What's Wrong With Homosexuality?

I have made the point that homosexuality is not an Objectivist issue. While I believe homosexuality is both abnormal and immoral, it is neither the most common or most significant of abnormal and immoral behaviors. Objectivism, as a philosophy does not address particular behaviors directly and only bears on them in terms of the principles of ethics and knowledge that bear on all human behavior.

While homosexuality is not an Objectivist issue, there is a movement to make homosexuality an issue for all Objectivists. This movement which calls itself an anti-homophobia mission promotes a number of views which directly contradict Objectivist principles and promotes both attitudes and actions in direct conflict with a correct application of those principles.

The movement makes much of their intention to rid Objectivism of prejudice, abuse, and misunderstanding of homosexuals within the community of Objectivist, or what they call the, “Objectivist movement,” and naturally associate with their own. There is precious little evidence that Objectivists are guilty of any of these things, but they are the ground for the movement’s real intention, the promotion of homosexuality as both normal and moral in the name of Objectivism.

The Movement’s Goals

In the previous section I said I would address the following in detail in this section: “The movement emphasizes desire (or passion) as one of its main points. It does not view homosexuality as what a person does, but as what a person is, and therefore regards homosexual desire as a manifestation of the homosexual’s essential nature with which they are born. To ignore or repress those desires, it is contended, is tantamount to denying one’s own nature, a rejection of a metaphysical fact.”

If homosexuality is part of one’s nature, as unchosen as the color of one’s eyes or a birthmark, it automatically excludes it from moral consideration. One cannot be morally responsible for what happens to them.

But even if one were born a homosexual, that would not automatically make it normal. Human beings are born all the time with abnormalities not of their own choosing. To make homosexuality normal it would have to be part of a human being’s essential nature and its practice a requirement of that nature, just as a human being’s animal nature requires food and, therefore, requires him to eat.

There are a number of specific ideas or arguments put forth to support this view which I will examine under, “Mission Concepts.” First I must look at the overall objectives and goals of this mission intended for the entire Objectivist community. These are the views it is intended will be accepted as essential and true by every “real” Objectivist.

1. Homosexual practices are consistent with Objectivism and supported by its principles, and, therefore, there is no inconsistency between Objectivism and homosexuality.

While Objectivism makes no statement at all about individual sexual practices, it does make definite statements about how one goes about choosing what to do. If the contention of this movement’s proponents were correct about homosexuality, its practice, like eating, would not be a matter of choice. It would be a psycho/biological necessity. Philosophy in such cases is irrelevant.

The question of consistency with a philosophy only comes up if the behavior in question is chosen one. But that seems to be the very thing being argued against. If it is a chosen behavior, it is not determined by nature; if it is an unchosen behavior, it is not a philosophical issue.

2. Objectivists ought to promote homosexual practices, not just tolerate them, embracing them as both normal and moral.

This objective is not stated, but implied. It is the reason, on the one hand, they say, “the anti-homophobia part of our mission has … been accomplished,“that is, homosexuality is a non-issue in Objectivism; but, on the other hand, Lindsay Perigo claims, “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 SOLO is 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.”

If just being a non-issue is not the objective, what is a “genuine” non-issue. If discrimination, prejudice, and abuse are eliminated, what more is wanted? What’s left to be accomplished? Approval—not just accepted but embraced, not just allowed but encouraged, not just tolerated but applauded as objectively moral and practically benevolent.

Ayn Rand was the literal author of the philosophy of Objectivism. It seems reasonable to assume she would have some idea what kinds of things someone who embraced her philosophy ought to promote and consider normal and benevolent. She said, “homosexuality” is a manifestation of psychological “flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises”that are both “immoral” and “disgusting.”¹)

Objectivists hold liberty is an ultimate human value because it is a requirement of human nature. Objectivism would never restrict anyone from promoting what they believe in. There is nothing in Objectivism that would limit or discourage those who wish to promote homosexuality. But to promote it in the name of Objectivism or as part of Objectivism is intellectually dishonest and morally wrong.

3. Anyone who questions or denies these views is not consistently an Objectivist.

The use of the expression, self-identified Objectivist, is one of the subtle ways it is suggested Objectivists who do not openly promote homosexuality are not really Objectivists. Without stating it explicitly, the intended impression that anything less than enthusiastic embracing of homosexuality, in the same way and for the same reasons one embraces heterosexuality, is a kind of ignorance. “The pedestrian and philosophically naive might hold such prejudicial views of homosexuality, but certainly the philosophically sophisticated, an Objectivist, could not be so ignorant,” is the intended understanding.

Of course this is just the opposite of the kind of open dialogue and respect for personal opinion Objectivists believe in. One is not ignorant or prejudicial or naive for having views about sexuality or any other kind of personal choices and practices that do not agree with other Objectivists, even if those views are incorrect.

4. That anyone who questions or denies these views is homophobic and abusive to gays.

It is, after all, an anti-homophobia mission, not in the whole world, but within the Objectivist community. Who are the Objectivist “homophobes?” Certainly it is not those who are in favor of this mission. The Objectivist homophobes are any Objectivists who do not whole-heartedly support it. Certainly any who would oppose it are not only homophobic but abusive. In “Victims of What?” the “horrible” abuse was clearly illustrated—some homosexuals are not “understood,” which means people are not “open-minded” about them, others find everyone does not agree with them about their ideas of sexuality or that their practices are normal, there is even an “anti-gay” attitude among some Objectivists who believe what homosexuals do is dangerous to themselves and others, and some, as horrible and abusive as it sounds, do not personally associate with the openly gay.

If these do not seem like examples of, “abuse” to you, and you are an Objectivist, this “mission” considers you a homophobe. There is a reason. It is part of the missions method which I discuss more fully under, “Vilification.”

Unintended Consequence

The movement or “mission” with which I are particularly concerned pertains only to Objectivists, the Objectivist community, and those movements and organizations that associate themselves with Objectivism. It’s stated purpose is, “… to exorcise the shocking homophobia that has disgraced the Objectivist movement since Day One,” as Lindsay Perigo stated.

Objectivists are idealists. This only means, in their hierarchy of values, they hold as the ultimate source of values, an ideal, the principle that the source of all values is the life of the individual and purpose of those values is the individual’s enjoyment of his life.

In their idealism, however, Objectivists sometimes forget one of the major principles of Objectivism, context. The principles upon which I make our judgments and choices are ideal, the world in which I apply those principles is far from ideal. To know how to apply the principles I must study the world as it is, not as I would like it to be or even as I intend to make it.

While the “mission” of SOLO, Mr. Perigo, Dr. Sciabarra, and others may only be directed at the Objectivist community, there is a much larger and more militant campaign by homosexuals in the world community that has much less noble objectives and is dominated by ideas that are opposite those all Objectivists hold. It is the recognition of this fact that is the reason for such organizations as the Rattigan Society.

In the larger community, homosexuality is a political issue, demanding special “rights,” and privileges, and recognition as a, “protected,” group. Objectivists completely oppose these views. But by their advocacy of homosexuality as normal, and their use of the same arguments and methods the militant homosexuals use, these Objectivists align themselves and give unwitting support to this larger movement. In spite of themselves, their efforts to normalize homosexuality makes them an unwitting part of the, “liberal,” homosexual agenda.

“Mission” Concepts

Underlying and necessary to the mission to normalize homosexuality are certain concepts or ideas used to rationalize and justify the movements objectives. I have addressed some of these ideas in passing. Here I attempt to list all the ideas this movement depends on, and demonstrate that they are all baseless, irrational, and ambiguous.

1. That homosexuality is an aspect of one’s nature, caused by either genetics, pre-natal stresses, or possibly other environmental influences. The point of this idea is that homosexuality is an, “unchosen,” aspect of one’s nature, and therefore, not a moral issue.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence or research which supports this idea. It is the invention of the homosexual movement, propagated by the popular press, and completely repudiated by the legitimate scientific community. Please review the resources under, “Homosexuality - Determined or Chosen?,” on the Links page, especially, “Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science.“

The idea itself is very ambiguous. It confuses the characteristics and attributes one is born with, or acquires involuntarily, with chosen behavior. Of course one is not morally responsible for anything that is not a matter of choice, but what a person does is always a matter of choice. This ambiguity rests on false ideas #3, homosexuality is a condition not a behavior and #4, desire justifies choice.

2. That homosexuality is an essential part of an individual’s nature, just as the requirement for food is a part of one’s nature, requiring him to practice homosexuality.

This idea goes further than the idea that homosexuality is an involuntary attribute of one’s nature. It supposes that sexuality (an ambiguous term in itself, see #4), is predetermined, and that it, at least in part, defines an individuals “nature,” that is, “who and what they are.”

This idea also includes idea #3, homosexuality is a condition not a behavior, but its significance is different. The point of this idea is, if homosexuality (or any “sexual orientation”) is what a person is, denying it is denying one’s essential nature and a dangerous “repression.”

The idea also implies that sex is a necessity, and furthermore, that some particular sexual practices are necessitated by one’s “sexual orientation.” This patent absurdity has already been addressed in our discussion of Mr. Moskovitz article, where I said, “…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.

Perhaps the most anti-Objectivist aspect of this idea is the suggestion that who-and-what a person is, their essential, “personality,” is in some way determined by genetics, or pre- or post-natal influences.

A person is who-and-what they are by choice, and who-and-what they are at any moment in their lives is the integrated sum of all their choices and the consequences of those choices up to that moment. The idea that anything other than choice determines what a person is belongs to religion, behaviorism, and mysticism—it has no business as any part of Objectivism.

3. Homosexuality is a “condition” or “state,” not a chosen behavior.

The concept of, “sexuality,” itself is a kind of pseudo-concept. Originally, there was only, “sex,” pertaining to the fact there are two different kinds of human beings, male and female; “sexual,” meant that which pertains to the relationship between a male and a female. The word, “sexuality,” was invented to cover the idea that some aspects of the “sexual” could pertain to something other than between a male and a female, such as between two of the same sex, or between either sex and something else, like children, combinations of other sexes, objects, animals, or even behaviors.

The idea that, “sexuality,” whether homosexuality or some other kind, is a condition or a state rather than what one does, evolved, I suppose, from the fact that since sexual meant that which pertain to what a man and woman did, “naturally,” the other things people did, (sexuality), must be, “natural,” too. But I have already explained how all sexuality, even the normal kind, like all other human desires and practices, are learned and developed, under, “The Nature Of Sex and Sexual Desire.”

The false concept of, “sexual orientation,” is based on this idea. It is supposed that one’s sexual. “orientation,” is somehow determined. “One does not choose their orientation,” we are told.

I found these various dictionary definitions of orientation:

“The act of orienting, a person’s awareness of self with regard to position and time and place and personal relationships, an integrated set of attitudes and beliefs, position or alignment relative to points of the compass or other specific directions, a course introducing a new situation or environment, a predisposition in favor of something (Example: ‘Showed a Marxist orientation’).”²

The fact is, there is not one of these that cannot be chosen or changed. There is not one example of something called an, “orientation,” that is involuntary and fixed. The very idea that there is something about our nature of that kind is contrary to all of Objectivism. We are not victims of causeless inborn irresistible passions or inclinations or “orientations.”

The idea of sexual orientation is a double mistake. It is a mistake about the nature of sexual desire itself, which is developed, not given, and it is a mistake about the nature of human sexual behavior, which is chosen, not caused. The invention of this idea of sexual orientation is just another attempt to excuse bad choices.

4. That desires, inclinations, orientation, etc. trump reason.

This is how the pseudo-concept of sexual orientation is intended to be used. It is supposed if one has a particular unchosen sexual orientation they must choose to go with that orientation.

I have already shown there is no such predetermined orientation, but even if there were, it would not justify any chosen behavior. If there were such an orientation, it would only be an inclination, a tendency, a “felt” preference, a passion or a desire.

If tendencies, preferences, inclinations, and “orientations,” justified choices, on that grounds, necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, and self-mutilation must all be considered, “other orientations,” and perfectly justified and normal. In these cases it is obvious, the passions and desires arising from any so-called, “orientation,” are irrational. To yield to them is to surrender one’s reason to one’s desires.

I showed in the previous chapter how it is the confusion of passion and reason that is the source of so many human problems. Ayn Rand explained this confusion this way:

“Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanisms from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer. The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher. If a man desires and pursues contradictions … he disintegrates his consciousness; he turns his inner life into a civil war of blind forces engaged in dark, incoherent, pointless, meaningless conflicts (which, incidentally, is the inner state of most people today).”³

5. Makes individuals victims of their feelings, desires, and passions, not the master of them.

When expressions like, “but it doesn’t feel like a choice,” or, “it doesn’t feel like I can change,” or “it feels like what I really am,” are presented as evidence that one’s sexual preferences are not the result of their choices but something about which they have no choice, what is being asserted is that one is a helpless victim of their desires and feelings, which they have for no particular reason and without any particular cause except, “ they are just that way.”

I have already shown it is the sum of a person’s choices actions that determine who and what a person is, and what a person values, believes and thinks determines what a person feels. The only evidence an individual has for their homosexuality is their feelings. To an Objectivist, nothing else in the world is acceptable on the basis of “that’s what I feel like,” or, “it feels right,” or, “I feel I can’t help it,” yet that is the only basis and only argument for homosexuality.

Not only does this justify the opposite of the Objectivist method of dealing with feelings, it makes the homosexual the victim of his feeling—it says, “give up, don’t try, it’s what you feel and there is nothing you can do about it.”

6. That resisting abnormal desires is, “repression,” and psychologically dangerous.

I have already discussed the nature of this psychological fallacy under, “The Virtue of Repression.” Far from being dangerous, it is an absolute necessity for living a rational and moral life. As I said, “repression only means self-control, those free of repression are out-of-control. There is hardly a better description of homosexual behavior.

7. That homosexual practices are normal.

In our discussion of, “Normality,” I said, “by normal behavior, I mean, that behavior which is appropriate to the nature of an organism.” Since normal behavior is automatically provided by instinct for all other creatures, only man must discover what the requirements of his nature are and what behavior is appropriate ( normal) to that nature.

Since man’s nature consists of both psychological and physical aspects, it is his entire nature, psychological and physical, that must be considered when normality is being determined. Since sexual practices are primarily a matter of how the physical body and its organs are used, I will examine that aspect first.

The word sex pertains to the fact that human beings (and all higher animals) are divided into two varieties, male and female. If this were not so, if man and animals reproduced, for example, asexually as some organisms do, the whole question about homosexuality, or any other questions of, “sexuality,” would never come up.

The reason why there are males and females is because that is our reproductive nature. If sex were not required for procreation, nature would not have provided us with these attributes at all and there would be no reason for sexual differences between male and female human beings.

The natural act between a male and female by which reproduction is accomplished is called sexual intercourse.⁴ The organs provided for that function are called the genitals.

I said, “every aspect of the body, every organ, has a specific set of functions which determines how they must or may be used.“Normal use of our body’s organs is based on their natural function—normal use includes any use that conforms to an organs natural function or functions, including any harmless variations and extensions of those functions, but excludes any use that is opposite or contradictory to their natural function and any use that is harmful to the organs themselves or to the body in general.

Since the genitals are provided to carry out sexual intercourse, everything about their nature will be to successfully perform that act. The natural function of the genitals as sex organs⁵ is their use by one man and one woman for sexual intercourse. Physiologically, those organs have the exact characteristics required for carrying out that act successfully, including the fact that it is simultaneously beneficial, enjoyable, and harmless.

It is not possible for two human beings of the same sex, two men or two women, to have sexual intercourse. They cannot use their genitals with each other for their natural (normal) function. I said the normal use of any organ “conforms to an organs natural function or functions, including any harmless variations and extensions of those functions, but excludes any use that is opposite or contradictory to their natural function and any use that is harmful ….“Homosexuals attempt to justify their behavior as normal on the basis that what they do is a harmless variation or extension of the natural functions of the organs of sex.

Since the specific function of the genitals is for their use by one man and one woman, no use by any other pairings can be considered an extension of their natural function. They only way they can be used outside the heterosexual context is in some way that contradicts their natural function and is both dangerous and harmful.

For an explicit example: the female vagina walls are several cells thick, “designed” for sexual intercourse. The walls of the anus are only one cell thick, and easily damaged. The anus is not a sexual organ and has one specific natural function, the dispelling of waste. The common practice of male homosexuals called “anal-intercourse,” is an opposite, contradictory, and harmful use of the anus, and a totally abnormal use of the male sex organs.

“Regarding physical health, there is increasing evidence that mortality and morbidity rates are substantially higher for those who engage in homosexual practices. For example, the risk of anal cancer soars by as much as 4,000% for men who engage in anal intercourse with other men. The host of medical consequences of those who practice anal intercourse is large, from the tearing of the rectal lining with all of its accompanying problems to the diseases associated with subsequent contact with fecal matter.”⁶)

Why do human beings deliberately do what is both abnormal and harmful to themselves? I said, under, “Desire, the Source of Wrong Behavior:” “In every case where someone intentionally practices self-destructive behavior, by their own testimony, it will be because of desire, a desire they feel so overwhelmingly, they either justify the action based on the desire (it must be normal if I desire it so strongly) or act on the desire in defiance of their own best judgment, because, ‘they just cannot help it.’”

These are, of course, the very rationalizations the homosexuals use, though more elaborately developed. This is not surprising, however. Desire, after all, is the motivator of all human behavior, and, naturally, the motivator of sexual behavior as well.

While the natural purpose and function of sex is procreation, the act may be performed for pleasure, as well as procreation, and the two purposes do not need to be differentiated. Pleasure is a necessary aspect of the natural function. While intercourse might still result in reproduction without pleasure, it is doubtful the act would be engaged in without that motivation. The natural purpose of the pleasure that accompanies sexual intercourse is the same as the purpose of sex itself, to ensure procreation. Within the context of the natural function of sex, the pleasure is both a motivator and reward for the proper use of one’s natural attributes.

Nevertheless, what man discovers is pleasurable he may seek for the sake of the pleasure alone, without regard to the natural purpose or function of that pleasure. No doubt, the sweetness of many foods is a pleasure that is naturally meant to insure we will consume foods containing them, because they are necessary to our nourishment. The discovery of the pleasure of sweet things has resulted in the creation of foods, such as candy, which are primarily for the purpose of the pleasure we have in eating them. Nobody eats candy because they think it is nourishing.

There is certainly nothing wrong with desiring pleasure for its own sake, or of seeking and enjoying it. But the fact that something is pleasurable and desirable does not tell us whether I ought to seek that pleasure or fulfill that desire. The whole purpose of moral values is to provide us with the principles for determining which desires are good to pursue and which are not. If all our desires were good, I would have no need of moral values; I could do just what the animals do, whatever I desired to do. Some do, which explains the disasters they make of their lives.

With regard to desire, however, no specific desires are provided by our nature. One does not have homosexual desires because they were born that way or caused to be that way by anything else. All human desires, except for the basic biological urges, are developed, not given or pre-determined. The suggestion that the psychological aspects of homosexuality are normal completely ignores the fact a human being is whatever he chooses to be. The human mind consists of whatever a person has chosen to put into it and however they have chosen to develop it. Ayn Rand describes man as a, “self-made soul,” which means, a self-made mind, which means he has a self-determined psychology.

When men have desires for which neither they or others can explain the source or cause, when one’s mind does not behave according to one’s own choosing, these are indications of a psychological abnormality. Trauma, chemical imbalances, physiological anomalies all can cause feelings one cannot understand and mental events that one cannot control. But these are all abnormalities. To claim one has desires, passions, inclinations, and “orientations,” which are “caused”and not the result of and under the control of one’s own rational conscious choice is an admission of a mental abnormality.

8. That sex is a fundamental aspect of romantic love.

They have confused the relationship between sex and love. There is a relationship, but they have it backwards. It is, for them, first find out what your sexual desires are, then seek a love that fits it. This puts passion or emotion before reason.

“There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand.”⁷

I said about those who misinterpret such scenes as those depicting the love between Gail Wynand and Howard Roark, “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.“

The love Ayn Rand describes between her two heroes, Gail Wynant and Howard Roark, is that highest form of love, the recognition of everything one values concretized in the being of another person. This kind of love affects everything about one’s relationship with the one loved. It is not possible that such men would be tempted homosexually, but even if it were, it would not have been possible for it to be part of their love. This highest kind of love is only possible to those with the kind of values these two heroes had. That kind of love does not allow itself or the values that make it possible, to be sacrificed on the alter of whim or desire or passion, and that knowledge makes any such desire itself impossible.

This same kind of love for a woman is not debauched by sex, but celebrated by it, not as the major point of their relationship, but, within the context of the relationship between a man and woman who love each other, it is one of the intimacies and pleasures they rightfully share as part of that relationship. Between a man and a woman, the sex that would debauch the love between two men and degrade the sex into a hedonistic indulgence, becomes the opposite, the free and appropriate enjoyment of one another earned by their love.

If a man loves a woman who is already married or committed to another or for some other reason, may not morally share an intimate relationship with her, that love becomes like the love between two men. There will be no temptation, because that kind of love does not allow itself or the values that make it possible to be sacrificed on the alter of whim or desire or passion, and that knowledge makes any such desire itself impossible.

Is this kind of love common today? No. The love that is common today is little distinguishable from whim and passion. It is not the kind of love an Objectivist, or any moral man or woman, cares either to give or receive.

The Methods

I do not mean by methods a consciously intended strategy. The nature of the, “mission,” precludes those kinds of methods, which would require explicitly stated objectives and clearly defined steps, both of which would not fit their real purpose, which I defined under, “The Real Mission,” “What They Really Want.” The methods which are used are the only ones available to accomplish their objectives. I have categorized these methods as deception, vilification, and desensitization, because that is what their methods accomplish. I am certain the intention is just the opposite of these, but the best intentions do not change the facts.

Deception

A great many of the ideas used to bolster this movement either implied or explicitly stated are false. Most of these have been fully discussed already, so for the most part, this will only list the various erroneous, mistaken, and misleading assertions used to support the, “mission,” with links provided to the sources demonstrating the errors involved, with some brief comments.

1. Homosexuality is genetic in origin or caused by early in-vitro experiences. This is one of the “Mission Concepts” debunked here. (See these links also: “Homosexuality - Determined or Chosen?”.)

2. Homosexuality is a state, condition, or “orientation,” not a chosen behavior. This is also a mission concept debunked here.

3. Homosexuality is perfectly normal. This is another mission concept debunked here.

4. Homosexuality is persecuted in the same way and for the same reason as other minorities, for example, as the Jews. See, for example, the pink triangles and the so-called homosexual holocaust allegations.

5. Homosexuality, since normal, is perfectly healthy and safe. This is not explicitly stated but implied by the fact that none of the well known problems of homosexuality are mentioned while its normality is being defended. This is the subject of the next section, Problems of Homosexuality. For more research on this subject see the links under Homosexuality and Health.

6. Made-up words, pseudo-concepts, and innuendo propagate many false ideas. Some of these words and concepts, like homophobia, are part of the method of vilification. Others, like “sexual-orientation,” are used to put over the program.

7. Homosexuality is no danger to others. Since I do not directly address this issue elsewhere, and do not intend to, I must say something about it here. Ayn Rand said:

“If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.”⁸

This is exactly the condition of the homosexual and the position of the homosexual movement. By the claim: “homosexuality is a ‘condition’ or ‘state,’ not a chosen behavior”, it subordinates reason to, “desires, inclinations, and “orientations”,” and it produces exactly the kind of self-destruction and destruction-of-others Ayn Rand said it would.

When and if they are willing to admit their practices are harmful, and the psychology that puts passion above reason is dangerous, still they say, they only harm themselves. But they also harm any who are emotionally involved with them. They harm anyone who is not fully aware of their nature and their practices, because they are trusted to have the same values and principles as those whose values and principles are strictly rational and not dictated by or adjusted to one’s desires. They harm everyone who is influenced by the false ideas they themselves embrace to justify their practices and their lifestyle.

Most of all, they harm each other by reinforcing the rationalizations for their self-destructive practices, and very often, they harm each other with real physical harm, in the form of disease and damaged bodies.

I must point out, the harm they do to others is not coercive. They are not a, “threat,” or a, “danger,” to anyone who does not choose to place themselves in a position to be threatened or endangered by them. They do not force themselves on anyone. (The exceptions are those militant homosexual activists who seek special government favor, protection, and rights. That form of homosexuality is a coercive threat.)

Vilification

The purpose of vilification is not to eliminate disagreement by convincing argument, but to eliminate disagreement by silencing those who disagree.

By vilification I mean the attempt to discredit the opinions of anyone disagreeing that homosexuality is normal or that its practices are benevolent and moral. The purpose is to shut off all such opinions by making them unacceptable to all listeners and to prevent those who have such opinions from expressing them. The tactic may work with regard to the first purpose, but the second only works against those, who like the homosexuals themselves, are deathly afraid of what others think and cannot be happy without their approval.

The method involves two different approaches: overt accusations and innuendo.

The overt approach works by applying certain pejorative terms both to the individuals and their opinions such as, “hateful,” “homophobic,” “prudish,” or “ignorant,” or “abusive.” Anything that expresses an individual’s objective judgment of homosexuality is “hateful.” Any opinion that suggest homosexual practices are less than “marvelous”is “homophobic.” Anyone who suggests individuals ought to be in control of their passions, not the subjects of them, is a “prude.” To point out there is no scientific justification for homosexuality as a predetermined state is “psychologically illiterate.” Anyone who has a genuine concern for homosexuals who desire to free themselves from this addicting self-destructive life-style and attempts to help them is “abusive.”

Who would listen to anyone whose opinions are hateful, full of irrational fears (phobias), prudish, ignorant, or abusive? Who wants to be known as hateful, irrational, prudish, ignorant, or abusive? That should effectively silence any disagreement.

Innuendo is much more subtle and much more insidious. No specific accusations are made. “Possibilities,” are merely, “suggested.” One of the most common examples is the absurd, “suggestion,” that strong opposition to homosexuality is the result of “latent homosexual” in the opposer. If everyone is convinced that anyone who criticises homosexuality does so because they themselves are, “secret,” homosexuals, those who would speak out, but do not want to be known as homosexuals, will shut up, and those who speak out anyway, are repudiated as being homosexuals themselves. (But if they were, why would they speak against it?)

Perhaps the most common of all the vilifying terms is the homophobia lie already discussed.

Desensitization

A young girl expressing her certainty that homosexuality was bad, was asked how she knew it was bad. “Because what they do is icky,” she explained. This is the attitude that people like Dr. Sciabarra characterize as, “personal bias,” as he did Ayn Rand’s clear statement that homosexuality is “disgusting.”

This, “personal bias,” is shared by most who find the idea of intentionally ingesting feces, for example, disgusting. The question is how does one get to the place Dr. Sciabarra and others obtain which does not find such ideas disgusting at all, but positively “fabulous.”

Girls (it is mostly young women) who cut themselves wear long clothing to cover up the scars of their self-destructive and dangerous behavior. If these young women should suddenly be infected with the, “I ought to be proud of this because it is who I am,” virus that infects most homosexuals, if they should start, “coming out,” the sudden appearance of many self-mutilated young girls would be disgusting, or at least appalling to most. It would not be hate, not fear, not judgment, not a desire to punish or incriminate; it would be pity, an appropriate and involuntary revulsion at seeing the evidence of someone else’s addictive self-induced suffering. Any normal decent person ought to have an “aversion” to seeing such self-destructive behavior. To not have an aversion to other’s suffering, to see mutilation and not feel anything, is itself pathological.

But the homosexuals do not want people to have such, “aversions,” and, “personal biases,” and they intend to eliminate them.

If the young women who cut and mutilate themselves should, “come out,” and stopped wearing clothing to cover their scars and avoiding situations where the results of their behavior would be seen by everyone, if we saw these poor creatures all the time, everywhere we lived, worked, shopped and played, we would, in time, cease be appalled or affected at all by seeing them. After a while, we would probably not even notice them. We would come to accept them as perfectly normal, and view their self-destructive behavior as just another life-style.

This is exactly the method and intention of the homosexual movement. By, “coming out,” by blatantly displaying every kind of sexual practice as openly as they can get away with, by removing all limits to the open display of sex in any form, all the time, everywhere we live, work, shop, and play, we will, in time, cease be appalled or affected at all by seeing them. The intention is to eliminate all sensitivity to all sexual acts. If nothing shocks or disgusts anyone, there is nothing that one cannot do with impunity—they think.

The process of desensitizing is not a planned program, so much as one that continually pushes the limits. As soon as society becomes accustomed to hearing more explicit descriptions, seeing more blatant behavior, finding more crude language and pornographic images in their newspapers, magazines, and in all media, a new level of outrages is introduced. There is no limit and no, “end goal,” only the continuous push toward total pubic moral nihilism.

In fact, the social non-acceptance of, “disgusting,” behavior is a protection, not of society so much, as of the individuals who are dissuaded by it to curb their self-destructive practices. Homosexual practices are not a threat to the public or public morals. What homosexuals do is not going to harm those who do not engage in them, just as cutting harms no one but the girls who actually cut themselves (and of course any who actually love and care for them). There is no one arguing we ought to be, “less sensitive,” to the plight of those young people who cut and mutilate themselves. No one should be arguing for less sensitivity to the plight of those who destroy their own lives with their homosexual practices, either.

Problems of Homosexuality

_Homosexuality is physically detrimental to those that practice it._—The destructiveness of the homosexual life-style is well documented. For example: “even when AIDS was not a factor, gay men had a significantly shorter lifespan than married heterosexual men - shorter by about three decades! Those with AIDS had their lifespans reduced by an additional 7 percent,” and, “… anal sex typically causes damage to the body that promotes a disproportionate level of acute rectal trauma, rectal incontinence, and anal cancer among homosexual males. Damage to the soft tissues of the rectal lining also permit entry of microbes, regardless of condom usage. Infections such as hepatitis B, shigellosis, and Giadia lamblia infection (sic) are much more common in homosexual male (sic).”⁹

“Michigan’s statewide ‘gay’ newspaper, Between the Lines, reports the risk of anal cancer ‘soars’ by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. ‘The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive.’ Between the Lines admits there’s no such thing as ‘safe sex’ to prevent this ‘soaring’ cancer risk … The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports: * “Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices.”
* “Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women.” * “Domestic violence is…probably more common among homosexuals than among heterosexuals.”
* “Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals.”¹⁰

“Regarding lesbians, they face a higher breast cancer risk … Another study found bacterial vaginosis occuring in 33% of lesbians but only in 13% of heterosexual women, and found that: ‘Cervical cytology abnormalities were uncommon but only found in the lesbians.’ (Those abnormalities may be precursors to cervical cancers.) … Another study of lesbians found “a relatively high prevalence of the viral STDs, herpes simplex and human papillomavirus [HPV].“… “Genital HPV infection and squamous intraepithelial lesions are common among women who are sexually active with women.”¹¹

For a detailed documented account of the diseases, including, bacterial, enteric, and viral infections, HIV/AIDS, cancers and tumors, as well as drug and alcohol abuse that are many times more prevalent or unique to homosexuals, see Health and Homosexuality, and the links under Homosexuality and Health.

_Homosexuality is psychologically harmful to those that practice it._—I have already addressed the fact the homosexuality is not normal. The rationalization that is required to justify that abnormality is already a psychological problem, which includes, subordinating reason to desire, making them the slaves of their passions. It is easy to understand how the homosexual would be attracted to Objectivism with its emphasis on individual liberty. It is not the liberty of Objectivism, the freedom that comes from having complete control and authority for one’s own life, however, the homosexual seeks. Objectivist freedom is self-control, the freedom of homosexuality is being out-of-control. For example:

“A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that “the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes.” Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else–not even life and health itself–is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. Homosexual promiscuity fuels the AIDS crisis in the West, but even that tragedy it is not allowed to interfere with sexual freedom.”¹²

The psychiatric community no longer regards homosexuality a psychological disease, which is probably just as well. It is not a disease in the classic sense (and neither are many of the other things psychologists still consider diseases), but it certainly is a behavioral and psychological abnormality, a chosen one.

There is an argument that not all homosexuals choose to engage in the kind of risky behaviors that contribute to physical diseases and psychological problems with which homosexuality is statistically associated. Most do, and most do even when they are totally aware of the dangers and they do for the same reason they engage in any homosexual practices, they cannot control their desires.

No Objectivist can honestly say, choosing that life-style is choosing what is in one’s rational self-interest. Egoism is not hedonism. The rationally selfish make their choices in context and the most important aspect of that context with regard to one’s sexual life are the long-term consequences of one’s thoughts and behavior.

Perhaps the most troubling of homosexual problems is itself a psychological one. The problem of guilt.

Incredible Guilt

Why do homosexuals promote their activities as normal? Why is it so important to them for the whole world to sanction what they do as perfectly rational, healthy, and moral?

I said earlier, “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.”

I said when speaking of the source that proper emotion, “I am worthy,” (self-esteem), “Worthiness and self-esteem come from knowing one is competent to live their life successfully in this world, and is living it consistent with their knowledge, values, and nature, (i.e. non-contradictorily), and has earned and achieved all they have and enjoy by one’s own effort. All that is less than this is experienced as guilt.”

Those whose pleasures are enjoyed by blindly following passions and desires that come from they do not know where (their genes, their pre-natal experiences, etc.) can never have the knowledge that what they do and enjoy, they do because they understand how it fits the requirements of their nature, that it is appropriate to one living fully as a rational/volitional being, driven by desire but directed by reason.

“It is me,” is not an answer to the question, “on what grounds am I justified in enjoying this pleasure; how have I earned it; why do I deserve it; in what way am I worthy of it? But for the homosexual, “it is me,” is the only answer available. Unless they can justify that answer, every homosexual pleasure they enjoy is a source of guilt, a value unearned and a pleasure undeserved; since that is the supreme pleasure of their life, the dominant emotion of their life is a supreme sense of guilt.

This is the reason every homosexual craves approval, not just acceptance or tolerance. So long as there are those who refuse to accept the view that what a person does is not by choice, but the result of some unasked for state of being, they are a denial of the homosexual’s whole reason for being what they are. The only justification for that behavior which contradicts their obvious physiological nature is, “they were born that way,” it’s their, “state,” their, “orientation,” its, “who they are.”

But who they are is chosen, and what they do is chosen, and their “state” or “orientation,” is not an excuse for those choices. So long as one is able to think and choose, their choices must be based on their best rational judgment, even if those choices and those actions must always be in contradiction to some, “state,” that is beyond their control. Everyone who succeeds in fulfilling the purpose of their life as a human being does so in defiance of some desires, or passions, or predispositions, that, if they allowed them to, would prevent them from achieving and enjoying their lives fully.

So long as there are those who refuse, in their own lives or others, to condone the surrender of reason to desire, or a predisposition, or an orientation, they are the proof that no one must be the slave of their passions and everyone may live a fully rational, fully human, fully enjoyed life. So long as they exist, they condemn those who do surrender their will and their reason to their passions resulting in a permanent sense of guilt.

What to Do

What should an Objectivist do about homosexuality? If you are not a homosexual, beyond learning whatever you need to know about the nature of homosexuality, especially if you are going to actually be dealing with homosexuals as homosexuals or are involved in determining policy of some kind that would effect them, there is no reason to do anything. If you have relatives, or friends, or business associates who are homosexual, unless they make it your business, what they do with their lives is their business, not yours.

If you are a homosexual, I believe you have a problem for which there is real help available, but we all have problems which we must deal with in the best way we can. They are our own problems, and usually others do not (nor should they) care about our problems, and we have no business foisting them on them. We are all misunderstood, all misjudged, and all “abused,” by others, especially if we are living our lives rationally and independently. Generally, you will find Objectivists will not judge you, or descriminate against you, or, in most cases, even consider your sexual practices when dealing with you—they do not matter to them. But Objectivists are just people, and some are as objectionable and unreasonable as any other people. So what?

Still, there is a homosexual agenda, and for some this is an important issue. While it is unlikely Objectivist homosexuals are involved with the political aspects of this agenda, they are not likely to resist it or support those who do, like those concerned about its influence on political issues or education, for example. There is a lot of confusion, I think, about these issues, which are important, but not part of the purpose of this book. (See Addendum.)

What is part of the purpose of this book is to demonstrate one must always be willing to speak the truth as they understand it. In the market of ideas, the truth will win only if it is freely and plainly expressed and everyone is free to use their own best reason to judge the value of the product. In that kind of, “free market,” there are always those who will be offended, particularly those who do not like the truth. To intentionally offend is not only stupid, it is very poor marketing technique—it drives away one’s own customers. To compromise ones product (the truth) to avoid offense, is intellectual market suicide. You cannot win in any market if you have nothing to sell.