Before I make any further comment: Rand was wrong about Homosexuality as I have previously stated. Why she was wrong is the issue.
Recently, as a result of people reading the immenently accessible works of Terry Goodkind, himself an Objectivist there has sprung up yet another variation on the theme. Which is fine as far as it goes. "Reasonism" is the name of their belief system, and it's clearly based on the immature understandings of Rand that one would get from being able to read Terry Goodkind's works, but not fully understanding the works of Ayn Rand or more specifically her non-fiction works. This is a very common problem, because while Terry Goodkind writes at a grade 8 level (tested using the Ontario standard from reading level), Rand's non-fiction on the basis of Objectivism is written at 2nd or 3rd year university and the more you dive into it, the harder it gets to read. I for one am not ashamed to admit that I read it with a dictionary beside me the entire time to ensure that I was getting the full and correct meaning.
At any rate, the point is that some very seriously dangerous things come out of ignorance:
"What one man values is amoral. How a man interacts with others is either moral or immoral."
What they're saying is that values are only applicable to interactions with others. They do not apply to the individual's life. While there is a more drawn out version of this proof by Rand and others, the short version is: This is patently rediculous for a group of individuals to suggest that something only matters in the context of the group. Further it's even worse because it completely denies the very fundamental understanding of values. Values are tools. They exist for a purpose and that is to define what is good or evil to us. Their most fundamental purpose is to guide our own lives, not the lives of others.
A man's values should (and are not if they believe in God) reflect is joy of life and his purpose to constantly improve his life. Thus a man's values will reflect this. It is the values of a man that helps him decide right and wrong. A man values that which improves his own life and doesn't value that which doesn't. For instance, a man may value money because it is the representation of trade with others. That money allows the man to improve his life by getting goods that he needs to improve his life in fair trade and thus make money off of the product of his own hard work. It is specifically money that is the agreement between two parties to trade without the use of force. Thus, because money, when used in this context is improves a man's life, it is good and thus should be valued by man.
Their suggestion that the values and actions of another man in the context of how they affect himself and only himself are amoral and thus irrelivent to you is patently silly. The content of the man's character, which defines how he will act in any given situation and thus the level of trust you have in him, is not limited to only the things that affect you, but to all of that man's actions, because only when you see the complete picture can you make a correct judgement. For instance, just because you have never been hurt by a man's addiction to cocaine, does that mean that you should value that man the same as one that is not? Of course not, the man is harming himself volantarily and thus, because he doesn't value his own life, he cannot be trusted to value yours and infact because of the destructive choice, can be counted upon to harm yours. Thus your value system should tell you that that man should be stayed away from, because you value your life and your enjoyment of yoru life, not hardship and pain that comes from that type of man.
Of course all of this comes from men trying to reconcile their logical knowledge that homosexuality is neither evil nor denotes any value on the man's life. Rand said that it was evil. Her reason was that it doesn't propogate the species. Propogation of the species is completely irrelivent to whether or not it is evil. The only consideration is "does it improve or harm a man's life?" The answer is NEITHER. Why? Because it is a mistake of birth, not a choice, just as surely as having black skin is a mistake of birth and is completely irrelivent to the quality of a man. Judge me by the content of my character. Homosexuality has nothing to do with character, or CHOICE or good or evil. Thus Rand was wrong. She was wrong, because she believed the scientific statements of the time that said that homosexuality is societal and a choice and not genetic or as we're finding out, directly related to the amount of testosterone in the mother's womb and the mother's immune system attacking the foreign substance (XY instead of XX).
But because they can't just say "Rand was wrong in this specific case" and instead of have to say "Rand's funamental understanding of values is wrong because of this one example" they go and twist everything around. Rand's understanding of values is exactly right and completely non-contradictory. Her understanding of the nature of homosexuality was incomplete and thus her conclusions were wrong. (under her assertion with today's knowledge, she would have been evil too because she didn't propogate the species by having children, no matter that she was sterile.)
This is the problem (if you can call it that) with Objectivism: It's hard. It takes huge effort to understand it fully and to apply it carefully. (just like reason is not automatic, it is a choice) You have to put effort in, but too often people assume something that isn't true because they're lazy and don't fully define the issue and look at the facts in question before jumping off a bridge.
And while it doesn't seem like a big difference, it is and the most fundamental level. They have created a contradition. An exception that stops the universal from being true and as a result, will continue to make erronious assertions. And because it's comfortable to not have to judge other's actions and their values that got them there, others will embrace this half-belief system and harm themselves in the process.