The Agenda

Dr. Sciabarra subtitles his fourth article, “Objectivism & Homosexuality Pt 4,” as, “The Times They Are A Changin’,” by which he means the “bad attitude” of Objectivists on the issue of homosexual practice is becoming less consistent with the view of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism that such practices are both “immoral” and “disgusting.” This is probably true.

At this point I need to establish what the real objective of the Sense Of Life Objectivists, Dr. Sciabarra, the Rattigan Society, and all others involved with and sympathetic to this “anti-homophobia mission” actually is.

At first it seems all they want is what, from what I have learned, they already have. Lindsay Perigo, Dr. Sciabarra says, “looks toward a day when the issue of sexual orientation becomes a non-issue.” Within the scope of Objectivism as a philosophy, it already is a non-issue, and actually, always was.

From the article on the Rattigan Society, Dr. Sciabarra recorded: “Speaking from personal experience, [Rattigan President, R. Eriks] 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.’”

As I noted there, “this is exactly the view and attitude that is consistent with Objectivism in this matter.” In terms of Objectivism, as a philosophy, sexual practices are a non-issue, and this is the attitude, apparently, that R. Eriks Goodwin has found to prevail among Objectivists.

In our comments on Dr. Sciabarra’s third article, I summarized the survey replies that found no “horror” related to homosexuality from Objectivists.

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.”

If, as one respondent stated, in “her experiences at Objectivist gatherings, homosexuality was never a philosophical or moral issue,” I have to ask, what’s the problem? What exactly is this “anti-homophobia mission?” I have been led to believe it was to see, “a day when the issue of sexual orientation becomes a non-issue,” I presume, for Objectivists. Well it is a non-issue, and, as I said, has been all along.

The Real Mission

The real mission has not been accomplished. The real mission is not to see homosexuality become a non-issue, it already is a non-issue. The proponents of the anti-homophobia mission are not working to banish homosexuality from Objectivism as an issue. They do not want it banished, they want it embraced.

They do not want homosexuality to be accepted, “as a fact of life,” they want it affirmed as a moral virtue; they do not seek for Objectivists to be “unconcerned with issues of sexual orientation,” they want Objectivists to recommend and support all chosen sexual practices; their goal is not for homosexuality, to “never [be] a philosophical or moral issue,” their goal is for homosexuality to be a central issue, one that insists homosexuality is in complete agreement with Objectivist fundamentals, morally consistent with Objectivist ethics, and, therefore, worthy of the encouragement and the applause of all Objectivists.

The real mission is not to eliminate homosexuality as an issue within the philosophy of Objectivism or the community of Objectivists, the real mission is to make homosexuality the primary issue, even the gating issue. Their mission will not be accomplished until the Objectivist community recognizes no one as a “real Objectivist” who does not enthusiastically celebrate homosexuality in all its manifestations.

Where have they stated that? They have stated it everywhere, but of course they do not state it the way I have just stated it. They would never pull it off, if they did. Nevertheless, they make their objective perfectly clear in all the suggestive characterizations of any Objectivist not outspokenly “pro-homosexual,” as a, “self-identified Objectivist;“they make it clear by all the “unstated” assumptions that describe all aspects of homosexuality as unquestionably wholesome and benevolent; they make it clear by listing facts about homosexuality some Objectivists sincerely question mixed with obviously doubtful facts in the language of bigots to create the impression, anyone who asks such questions is automatically a bigot.

What They Really Want

Nowhere is the true objective of this movement more clearly revealed, though never explicitly articulated, than in this fourth of Dr. Sciabarra’s articles. The opening paragraph exemplifies both the style and the objective: “In the third installment of this series, I presented personal testaments to the poor treatment of gays by self-identified Objectivists in the early history of the movement.”

What poor treatment? Not every Objectivist agrees that what homosexuals do is just lovely. Some even think it is immoral and “disgusting.” My wife hates liver. I love liver. When I eat it, she informs me it is disgusting. I guess I should divorce her for that “poor treatment.”

These “horror” stories were quite typical in their portrayal of intolerance.” If you don’t agree with and support them, you are being “intolerant.”

“In some instances, this intolerance had a scientific veneer, because it was practiced by Objectivists who were trained psychologists and psychiatrists and who did nothing to challenge the then-conventional view of homosexuality as ‘sick.’”

Psychiatrists, at least, hold a medical degree, so that aspect of their profession which is based on “medicine,” is scientific. Calling the field of psychology science or its practitioners scientists is questionable. It is not the legitimacy of psychology itself that is being questioned here, however, but the legitimacy of psychology that does not embrace homosexuality as normal. When psychologists, “did nothing to challenge the then-conventional view of homosexuality as ‘sick,’ it was only a “scientific veneer,” and their views were not scientific, only “conventional.”

“As I suggested in Part One, however, writers associated with Objectivism, such as Nathaniel Branden and Allan Blumenthal, have come a long way in their understanding of homosexuality.”

Now, according to Dr. Sciabarra, the psychologists views are less “conventional” and, apparently more, “scientific,“because they have, “come a long way in their understanding of homosexuality.” What exactly the new or better understanding is remains unstated.

“And more recently, such Objectivist psychotherapists as Michael J. Hurd have written enlightened essays on topics like ‘The Psychology of Hate’ and ‘The Fallacy of Hate Crimes’ (The Rattigan Society).”

What Hate? Why is “hate” suddenly being brought into this discussion of the attitude toward homosexuality of psychologists who are also Objectivists. Is there possibly an attempt to suggest anyone who questions the morality, or even, the rationality of choosing homosexual practices is, “hateful?” If that is not the purpose, what is?

Dr. Sciabarra quotes Lindsay Perigo’s description of one Objectivist, “He had this theory that homosexual sex wasn’t even sex, since by definition ‘sex’ must involve male and female. How’s that for rationalism?”

I have no idea what that Objectivist’s actual views were, but technically, that is exactly what the word sex means, and it has that meaning in almost every possible application, including, human anatomy, human reproduction, animal and plant reproduction, and the shape and use of mechanical devices, such as connectors in plumbing and electronics. All the other legitimate uses of the word sex are derived from that essential meaning.

The expression, “having sex,” is a modern corruption of the real meaning of sex. The older expression was “sexual intercourse,” to distinguish it from all other kinds of human intercourse, which was not a word that brought titters of juvenile laughter in those more enlightened times. Nowadays, anything having to do with the genitals, from arousal to manipulation, is called, “having sex,” and is hardly distinguishable from having a cold or having a fit. It is part of that whole notion of life being something that happens to you, that psychology that views everything as something you “have,” not something you “do.”

If just anything having to do with the genitals is to be called “having sex,” when a woman has a pap smear or when an older man is circumcised, we should call these procedures, “having sex.” If you think this is absurd, so do I. But it is perfectly consistent with calling one’s insistence that words have meanings and ought to be used correctly, “rationalism.”

True Love

More from Mr. Perigo:

“With a disposition to the twin viruses of rationalism and intrinsicism, too many Objectivists - to this day - retain “an intellectual check-list of attributes logic dictates their ‘ideal’ partner must have; then, if they find someone with whom they can tick all the boxes, they feign a love for this person that they don’t actually feel but think they should feel. Conversely, they repress any genuine love they genuinely do feel for someone whose boxes can’t all be ticked.”

Let us examine these two viruses, rationalism and intrinsicism, so many Objectivists are evidently infected with.

Essentially rationalism means “reason is the only reliable source of human knowledge.” If this sounds like a basic principle of Objectivism, it is, and Ayn Rand even considered calling her philosophy, rationalism, but rejected it because, like existentialism, another name she considered, it is already associated in philosophy with views the very opposite of her philosophy.

It might be rationalism in that philosophical sense associated with philosophers such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, who held that knowledge is a priori, and assumed the primacy of mind over existence, views which Objectivism explicitly rejects, which Mr. Perigo refers to by rationalism, but I think he means what in the United States (Mr. Perigo is from New Zealand) is meant by, “rationalization.”

This is a definition of rationalization, in the pejorative sense: “to present what one wants to appear as a good rational justification for a belief or action that in truth has no good justification….”¹)

While intrinsic has both an epistemological and an ontological meaning, I think Mr. Perigo is referring to its ethical meaning. Ayn Rand wrote this about the intrinsic theory of values:

“There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by and of itself.”²

So, what are the dire consequences to Objectivists suffering from this twin infection of rationalism and intrinsicism? Well one thing is, they make a “list of attributes” they believe “their ‘ideal’ partner must have.” Which infection causes them to do this? It can’t be intrinsicism, since they certainly do not think a person’s value as a partner is just “in them” without regard to how the nature of that person is going to be good to and for them. It must be rationalism. But what are they rationalizing?

According to Mr. Perigo, “if they find the person,” with all the attributes they are looking for, “they feign a love for this person that they don’t actually feel but think they should feel.”

It is certainly possible for people to make mistakes in their judgement, and it is certainly true that people feign, not only love, but many other things. What is not true is that a person who finds someone who embodies the attributes and values they cherish would have to feign love for that person. What is true is that love is not a feeling.

Ayn Rand was speaking about “rivalries” in love when she wrote: “Like any other value, love is not a static quantity to be divided, but an unlimited response to be earned. … It is only among the irrational, emotion-motivated persons, whose love is divorced from any standards of value, that … blind choices prevail. But then, whoever wins [love] does not win much. Among the emotion-driven, neither love nor any other emotion has any meaning.”³

But this “emotion-driven” or “feeling-determined” love is exactly the kind of love Mr. Perigo recommends. Continuing his criticism of those who are objective enough to think about the kind of attributes the one they love must have, he says, “they repress any genuine love they genuinely do feel for someone whose boxes can’t all be ticked,” that is, anyone who does not embody or exhibit the values they know they cannot live without.

Love must be one or the other, either Mr. Perigo’s kind, “I love you, because you make be feel good, but I have no idea why,” or the Objectivist kind, “I recognize what you are, and how much that is worth and important to me, and that is what I love about you, and that is why I feel love for you.”

Love, the feeling, follows from and is the result of love, the evaluation, not the other way around, as Mr. Perigo has it. No truly virtuous person cares to receive or give Mr. Perigo’s kind of love.

The Agenda Made Explicit

More from Mr. Perigo:

Dr. Sciabarra says, “Perigo remarks that some people have viewed Objectivism and homosexuality as a “non-issue.” “Who cares?” is their common chant. For Perigo, however, “it has been a non-issue because Objectivists have refused to confront it…. It has been a non-issue because it’s been bundled vigorously into the closet.” One of the missions of Perigo’s SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists) has been to bring this issue “out of the closet so that it can be examined rationally - and then become, genuinely the non-issue that it ought to be.”

It turns out, the “mission” of Mr. Perigo and company is not to see, “a day when the issue of sexual orientation becomes a non-issue,” after all. It is just as I said, “the real mission is not to eliminate homosexuality as an issue within the philosophy of Objectivism or the community of Objectivists, the real mission is to make homosexuality the central issue,” as Mr. Perigo says, “ so that it can be examined rationally.”

It would not have been an issue for us, but since Mr. Perigo wants it to be an issue, and wants us to examine it rationally, that is just what I am doing and will do. Only let it be remembered, it was not Objectivism that raised this issue.

Subjectivist Inclusivist Objectivist?

Dr. Sciabarra concludes from his discussions with Lindsay Perigo, and from the many responses to his survey, that the attitude among Objectivists toward homosexuality and homosexuals is improving. The improvement is seen in the fact that most of the respondents were uncritical and open minded in their examination of homosexuality, and found this uncritical attitude to be the predominate one. That this is the exact opposite of examining something rationally does not seem to be an issue. As Ayn Rand said: “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.” Dr. Sciabarra sees improvement as the exact opposite of this. [Emphasis added.]

Here are examples from the responses to Dr. Sciabarra’s survey, which he presents without critical examination or question:

“Louis,” is “not persuaded by the premise that “anal sex is ipso facto unnatural.”

It would not be, “open-minded,” to ask how it could possibly be natural.

“Alice,” 23, identifies herself as a feminist, an atheist, an Objectivist and “queer” - which designates her openness to bisexuality, bondage & domination, sadism & masochism, and polyamory (multiple partners).

Alica is very, “open-minded,” apparently; absolutely nothing is critically examined; absolutely nothing is rationally filtered out.

“Robert,” 28 and gay… He’s happy that most young Objectivists now recognize “that homosexuality has very little to do with morality, whereas the lifestyle choices [I make] are completely optional and subject to discussion” within an ethical context.

Please note: “…the lifestyle choices I make are completely optional….” Values don’t matter, consequences don’t matter, purposes don’t matter, reality doesn’t matter, the choices are completely optional. No Objectivist could say this or let it pass without criticism.

“Steven,” who is young, straight, and married….I’ve grown to think that for all the great insights Rand had, she really didn’t understand human psychology very well at all….The big craze among the younger generation, it seems, is that “bisexuality is ideal,” says Steven, an attitude best summarized by the adage: “Hey, wouldn’t that be cool to love and enjoy everyone!” But Steven believes that most people are pretty set in their orientations, and “in practice, [they] are straight or gay, predominantly.”

Here is the ethical code of the whore, “wouldn’t that be cool to love and enjoy everyone.” This sentiment is appropriate for an altruist, a collectivist, or the mystic who teaches, “everyone is important and ought to be loved,” which is only possible if love is divorced from values.

“Alex, in his early 30s, is one of those for whom bisexuality is ideal.” (This particular response includes gratuitous crudity fitting the barracks, but hardly an Objectivist publication.)

“Ivan,” who is 36, “and straight, … Ivan admits to being an “ex-homophobe.” He quotes, “ …Francisco d’Anconia in Atlas Shrugged: ‘There are no evil thoughts … except one: the refusal to think.‘” He recognizes, “that all kinds of stuff can come into your head,” and that such thoughts “do not define who you are ….”

There is so much wrong here. “all kinds of stuff, ” cannot just, “come into your head.” This is the notion of the grossest mysticism. Our rational consciousness is volitional, what I think I must choose to think.

One’s mind is like any other organ and has a specific nature. It is not infinitely malleable and cannot consume infinite amounts of poison without becoming sick. No thoughts are in themselves evil, entertaining thoughts one knows are contrary to the truth, or evading the critical examination of them to determine if they are true, especially for the sake of satisfying some desire or avoiding an unpleasant emotion leads to the disintegration of the mind.

There are several more examples of such “open-minded” responses to Dr. Sciabarra’s survey which the reader may examine for themselves if they choose.

The “Homophobia” Lie

Since this is supposedly a mission to correct a problem in the community of Objectivists, one thing I would expect see is a supreme regard for and care in the use of language. There could hardly be a more outrageously deceitful pseudo-psychological concept than the one designated by the word homophobia. There is nothing in this world that anti-concept means except the inordinate hatred of those who use it for those they label with it.

This word appears throughout these articles, beginning with the third, in these various forms; homophobic, eight times, homophobe(s), three times, and homophobia, five times.

If these words only appeared in the records of those responding to Dr. Sciabarra’s survey, we might excuse them as the opinion of the respondents, but would still question why Dr. Sciabarra never repudiated their use. However, both Lindsay Perigo and Dr. Sciabarra use these terms themselves.

This is no oversight, it is intentional duplicity. It is not possible men of the intellectual caliber of Dr. Sciabarra and Lindsay Perigo are not fully aware of the nature of these terms. They know perfectly well there is neither evidence or research that even suggests any kind of pathology or syndrome related to fear of homosexuals. The term is nothing more than an invention with the sole purpose of repudiating the opinion of anyone who disagrees that homosexuality is normal or its practices good.

Can you imagine objectivists intentionally using an anti-concept like one called a phobia but defined as an, “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against …,” anything? The meaning of “phobia” is perfectly clear and very well known.⁴ It is not only an irrational fear, it is, to most people’s understanding, pathological.

Many people have irrational fears. Most mothers worry too much about the bad things that might happen to their children. They tend to be overprotective against the things they fear might happen to them. Such fears are not strictly rational, they are in fact, irrational, but they are not pathological, they are not phobias.

What can be the purpose of labeling something a phobia which is only an aversion to something, or discrimination against something. Does one’s aversion to pedophilia or raw oysters mean they have a pathological fear of pedophilia or raw oysters or only in the first case, that they judge it to be immoral and disgusting and, in the second case, just disgusting. Does one’s “aversion” to hiring employees whose record shows incompetence or whose history indicates untrustworthiness have a pathological fear of the incompetent and untrustworthy?

The only purpose of labeling something a phobia, which has none of the characteristics of a phobia, is to smear those so labeled with the taint of mental instability, to repudiate their views and opinions as deserving of nothing but scorn and immediate dismissal.

What are we to think of those who use such tactics? I know what to think and am not surprised at their use by those who are not Objectivists. When those who call themselves Objectivist resort to smearing and deceit, I must label it intellectual fraud. These are not the methods of Objectivism, and such methods cannot be used to support that which is consistent with Objectivism.