Victims of What?

“Objectivism & Homosexuality, Part 3: The Horror File” is the third of Dr. Sciabarra’s essays.

Here, at last, is dialectics in all its fullness and glory. This essay contains the distilled results of the survey Dr. Sciabarra initiated in his first essay. He points out, “my survey of reader opinion is by no means scientific or representative,” which means it is mostly anecdotal and opinion. In dialectics, this does not matter, however, since everything is part of the context. In any case, the opinions and comments, as well as the way Dr. Sciabarra uses them, are all instructive

This is supposedly a “horror” file, “in that it documents the depressing experiences of gay people in their dealings with self-identified ‘Objectivists.’”

“Self-identified Objectivist,” he calls them here and throughout the article. If I did not know better, I might think Dr. Sciabarra was referring to those Objectivists who agree with Ayn Rand that homosexual practices are immoral and disgusting are not real objectivists, while those who disagree with the founder of Objectivism and promote their own view, that homosexuality is perfectly normal and just lovely, are the real Objectivists. But that would be a logical conclusion, of course, and that is not the way dialectics works.

Since this is a “horror file,” the first thing we ought to look at is what these “horrors,” are that gay people suffer, “in their dealings with self-identified ‘Objectivists.’”

The Stories

Stacy’s horror story is that, “from the 1960s through the 1980s, … she was fully aware of the “disgusting” manner in which gay men and women were treated….” (Oh the horror.)

Ricky was a “student of Objectivism” in the early 60s, who …was “an active bisexual,” but … learned to keep ‘that kind of thing very hush-hush….’” He observed “oppressiveness among the Objectivists he befriended…” such as, when his, …”Objectivist girlfriend found out that he was gay and she proceeded to ‘out’ him to all of their friends in what Ricky saw as a ‘callous’ act of indiscretion. (He hid the truth about himself, his girlfriend discovered the truth and revealed it. That’s what he means by oppression.)

Even after being “outed,” he admits he was treated by Objectivists with a, “certain tact and consideration.” But, there was more oppression. The Objectivists thought he should get psychological help to change his behavior, which he tried and eventually rejected. Ultimately he concluded, “Objectivists don’t like queers,” but admits, “there are many closed-minded types in all walks of life and Objectivists are not that bad in comparison.”

The “horror” here is obvious. Objectivists have closed minds, not as closed as some people, but still closed. The accusation is a true. In the chapter, “Philosophical Detection,” in Philosophy, Who Needs It, Ayn Rand said about the concept of an “open mind”:

“This is a very ambiguous term … an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. … What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an ‘open mind,’ but an active mind–a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion, and fear.”¹

Thomas’ horror story is his experience with a therapist and his inability to change his sexual orientation. He asked, “if it were easy to change, why did attempting to change it feel so fraudulent to me?” “… he realized that this kind of ‘therapy’ was ‘evil,” because the therapist could not guarantee it would be easy (it might be hard) instant (it might take a long time) and it didn’t “feel” right. Thomas quit therapy and settled for something lasting, a “loving relationship with a man … which actually lasted for some 15 years. (So, actually, it didn’t last.)

Quentin “in his 20s, describes himself as about ‘80-90% heterosexual and 10-20% homosexual.’” The horror he has experienced is the result of, his “being open about my sexuality,” but finding few “people are willing to accept the fact that sexual orientation exists along ‘a continuum (or multiple continua).’” He seems genuinely surprised, because he says “but I must say, I’m fighting an uphill battle.”

Alberto suffers the horror of being a real Objectivist, “in his 20s,” who, “considers himself straight, but … has had a few just-for-fun homosexual contacts,” and discovered “anti-gay attitudes that are still apparent among some “self-identified Objectivists.”

Dr. Sciabarra has obviously made every effort to present the results of his survey fairly and objectively. He provides good details of “about two dozen respondents to my survey [who] believe that these anti-gay attitudes are not as wide-ranging as they once were within the Objectivist movement.” I do not agree that “anti-gay” is a correct characterization of the attitude of Objectivists at any time, but do appreciate the way the “positive” responses were presented. I summarize some of these:

One respondent observed, in “her experiences at Objectivist gatherings, homosexuality was never a philosophical or moral issue: ‘Everyone was treated with concern and social kindness.’” Another “gay” respondent “who was ‘a student of Objectivism for several years,’ had ‘no real horror stories to tell.’” Another, who is “openly gay for over a decade, and an Objectivist the entire time … never encountered anything [he] would describe as personal discrimination by another Objectivist.”

These are examples of the Objectivist attitude toward “homosexuality.” It is, as an aspect of philosophy proper, a non-issue. It is, as Dr. Sciabarra observed, “what some might view as a ‘non-essential,’” and that is exactly how Objectivists view it.

That does not mean they have no opinion about it or that, in forming that opinion, they can evade any facts or be less than totally objective. In most cases, for most Objectivists, that opinion, once formed, does not need to be addressed again or even mentioned. They simply live according to it. Most Objectivists would not mention that opinion either, if they were not asked about it or a situation where it was challenged did not require them to frankly state what that opinion is.

Objectivists do not believe in intruding in the private lives and practices of others and, unless invited or others intentionally draw attention to their private affairs, they mind their own business.

Anti-gay Attitudes

The term, “anti-gay” is used to identify all those ignorant kinds of bigots who believe abuse and violence are proper ways of dealing with whatever they disagree with or dislike. It is also used to identify those who have no antipathy for homosexuals at all, but genuinely believe homosexual practices are both chosen and bad for the practitioners. This kind of obfuscation is not unintentional.

It is almost certain, from all testimony and evidence, that “anti-gay” in the first sense does not exist in any part of the community of people who identify themselves, as Objectivists.

The following is provided by Dr. Sciabarra as proof “anti-gay attitudes persist among many self-identified Objectivists.” The example is very explicit, graphic, and obviously strongly felt. It is, nevertheless what the writer frankly believes to be the case. This is, no doubt, the strongest position of a negative kind to be found among Objectivists, yet, notice, there is no call for violence or oppression or “forced changes.” The writer does express his personal choice to not associate with those openly practicing homosexual behavior. Free association is certainly within the scope of Objectivism and includes being free to not associate.

”‘Frank’ does not associate knowingly with homosexuals; he is ‘increasingly inclined to regard homosexuality as an unhealthy psychological disorder,’ with serious ‘health hazards’ resulting from such practices as ‘anal intercourse, fisting, rimming, and golden showers,’ all of which spread hepatitis, HIV and other STDs. Frank also believes that a sizable portion of gays engage in sexual torture; they have a higher homicide, suicide, and accident rate than their heterosexual counterparts, and they remain ‘collectivist … foot soldiers of cultural Marxism.’ For Frank, gays are in a perennial state of ‘sexual and relationship nihilism….’”

I think Frank is making some mistakes, just as I think homosexuals are making some mistakes. Our disagreement with Frank is twofold. Much of his characterization of homosexual practice, as well as their societal influence, is true of many homosexuals and is well documented. But Frank knew Dr. Sciabarra’s survey would pertain to homosexuals who identified themselves with Objectivism. It is certain those aspects of homosexual practice that are obviously immoral, irrational, and self-destructive, are not typical, if exhibited at all, among Objectivist homosexuals.

Our second objection is one of style. There is no large group of people sharing some broad common cultural interest about which almost every possible human foible cannot be found true of some or all of them. Simply to enumerate every possible evil that can be associated with any group to indiscriminately indict the entire group is irresponsible and rightly called prejudice and bigoted. However, I only have Dr. Sciabarra’s presentation of Frank’s comments and know neither the context or intention for certain.

A Final Horror Story

I have saved this story for last because, while brief, it has the most of those slippery suggestive kinds of comments that, without the greatest care, make their hinted meaning felt without explicitly stating them. To identify them, they must be made explicit and when made explicit both the deception they are meant to put over and the evil they are hiding become apparent.

A gay biologist “argues that ‘homosexuality is very robust across a wide range of species including most mammals and birds. It is constant at between 2% and 10% of the population as an exclusive behavior, and more like 15% to 20% as a transient, occasional, or opportunistic behavior.”

First of all, using the behavior of animals as a model for what humans ought to do is always suspect. The argument amounts to saying, “well, why shouldn’t I do it, monkeys do it?” Of course, if one chooses to be a monkey, they ought to be free to do it.

Secondly, these kinds of arguments are always meant to imply a thing is normal, because it appears in nature all the time. But, as a matter of fact, abnormalities appear in nature all the time. The statistics are meaningless. For some species of birds up to 44% regularly change their sex. Does that mean I should?

The biologists continues:

“Its long durability (at least 5,000 years in humans) suggests ‘evolutionary utility,’ [in which homosexuals] combine the superior food gathering capabilities of males with the nurturing aspects of females.”

This is totally irrelevant to the issue, but, since this is dialectism, I must consider it. There is a problem here. Evolutionary theory holds that those traits that increase the chances of survival will prevail over those that do not, because organisms with successful traits will live and reproduce, and those without them die and, therefore, do not reproduce. This presupposes that those carrying successful traits will reproduce. But homosexual animals, by definition, do not reproduce…, I forget, this is dialectics, and I have already learned, as Dr. Sciabarra has taught us, “it is not to be confused with such things as logic.”

The biologist continues:

“you aren’t going to recruit people by calling them defective and threatening their autonomy by ‘fixing’ them for their own good. I’ve got a modest collection of Third Reich items including concentration camp badges … Horrible and sobering. I display it prominently to remind me that moral certainty on issues of this kind is a very dangerous thing.”

Here is a real load of interesting ideas. Exactly “what” is it we are supposed to be recruiting people to? It is something throughout these articles that is referred to as the “Objectivist movement.” Let’s get one thing straight, OBJECTIVISM IS A PHILOSOPHY, NOT A MOVEMENT.

There are countless movements that have been launched as a result of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, some faithful to and promoting that philosophy, as she authored it, some almost in direct contradiction to it. None of those movements are Objectivism.

Any group of people are free (or ought to be) to start and promote any movement they like, and they are free to associate their movement with any philosophy they choose, like Objectivism. They can start a movement to promote Objectivism, or homosexuality, or Objectivism and homosexuality, or even homosexuality as Objectivism if they like, but Objectivism itself is not a movement.

The purpose of Objectivism is not to gain as many adherents as possible. The purpose of Objectivism is that of philosophy itself, to provide those who choose to study and learn them, the principles by which they can comprehend the nature of the world they live in, the requirements of their own nature to live successfully in that world, and, using those principles, to live successfully, that is, happily in it.

I suppose by “calling them defective,” our biologist refers to the fact that some Objectivists repudiate homosexual practices. This whole article is supposedly addressing the experiences individuals have had with regard to homosexuality and Objectivists. What Objectivist, “self-identified” or otherwise, ever repudiated homosexuality in stronger language than Ayn Rand herself. Is that what this biologist is referring to as “‘fixing’ them for their own good?” Is he implying that Ayn Rand or any other Objectivist ever suggested homosexuals should be “fixed” against their will? What else could he be implying with the references to the “Third Reich” and “concentration camps?”

And just how does the repudiation of homosexuality by Ayn Rand or by any of those who agree with her threaten anyone’s autonomy?

If I were a homosexual, which I cannot even imagine being, there is one thing I do know would be true. The one thing I would never need or seek would be anyone else’s approval or agreement. If I know something is, “right,” that is all I need to know.

The one constant aspect of this movement that calls itself, “homosexual and Objectivist,” that contradicts the “objectivist” part of the label is the constant whining about their, “mistreatment,“—they are “not understood,” they are “not accepted,” they are “not liked,” and they are “alienated.” So what? This is what all Objectivists, especially if they are outspoken, experience almost all the time. Is there something special about sexual practices that gives one the moral right to demand others understand them, like them, accept them, and embrace them? Have none of these “Objectivist homosexuals” ever read an Ayn Rand novel? Does it not occur to them that the heroes of those novels were always misunderstood, never accepted, viciously hated, intentionally alienated, and treated as pariahs, not for their faults, but for their virtues?

Objectivist virtue does not consist in gaining approval. Objectivist virtue consists in doing right in the face of all disapproval. One’s self-esteem does not come from the opinions of others.

Finally, I must address this sentiment: “moral certainty on issues of this kind is a very dangerous thing.” If moral certainty, on this or any issue, is a “dangerous thing,” moral uncertainty would be a virtue. I must assume it was an oversight on the part of Dr. Sciabarra to present this blatantly anti-Objectivist statement without comment. Whatever else our biologist believes, if he believes this, in his moral values at least, he is not an Objectivist.