Assault of Non-essentials

The movement to normalize homosexuality extends across the entire ideological spectrum from radical anarcho-capitalists through the ranks of conservatives, moderates, and liberals all the way to the rankest statist-collectivists. The number of organizations associated with this movement that are either outright “Objectivist” in name or Objectivist leaning in their ideology may be surprising to some. The following are some examples of such organizations.

Log Cabin Republicans Organization of Gay Republicans The Rattigan Society Organization claiming to be Objectivist and Gay Republican Unity Coalition For gay and gay-friendly Republicans Lavender (But Not Pink) Conservative Gays Independent Gay Forum Dr. Sciabarra says this site, “has become a virtual bulwark against gay left orthodoxy.”

The methods and arguments of this movement are nowhere more clearly illustrated than by the series of articles recently published on the WEB by Chris Matthew Sciabarra. Since they are now published as a monograph and fully represent this movement, it is by means of these articles I will make my analysis.

I begin with an examination of the announcement by Lindsay Perigo from the “Sense Of Life Objectivist,” (SOLO) of the publication of that monograph entitled Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation.

“I made it clear, …” Mr. Perigo said in his announcement, “one of SOLO’s first projects would be to exorcise the shocking homophobia that has disgraced the Objectivist movement since Day One … and fiercely proclaim how alien it is to a philosophy that sets such store by the identification of reality. I don’t know who’s worse in this regard - Ayn Rand for putting down homosexuals as ‘disgusting,’ or Leonard Peikoff … for evading the fact that she had said that….”

The typical use of the homosexual-invented pejorative term, homophobia, to characterize the view that homosexual practices are abnormal, and self-destructive is typical and instructive. That this view was a “disgrace” to Objectivism is absurd. It is the view of the author of Objectivism herself. How could her “putting down of homosexuals as ‘disgusting,’ be a disgrace to her own philosophy. It is her philosophy. The accusation that Leonard Peikoff evaded anything is provided gratuitously and without support.

He goes on:

“…It gives me great pleasure to announce the first publication in the history of Objectivism to repudiate such psychological illiteracy, to acknowledge the emotional carnage it has wrought ….”

But it is totally outside the history of Objectivism because, as stated, it is a repudiation of it. To repudiate something and claim to be part of it at the same time is ludicrous.

He concludes:

“The anti-homophobia part of our mission has, as far as I’m concerned, been accomplished.”

[](#mission) It is a mission, it is an attempt to take over Objectivism and turn it into something subjective, irrational, and revolting to Objectivism and Objectivists, and, as we shall see, it is far from over.

The monograph referred to in Lindsay Perigo’s announcement is a revised version of a five part series originally presented in the online magazine, The Free Radical. I will examine some of Dr. Sciabarra’s arguments from that series, but first, as both an illustration of how far this movement has spread and how insidiously it perverts the simplest principles, I take a look at another Objectivist source.

From The Objectivist Center, FAQ: “Is it moral to be homosexual?” (Answer by Damian Moskovitz.)

“While Ayn Rand did consider homosexuality immoral, this was only her personal view,” Mr. Moskovitz begins.

Ayn Rand actually said very little about homosexuality. What she did say, that is recorded, amounts to this: about lesbianism—it is based on “repulsive …premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print,”¹ and about homosexuality in general—while asserting every individual has a right to engage in any consensual sexual activity they choose, she said, “homosexuality” is a manifestation of psychological “flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises” that are both “immoral” and “disgusting.”^{2 3}

The characterization of homosexuality as disgusting and immoral was not “only her personal view,” but part and parcel of her Objectivist philosophy. Homosexuality violated some of her philosophy’s essential premises, like, “A is A, a thing is what it is, and her views of “sense of life,” and the necessity of correct premises.

Mr. Moskovitz continues:

“The essence of the Objectivist position is this: Homosexuality can be a moral issue only to the extent that it is a matter of choice.”

Of course. All values, including moral values pertain only to choice. But this is only setting the reader up.

Mr. Moskovitz continues:

“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.”

There is no such scientific evidence. What, “in many cases, people don’t choose their sexual orientations,” exactly means, I am not sure. Does it mean, in other cases, people do choose their sexual orientation? Is there scientific evidence showing there are these two different kinds of people, the ones who choose their orientation and the ones who do not?

For human beings, all preferences require learning, before there can be any preferences at all. One is not born preferring anything. Sexually, all one is born with are those physiological attributes that enable one to have sexual pleasure, and the physiological desire for that pleasure. Even what that desire is has to be learned.

For the record, scientific evidence does not recognize “sexual orientation,” only the sex of an organism, as either male or female. That is the sexual orientation. I shall come back to this subject.

Mr. Moskovitz continues:

“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.”

What does, “in accordance with their natures,” mean? Does it mean, their nature as a human being, or something else. If it means their nature as a human being, one must certainly choose to act in accordance with that nature or die.

“…since sex is essential to man’s life and happiness…” is simply untrue. Many people, for both physiological and other reasons, some rationally chosen, live completely successful, happy lives without any sex at all. Food is essential to man’s life and happiness, sex is not.

I see by this, it is not human nature that is meant by “their natures,” but something that is not a, “nature,” at all. What one chooses, does, or practices is not one’s “nature.” The kind of sex one engages in is not their nature, it is just something they choose to do. Normal people have sex with someone of the opposite sex, homosexuals have what they call sex with someone of the same sex, and what “anything in-between” does we are probably better-off not knowing.

The point being smuggled in here is that people are “naturally” homosexual, without choosing to be. But what a person is “sexually” is whatever he chooses to do sexually. What he is “by nature,” does not determine what he does, because, by nature human beings are volitional creatures and what they do, they do by choice. Nothing about their nature makes them behave in any particular way beyond those physiologically determined actions that lie outside the province of conscious choice.

As we shall see, what this boils down to is desire. The whole thing is an attempt to justify behavior on the basis of what one desires or feels.

After some comments about the importance and value of sex from the Objectivist perspective, which is obvious and irrelevant, he continues:

“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.”

What is “sexual orientation?” Physiologically, one is either male or female. (Hermaphrodites and other physiological anomalies are considered abnormal, because they are.) The only possible other “orientation,” is whether a person chooses to have sex (the term applies only to what a male and female do together) or to, “fake sex,” a male with a male, or a female with a female. If that is what is meant by “sexual orientation,” than it only means, getting it right, or getting it wrong.

The business about biological factors and prenatal development having anything to do with one’s adult sexual activity is pure pseudo-science.

Mr. Moskovitz continues:

“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’”

Involuntary attractions are by definition not voluntary. Of course there is no morality involved in what is involuntary. But this is a deception. Everyone who has ever done anything wrong, in any way, first had an involuntary attraction to do that thing. That attraction (or desire) was not immoral in itself. But a person, no matter how strong their desire to do something wrong, does nothing wrong or immoral unless they choose to submit to the desire or attraction and actually do the wrong thing.

Whether homosexuality is right or wrong cannot be based on the fact that people have involuntary attractions or desires. We all have involuntary attractions and desires, and all have to learn which are right to yield to and which are not.

Mr. Moskovitz continues:

“While sexual orientations may not be chosen, in many cases, what behaviors people exhibit in response to their orientations are chosen, and such behaviors can be evaluated morally.”

Of course I agree with this, except that he is back to orientations not being chosen. “in many cases,” which must again mean, other cases they are, with no explanation why there should be such a difference.

Mr. Moskovitz continues:

“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.”

Except for the fact that a person does not have to “repress” anything to choose not to give in to a desire (else every honest decent person in the world must either never have been tempted to do anything wrong or is living in constant repression), this is true.

[Note: The problem with the word repression is its association with the false Freudian pseudo-concept that turns all negative choices into psychological problems. Repression may be the right word here, but it is a, “loaded,” implying something untrue. See The Virtue of Repression]

Mr. Moskovitz continues:

“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.”

Well, yes, except that this means the exact opposite of what it says, because it means by nature, one’s desires, which is not what one’s nature is at all.

It is a very simple matter to determine one’s sexual nature. Most already know what it is, but if they do not, they can look in a mirror to see what their plumbing is. It is either male or female. That is their sexual nature.

If everything goes right, those with male “sexual orientation” will desire females and vice versa. If one discovers their desires disagree with their plumbing, it is an anomaly, an indication that something is wrong, either with their physiology or their feelings and desires, because they are contradictory and cannot both be right. Either one or the other needs to be changed.

Since feelings and desires in human beings are largely learned and the result of our values and knowledge, and since all of these things can be changed voluntarily, (even if with great difficulty, some things in life are hard), especially before habituation is strongly ingrained, it is obvious the thing to change is one’s psychology. The physiological can be changed, and might be the solution in some cases, but is largely unnecessary.

Mr. Moskovitz continues:

“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.”

The question of morality here is a bit of a red herring. Forgetting the questions of morality for the moment, the real question is whether it is right for an individual who is attracted sexually to another individual of the same sex to act on that desire. I already know a desire alone is not justification for choosing anything. The criteria for choice must be something more than mere attraction or desire.

It is a basic principle in Objectivism that our feelings, emotions and desires are the result of our values, our knowledge, and our thinking. Feelings, passions, or desires for which I do not have a clear understanding of the cause are automatically suspect.

As for the morality, the confusion of sex with romantic love is grossly immoral.

Oh yes, in case Mr. Moskovitz, or anyone else is worried about the fact, “it is morally wrong for a man … sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a man,” the danger of that particular immorality occurring is zero to none.

Mr. Moskovitz continues:

“…Objectivism holds that as long as no force is involved, people have the right to do as they please in sexual matters, whether or not their behavior is considered by others to be or is in fact moral. And since individual rights are grounded in the nature of human beings as human beings, homosexuals do not deserve any more or less rights than heterosexuals.”

With the proviso that the word, “rights,” is generally abused, this is totally correct.

While I disagree with specific points in this article, I do agree with the general tenor, as one of tolerance, believing that within the community of Objectivists, homosexuality is a non-issue, or at least would be if some did not insist on making it an issue. However, they have, and it is the issue they have made it I address in subsequent chapters.