It's Not All Bad

This article centers on the Rattigan Society, which, “seeks to create a context within which gay and lesbian Objectivists might meet … fostering ‘reasoned discussion of issues relating to or facing gay and lesbian Objectivists.’”

There are a number of positive things here. First, the Rattigan Society has the integrity to not ingratiate itself with a name that includes “Objectivsm” or “Objectivist.” Secondly, the fact that it rejects public funding of any kind, “eschewing the left-wing political agenda of most gay and lesbian organizations,” is very good.

The three questions for those of us who believe homosexuality is abnormal and both physically and psychologically self-destructive are: 1. Can a homosexual truly be an Objectivist? 2. Is such an organization as the Rattigan Society a good thing? 3. What should a “Randian” Objectivist’s stance and attitude be toward such organizations?

Can a homosexual truly be an Objectivist?

Objectivism does not require perfection. Objectivism only requires the best one is capable of in any pursuit they undertake. There is probably no such thing as a perfectly consistent Objectivist, that is, one whose every action and thought is perfectly consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism all the time. Most of us do not learn all the principles of Objectivism instantaneously. It takes time to learn the principles, to adjust one’s thinking, to change old habits, and there is always more to learn and more development required. Human beings are neither infallible or omniscient. The most consistent, erudite, and radical of Objectivists can make mistakes and be plagued with inconsistencies. This does not excuse mistakes or inconsistencies and only applies to real mistakes and innocent inconsistencies resulting from ignorance or weakness, not evasions, and never defiance of known truth.

Can a homosexual be an Objectivist? Certainly they can be, if within the scope of their honest understanding of Objectivism they embrace and practice the principles as consistently as they can. So long as they continue to practice homosexuality, however, they are inconsistent Objectivists. Homosexuality is not consistent with Objectivism, no matter how much one believes it is.

Is such an organization as the Rattigan Society a good thing?

I believe, if any organization is good, it is a rare and exceptional thing. However, people love to join things; most cannot imagine how any enterprise, great or small, could be accomplished without organizations; the world generally consists of organizations; and it is in the context of organizations that almost everything, unfortunately, is done.

Organizations can be judged in two ways. The first way is on the basis of how successfully they provide or perform whatever is expected by those who support or join them. The other way is on the basis of whether the thing they provide or perform is actually a good thing.

The Rattigan Society is one of many organizations dedicated to meeting certain needs and desires of homosexuals who consider themselves Objectivists. Whether the Rattigan Society, or any other of such organization, performs the expected services well can only be judged by those who join and support them. The Rattigan Society seems to be enjoying some success as an organization, which means it continues to be supported, which I would guess it would not be if its supporters were disappointed in its performance. But, that is only a guess.

As to whether the service it is intended to provide is itself a good thing I can judge, but it is not so simple. Any organization whose purpose is to promote the principles of Objectivism is good, so long as it is in good faith, that is, it does not just use the name or some aspect of Objectivism as a cover for something else.

The Rattigan Society obviously promotes Objectivism in good faith, but it is mistaken, I believe, because it also embraces homosexual practices as normal. Since homosexuality is bad for the individual, the failure to identify the true nature of homosexuality does harm to those who are homosexual and are encouraged by this organization’s position. It is also contradictory to true Objectivism, I think, unintentionally. If homosexuals must join or support an organization, one promoting Objectivism is certainly better than one promoting “the left-wing political agenda,” they flatly reject.

What should a “Randian” Objectivists Do?

The question is what should Randian Objectivist do about organizations like the Rattigan Society. The answer is, just what they are doing.

Near the end of the article, referring to Rattigan President, R. Eriks Goodwin, Dr. Sciabarra writes this:

“But what of the treatment of gays and lesbians by Objectivists? Has there not been a streak of intolerance running through the Objectivist community? Speaking from personal experience, Goodwin finds that most Objectivists with whom he has contact are ‘unconcerned’ with issues of sexual orientation. Most simply consider it ‘a fact of life and not something philosophy deals with.’ For such individuals, the fact of sexual orientation, is metaphysically given, even if our choices and ‘environment’ play a role in how our orientation is expressed.”

I commend Dr. Sciabarra for including this paragraph. This is exactly the view and attitude that is consistent with Objectivism in this matter, and it is apparent Objectivists are being consistent.

I must make one thing clear, however. The meaning of “sexual orientation is metaphysically given,” does not mean one’s sexual behavior is determined, but that whatever behavior one chooses, once chosen, it is what they are. A is A, a thing is what it is, and a person is what a person is. The difference between people and all other existents is, what people are, they are by choice, but, whatever they have chosen, they have chosen, and it is, post choice, a metaphysical fact.

Another difference between people and all other existents is, whatever they are now, they can change. The crook can become honest, the faithful husband can become a cheat, the hard worker can become lazy. But human nature is not infinitely malleable. It becomes harder to change over time as practices and thinking patterns become habituated. Where practices are harmful or self-destructive, there comes a point where damage is irreparable. But, so long as things have not gone too far, and there is are genuine determination to change, change is always possible.

The scope of choice is also not infinite. It is limited by the nature of physical existence and by one’s own nature as a human being. A person is free to choose how they will live as a human being, they cannot choose to be something other than a human being. A person may choose to be a farmer or a computer programmer, he cannot choose to fly like a bird or live under water like a fish.

Whatever an individual chooses, however, it is entirely up to the individual, and not up to anyone else to use abuse or coercion to either influence or affect another’s choices.