Objectivism and homosexuality: Difference between revisions

Objectivism is a philosophy created by Ayn Rand, which some gay and lesbian people have been interested in for its celebration of personal freedom and individuality at the expense of government power. However, Rand's personal views of homosexuality were unambiguously negative.

Ayn Rand

Moral views

In 1971, Rand published The New Left, a collection of essays which directly attacked the feminist and sexual liberation movements, including the gay rights movement. She called them "hideous" for their demand for what she considered "special privileges" from the government. She also addressed homosexuality directly, writing that "[T]o proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print." ("The Age of Envy")

In response to questions from the audience at the two Ford Hall Forum lectures she gave at Northeastern University, Rand explained her stance in more detail. In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults." (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 18) In 1971, Rand repeated this stance, then explained that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting." [1]

Political views

Despite the vigor and rancor in her moral views about homosexuality, Rand took a much more tolerant view of the political rights of homosexuals. While Rand resisted the label of libertarian, her views were consistent with a form of libertarianism called minarchism. Her stance on the legalities of homosexuality likewise matched the mainstream libertarian perspective, leading to support of certain "rights" but not others. In specific, while she endorsed rights that protect gays from discrimination by the government, she rejected the "right" to be protected from discrimination in the private sector.

On sex roles

Rand asserted that the "the essence of femininity is hero worship — the desire to look up to man" and that "an ideal woman is a man-worshiper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind." In other words, Rand felt that it was part of human nature for a psychologically healthy woman to want to be ruled in sexual matters by a man worthy of ruling her. In an authorized article in The Objectivist, psychiatrist Nathaniel Branden, Rand's extramarital lover and onetime "intellectual heir," explains Rand's view as the idea that "man experiences the essence of his masculinity in the act of romantic dominance; woman experiences the essence of her femininity in the act of romantic surrender." (1968)

Reactions

In 1983, Nathaniel Branden wrote that she was "absolutely and totally ignorant” about homosexuality. Branden added that he saw her perspective "as calamitous, as wrong, as reckless, as irresponsible, and as cruel, and as one which I know has hurt too many people who ... looked up to her and assumed that if she would make that strong a statement she must have awfully good reasons."

Harry Binswanger, of the Ayn Rand Institute writes that, while Rand generally condemned homosexuality, she would adopt a somewhat modified view of it "when she was in an especially good mood." [2] He also noted that he "asked her privately (circa 1980) specifically whether she thought it was immoral. She said that we didn't know enough about the development of homosexuality in a person's psychology to say that it would have to involve immorality."

After Rand's Death

After Rand's death in 1982, her heir Leonard Peikoff went on record [3] disagreeing with Rand's statement. Peikoff argued that homosexuality itself is not open to moral judgment. Other contemporary Objectivists generally continue to support the view that, while government should not discriminate against homosexuals in any way, private individuals and private organizations should be free to do so.

For example, according to Objectivist Damian Moskovitz:

While many conservatives believe that homosexuality should be outlawed and many liberals believe that homosexuals should be given special rights, Objectivism holds that as long as no force is involved, people have the right to do as they please in sexual matters, whether or not their behavior is considered by others to be or is in fact moral. And since individual rights are grounded in the nature of human beings as human beings, homosexuals do not deserve any more or less rights than heterosexuals. [4]

Like Rand, Objectivist psychologist Michael J. Hurd supports gay marriage as falling under the rights of individuals to associate voluntarily. Unlike Rand, however, he does not view homosexuality as immoral, stating that "a gay marriage... though unconventional and highly controversial, can be a loving and highly satisfying union between two individuals [5]."

Objectivist psychologists Ellen Kenner and Edwin A. Locke express opinions similar to those of Dr. Hurd. [6]

References

• Rand, Ayn, Homosexuality and Human Liberation (2003) [7]
• "The Female Hero: A Randian-Feminist Synthesis", Thomas Gramstad (1999) [8]

See also

• Libertarian perspectives on gay rights