Degradation

I now come to the concluding article in Dr. Sciabarra’s series, “Objectivism and Homosexuality, Part 5.”

The original online article contained a gratuitous pornographic image.¹ This is both an entirely expected and consistent conclusion to the series. The claim that their mission is only to achieve objectivity and the right of self-determination for all individuals is disingenuous. Many quite reasonable objective individuals do not share the views of Dr. Sciabarra and Lindsay Perigo that sexual behavior is without consequence or that what one puts in their mind does not matter.

Dr. Sciabarra begins this article with an “example” of an “Objectivist:”

“Jon Galt, the famous gay adult film star of such movies as ‘Ride ‘em Cowboy,’ ‘At Large,’ and ‘Finish Me Off.’”

I do not really want to know, but wonder by what possible standard one whose, “talent,” amounts to being born with certain physical characteristics and whose “acting” amounts to having sex on camera is called a “film star.” Usually one who makes his living pandering to people’s weaknesses and vices is called something else.

There’s more:

“Though Jon recognizes Rand’s right to her own ‘personal biases’ against homosexuality … he does not agree…. Jon enjoys working in the adult film industry. He is delighted to bring ‘joy to other people’s lives’ through his efforts … he has an extraordinary moral sense … as a purveyor of healthy sexual values….”

It is unfortunate Ayn Rand’s views of homosexuality are presented as, “personal biases,” in the name of Objectivism, but worse, that the chosen spokesman for this opinion is one who would not even rank as a minor villain in one of Rand’s books, much less a spokesman for her heroic philosophy.

I am sure Jon is delighted to bring what he calls “joy” to people. So is a pimp, except, what the pimp delivers is the real thing. There is nothing to fear from homosexuals, but one ought to be very wary of anyone who thinks it is moral to portray what is very harmful, both psychologically and physiologically, as healthy. It is true, Jon’s, “moral sense,” is extraordinary.

”‘For many people,’ says Jon, ‘adult films are how they learn about sex or find new ways to express love trying different things they might not have thought of on their own. For some it is pure entertainment.”

If there are, “many people,” for whom “adult films,” are the only way they learn about sex, it goes a long way toward explaining why so many people’s sex lives are such disasters. “Adult,” films might be entertainment for some, but the word, “pure,” is hardly the correct adjective for describing them, nor is the word “adult,” for that matter. Such films are neither; they are juvenile and crass.

Finding Homosexual’s In Ayn Rand’s Works

If a homosexual pornographic performer is also an expert on Objectivism, I should not be too surprised that Ayn Rand’s works are full of homosexual lovers. Since neither is true, it is surprising that these are what Dr. Sciabarra suggests. “Indeed, Rand has had a measurable impact on ‘queer culture,’ especially young gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people (so-called GLBTs), who have been guided by her individualist principles in the process of ‘coming out.’”

I just checked the Ayn Rand Lexicon² and could not find, “coming out.” Maybe old Harry Binswanger missed it, but it’s not there.

Dr. Sciabarra is impressed by how many GLBTs are influenced by Ayn Rand, even writers, he says. “But Rand’s influence can also be found among the writers and intellectuals who contribute to organizations like the Independent Gay Forum, which has become a virtual bulwark against gay left orthodoxy.”

In their pursuit of heterodoxy, many GLBTs who embrace Rand point to the implicit “homosocial” themes in her novels. … who closely identified with the male bonding in Rand’s fiction … particularly … the relationship between Howard Roark and Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead and the relationship between Hank Rearden and Francisco d’Anconia in Atlas Shrugged.”

There is in all that follows, never stated but clearly implied, the suggestion that Ayn Rand secretly or subconsciously recognized the physical attraction between men, was probably confused about her own sexuality, (possibly lesbian?), and that her outward protestations were evidence of an inward conflict.

In the hands (and minds) of these tortured souls, Ayn Rand’s sublime descriptions of that highest form of love between men, the recognition of true value in another, to which eroticism is both irrelevant and inimical, is perverted into a kind of hidden homosexuality, debauching true love and degrading sex. These would get it all wrong, just as Rand is reported to have foreseen. In an early draft of one such description of love between Wynand and Roark, Roark says, “I love you—in every sense except the one a fool would think of first.”³ Apparently it is the first one thought of first by Dr. Sciabarra and the GLBTs.

Commenting on the philosopher John Hosper’s account of Ayn Rand’s attitude toward homosexuality, Dr. Sciabarra quotes John, “anyone who is attracted by homosexuality should resolve never to give in to the temptation,” and comments, “with such a Randian prescription for repression conjoined to the practices of Objectivist therapists who urged their ‘sick’homosexual clients to change, many gay men and women during the early years of the movement simply concluded that Objectivism was ‘homophobic’-as my survey suggests.”

Please note the use of the psychobable term, “repression,” and the pejorative term “homophobic.”

Then, he quotes an academic colleague: “Politically, since no coercion is involved in sexual activity (barring rape, etc.), people have the absolute right to act as they choose, with whom they choose; but there are no positive rights or group rights for gays (or anyone else).” Of course, but he adds, “there’s relatively little that one [can] validate as a universal moral truth, applying to all human beings, in the realm of sex.”

Translation, “there are no moral values pertaining to sex.”

It is incredible that those who have learned from Ayn Rand’s philosophy that the human mind has a specific nature and must be used in a specific way dictated by that nature, and just as one cannot indiscriminately put anything into their stomach without being sickened, they cannot indiscriminately put anything into their minds without becoming mentally sick; having learned that, they can then presume the human body does not have a specific nature that determines how it must be used and that one cannot do just anything with their body without cost or consequence. Misuse of the body is as damaging as misuse of the mind and the use of both must be guided by objective reason, not desire, not passion, and not by one’s “inclinations.” To knowingly misuse anything is immoral.

I will discuss the nature of moral principles governing sexual practices in the next chapter (Morality, Normality, and Decency) and the consequences of violating them in the last (What’s Wrong With Homosexuality?).

The argument is then presented that sex is like work. Morally, I must work, but the choice of a particular kind of work is optional, it is suggested, so, in the same way, sex is a possibility, but the choice of what particular sex to practice is optional.

This is terribly misleading. The particular kind of work one chooses to do is optional within the constraints of moral values. It is not moral to work in an occupation that caters to others weaknesses or vices; it is not moral to work for someone you know is going to use the product of your effort for evil or to support that which is evil; it is not moral to do less than your best at whatever job you do.

Furthermore, while productive effort is a moral requirement of human nature, there is no requirement, moral or otherwise, for sex. If a man is faced with a choice to work for those who enslave him, or not work at all and starve, he may morally choose to work, and live, and despise his slavery, or he may morally choose to not work at all, and win the ultimate freedom of death.

If one is certain they cannot enjoy sex, except immorally, they may choose to practice immoral sex and suffer the consequences or refuse to act immorally and enjoy their integrity. No one ever dies because they do not have sex; many do die, or worse, because they do have sex.

Dr. Sciabarra entitles the last section of this essay, “Toward a New Paradigm for Gay-and Human-Liberation.” This is a kind of “manifesto” of this new “paradigm:” “Objectivists who happen to be gay and lesbian continue to assert their right to a moral existence—their right to apply the ethics of rational self-interest in the pursuit of their own personal happiness.”

Well, that is exactly what I wish they would do, apply the ethics of rational self-interest in the pursuit of their own happiness. What they are doing is surrendering their rationality to desire, and pursuing whim, which will ultimately preclude their achieving full human happiness. This is a great tragedy and those who neither warn them of their mistake or care about those consequences but, instead, encourage them in their folly, are not without culpability.

The Homosexual Holocaust?

Finally, there is this:

“Objectivists who understand that sexual orientation is not a moral issue and that individuals have rights also understand the collectivist underpinnings of anti-gay bias—whether that bias is uttered by “religious” conservatives or “atheistic” Marxists. In truth, it was the Marxists who once argued that homosexuality was some sort of aberration, a sign of “bourgeois” decadence, which would “wither away”—like the omnipotent state—in the perfectly “rational”society of Communism. The Communists used gulags and psychological “reconditioning” as part of their “cultural revolution” to stamp out homosexuality—apparently the “withering away” needed a little help, at the point of a gun. This brutality was practiced in such Communist countries as China, Russia, and Cuba, but it was also practiced in Hitler’s Germany, where those notorious “anti-Marxists,” the Nazis, discovered the virtue of the Pink Triangle as a way of identifying—and systematically murdering—homosexuals.”

I are sorry to have to quote so long a paragraph, but it is full of irrational accusations, innuendo, and outright distortion. If this appeared on the page of a liberal gay pride organization, there would be no surprise here. This is supposed to be Objectivists seeking justice for Objectivists.

It begins with a smear. The suggestion that those who are truly concerned for people addicted to a self-destructive life style, and that many more are promoting that life-style for entirely subjective reasons are really collectivists or Marxists, or Nazis. It ends with the outright propagandist lie of the “homosexual holocaust.”

See, The “Homosexual Holocaust” – Another Gay Militant Myth?” by Tony Marco. I quote from that report:

“Dr. Klaus Miller, a gay researcher for the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. has written:

”‘Other historians like Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) and Mello (History of the SS, 1923-1945), document the pivotal role Nazi homosexuals played in the rise of Hitler and the defeat of the old conservative, Prussian military. … Hitler’s “notorious” homosexual comrade Ernst Roehm, however, formed, selected and trained the Storm Troopers (aka “Brown Shirts”) a para-military goon force that spawned the SS, and which grew to at least 2.5 to 4.5 million.’

”‘Shirer wrote that “[p]imps, murderers, homosexuals… [men of] unnatural sexual inclinations” flocked to Hitler. Homosexuals ran the Infantry School and the Storm Troopers….’

”‘Elie Wiesel testified in Night, “The officer[s] took an interest in… [boys] ten and twelve years old… there was considerable traffic in children among homosexuals here.“’

”‘… in June 1935, two years after Hitler’s victory, “Unnatural” was purged from the German Criminal Code description of homosexuality. … without Himmler’s express permission—even if repeatedly apprehended having sex—homosexual actors and artists were not to be incarcerated.’

“Magnus Hirschfeld, the exiled homosexual sex ‘expert’ cited Himmler saying that 20,000 boy prostitutes serviced 2 million members of homosexual organizations in 1933. Of 2 million homosexuals, some 6,000 were killed in concentration camps. The record shows these dead were largely political enemies – homosexual Marxists, Roehmists, and the like.”

”‘Homosexual Holocaust’ Representative, Dr. Miller, cites, ‘I know of no more than 50 gay and lesbian [holocaust] victims…’”

There is a relationship between homosexual practices and historic Nazism, but it is not the one Dr. Sciabarra suggests.