadly.

By the way, the stupid argument that heterosexuals also practice anal sex is disingenuous at best. Diseases caused by anal sex have no statistical significance in the heterosexual community. The reasons are obvious. If it is practiced, it is exceptional, and heterosexuals do have an alternative. Homosexuals do not. If anal sex were a disease problem for heterosexuals, it would also have to be regarded as a self-harmful practice, which I suspect most heterosexuals would have little problem avoiding. As a conjecture, there may be some natural kind of protection against anal disease from anal sex for heterosexuals, especially the monogamous.

But even though anal sex is self-harmful, in my estimation, it does not in itself preclude homosexuality from being an appropriate choice, if there were a rational reason for choosing it. We sometimes choose something self-harmful to avoid something more harmful or to gain a value that outweighs the potential harm. The real harm of homosexuality is the reason it is chosen. And it is chosen.

What’s the Reason for the Choice?

One of the articles I published today concludes with these words:

“Those who make their desires serve them are free and know all they do is because they chose to do it. Those who serve their desire are slaves who have no idea why they do what they do, they only know, “they cannot help it.”

The problem is, there is no reason to choose homosexual practices over heterosexual practices. The only thing ever stated as a reason is, some none- concept called “orientation,” by which they mean, what they desire, that is, their feelings. But a desire is not a reason, especially if one does not know where that desire comes from or what causes it. Sure, “genetics” is cited, or maybe its in-vitro influences, or early childhood experiences, or maybe … But, in fact, no one knows where these mysterious desires come from. (I do, but I’ll get into that another time.)

I could discuss the fact that we are not born with any specific desires, that we have to learn and develop them all. I could point out, even if we were born with some specific desires, we certainly aren’t born with any that tell us what sexual practices we should engage in. If we were, we would not know all those humorous stories about teaching children about the birds and the bees. We would not need to teach them. Their feelings would just tell them what to do. They don’t. It all has to be learned.

But we can avoid all that by considering just one aspect of this whole issue. Homosexuals are homosexuals because they have a desire to do what homosexuals do, and choose to do it, because it is what they desire to do. There is no other reason.

Now, if someone knows why they have the desires they have, if they understand how their view of life, their values, their understanding of their own nature and the world make the things they desire right for them, it is safe to indulge those desires, because they are rationally based desires. But, as Ayn Rand says, “to be guided by whims—by desires whose source, nature and meaning one does not know—is to turn oneself into a blind robot, operated by unknowable demons.”

To act on a desire, and nothing else, accepts the premise, that it is alright to choose to do something without regard to any purpose or consequence, so long as it is desired. No doubt, yielding to an occasional whim does not destroy a person’s life, but the more one makes their choices based on nothing more than desire, the more the premise that purpose and consequence do not matter, becomes ingrained. On that premise anything in the world can be justified. The one who continually makes choices based on nothing but passion and desire eventually becomes unable to integrate any of their behavior with any rational values, because values presuppose purposes and consequences, and they have made it their primary principle, that those do not matter.

The homosexual’s whole life and identity revolves around a continuous series of choices based on desires they know have no rational basis. They only have the desires. It is impossible to make that kind of continuous irrational choice and maintain one’s intellectual and psychological integrity. The most self-harmful aspect of homosexuality is the destruction of the mind, or if they are good a compartmentalization, one aspect of their mind which must be kept unintegrated with the rest of their mind.

The reason why the man playing with the puppy doesn’t need to justify his desire to play with the puppy, by the way, is because he already has. He knows where his desire to play with his puppy comes from, it comes from is knowledge it is good for him and good for the puppy, that it does not interfere with any of his obligations, and that he has earned the right to enjoy this pleasure by providing for the puppy and his own leisure time.

Another Questioner

One of the recipients of the emails to the philosopher had some interesting comments and questions. This particular correspondent is a somewhat radical transgender individual, not one that posts to the Autonomist Forum. I only mention this because I want my responses to be understood.

The correspondent began: Pardon me, but you say some simply stupid things here.

I answered: No pardon necessary. If I’m stupid, what I say is not really my fault, is it?

I really do not understand, you and others who talk about the choice between heterosexual and homosexual behavior as though it were of no more consequence than the choice over pie or cake for desert. But if you really feel it is all just harmless fun, why do you get in such a huff over people who think the difference between pie and cake is significant? You don’t have to think so, just because they do. Ignore us!

Now, [correspondent], it is one thing to criticize what I say, and show how stupid that is, and I am sure I’ve said enough things for you to use without making things up. So, why did you say this?

Quoted correspondent: Third of all, your argument the ridiculous, inhuman claims that human beings should stop loving each other because of the dangers of a particular sex act …,.

Where have I ever said anyone ought to stop doing anything with anyone, ever, or where have I ever intimated, suggested, implied, or even hinted that anyone ought to stop being and doing whatever they choose and believe is the way to a fulfilling life (so long as they harm no one else). If I have ever done that, I here and now repudiate it and apologize to anyone who might be offended by it.

Do you bother to read what people write before beginning you crusades. (By the way, don’t stop doing that–I admire your fire and rhetoric)

I quote for you what I quoted for Mr. [philosopher], who also doesn’t bother to read what I write.

“I personally do not care about what anyone does, individually or collectively, by their own free choice. Even if I totally disagree that their choices are the best thing for them, it is none of my business or anyone else’s. I even defend their right to promote their view of what they believe are right choices, no matter how much I disagree, and if they really believe them, they ought to promote them. … (The quote is all I wrote to the philosopher above.)”

The correspondent also asked: I want an answer for [sic] you straight out… if you or your (I presume heterosexuality) girlfriend or wife developed some medical condition that made it marginally physically dangerous to have sexual relations, would you cease to do so in the name of ‘self interest’?

I answered: You need not presume, My Honey, my wife, is my joy and the one that makes life worth living. I have no interest in sex outside our relationship, or life either, for that matter. She is, for me, what makes sex and life worth having. I’ve had the other kind, it just doesn’t compare. You will not understand that, I suppose. I know people like [a certain forum principle] don’t because they have said so.

In the introduction to The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand describes the glories of art and culture representing the high point in Western civilization that permeated pre- World War I European society. Of that glorious time she wrote: “If one has glimpsed that kind of art—and wider: the possibility of that kind of culture—one is unable to be satisfied with anything less.” That’s what I mean, [correspondent’s name]. I couldn’t be satisfied with anything less.

The correspondent asked, presumptuously: Do you have any idea how rare a value actual romance is?

I answered: Oh yes! That’s why I couldn’t be satisfied with anything less.

Now [correspondent’s name], (or is it still ‘sweetie’ and ‘beautiful’ you prefer to be called) I still think we cannot be friends, at least on your terms, because I could never consider you an enemy, and I certainly am not yours. You once quoted Nietzsche to me, “To be a friend one must be capable of being an enemy.” Sorry, I cannot be your enemy, because you are for individual freedom, which means you are for my freedom, as I am for yours. I cannot be the enemy of anyone who cheers for my right to be free as I do theirs.

The Philosopher Again

The philosopher, in a subsequent email, accused me of equating homosexuality with alcoholism. My point was something quite different.

I answered this accusation: I never equated homosexuality to alcoholism.

My Answer: My only point was that self-harmful practices do not preclude success in other areas of one’s life, and used alcoholism as one example among others. My purpose was to demonstrate the fallacy of your argument that homosexual practices cannot be self-harmful, just because there are successful homosexuals. Whether or not homosexuality is self-harmful is irrelevant to the fact.

Now what exactly does this mean, “The only plausible critical thing to say about homosexuality is that it isn’t as sexually fulfilling as heterosexuality?” Fulfilling of what? I have no idea what you mean.

There is only one argument for homosexuality, and it is not even plausible. It is the argument that homosexuals have a desire, a passion, an unexplained emotional feeling that comes from they know not where, their heredity, early influences, or some other mysterious undefined source.

Ayn Rand called that kind of argument “psychologizing,” and described it as “a new form of mysticism … a substitute for reason, cognition and objectivity, as an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment…. But it is still the same old game: the notion that the wishes, the feelings, the beliefs … can absolve a man from the responsibility of cognition. [The Objectivist—March 1971, “The Psychology Of Psychologizing.”]

“Emotions are not tools of cognition; to be guided by whims—by desires whose source, nature and meaning one does not know—is to turn oneself into a blind robot, operated by unknowable demons (by one’s stale evasions), a robot knocking its stagnant brains out against the walls of reality which it refuses to see.” [The Virtue of Selfishness, “The Objectivist Ethics,”]

“An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. … This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow … he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.” [“Playboy’s interview with Ayn Rand,” page 6.]

Did Ayn Rand have homosexuality in mind when she said that? I doubt it, because it refers to anything men do and attempt to justify on the basis of desires alone. I know I never would have thought of homosexuality is the main thing being referred to–and never would have if some homosexuals didn’t suddenly begin to use Objectivism to “rationalize” and “justify” their homosexual desires. Then it was obvious.

The Real Issue

The real issue is not homosexuality–the real issue is what men accept as the basis for determining their choices in life. Homosexuals, in their defence (as if they needed any) of their practices, in order to get them recognized popularly as “normal” (why do they need that recognition?) promote the idea that human beings have inexplicable desires, inclinations, and feelings which are sufficient for basing one’s choices on without understanding either the nature or source of those desires and feelings.

The issue is not homosexuality, but subjectivism, which the homosexuals are promoting to “normalize” their practices. No objective rational individual gives a rap what the homosexuals do so long as they harm no one else and all relationships are with the consent and free choice of all the individuals involved. No objective rational individual can give any kind of assent to the view that one’s desire, passions, feelings, or aversions, in themselves, are a reason for choosing any behavior.

The real issue is human nature itself. Is man a creature subject to passions, desires, and feelings that have no discoverable cause, which determine what he must do and choose to be happy or is man a truly volitional being, with feelings and desires that have causes which can be both discovered and understood–does human happiness and the enjoyment of one’s life depend on yielding to irrational desires and impulses one does not know either the cause of meaning of or on being able to discover what one’s nature is and choosing what is in accordance with that nature to achieve the highest and fullest happiness available to man as a fully human being? Those promoting the normalization of homosexuality think it is the former; those promoting objective reason know it is the latter.

—(05/06/05)