Ayn Rand WAS WRONG about SOMETHING

I admit it.

Published on December 29, 2004 By John Galt In Philosophy

Ok, so I'm going to piss off pretty much every segment of the population except for the thinking kind in this one article. (As if I didn't already do that in the last one) So if you don’t want to get pissed off, please don’t read this. (I might piss off thinking people too because I’m in a really sarcastic mood…)

Objectivists: Ayn Rand was wrong. Totally and completely wrong at least once (well more than once, but I'll get to that later). The contradiction is hit you over the head obvious, but that doesn’t stop lots of Objectivists from agreeing with her anyhow. (in that case you’re a Randian, not an objectivist btw)

What was she wrong about? Homosexuality. Why? She says that being gay is evil.

Now full disclosure. I’m heterosexual (very) but a firm believer in freedom and thus support gay marriage, hell I support multiple marriages (bigamy etc.) so long as all parties knowingly consent, because that is their right and it harms no one. (and hell, it must be right, the Bible says it is repeatedly. Especially Deuteronomy, my favourite book of the RC bible

(yes I know protestants were about to yell that it isn’t part of their damned book!))

Why is being gay not evil?

Because as Ayn Rand says a mistake of birth does not have any value. Being black does not give you value, nor white, nor born to a rich father, or even being a woman. (And certainly not being a man, because men are evil as we all know! (And that’s why we must apologize for being male every day of our lives to any woman that will listen… try it some time, you’re life will go much easier. You don’t even have to have a real reason, just apologize every day, make it up, it’s scary. (sorry all you deep women out there that I have yet to ever meet, but I tested a whole huge group of women on this for a week…. At the end of the week of apologizing on a daily basis, I actually got flowers and a thank you for brightening their day all week. I was the same other than the apology, and I’m sure that the apologies were utterly insincere most of the time, so you really know the study was valid when…))) (I think I lost track of all of the braces in that one!) Again, sorry all of you deep women out there. Please come and visit, I would like to meet some of you. Hell, deep men, I come and visit, I would like to meet you too, you’re almost as equally rare! (probably just as equally as rare, I just have opportunity in my field to be around more men that are rational than women that are rational.)

Anywho, back to the story (told you I was going to piss everyone off)…

Thus if a mistake of birth has no value, then being gay cannot possibly be either good or evil. You are no more able (surgery not with standing) to change being gay then being male or female. You just are, it’s genetic. And in the case of being gay, it’s a genetic defect (told you I would piss everyone off), but it’s still genetic, and thus doesn’t denote any value one way or another.

Ayn Rand’s logical fallacy was to assume that being gay was a choice. It’s not, it’s hard wired in the physical make up of the brain, just as men that want to be women feel their entire lives that they are in the wrong body is genetic. This isn’t a choice, this isn’t some societal thing, it’s genetic.

It’s also a genetic defect. (yes, I’ve heard all of the arguments from gays that don’t want to admit that they are the product of a genetic defect, but hey, it is, so get over it, I know that all of those patients with MS just pine over the fact that they are the product of a genetic defect every day of their lives… so since that was sarcasm and you have a hell of a lot better time of it as a gay than someone with MS, it really is quite petty of you to get upset about it.) Why is it a genetic defect? Evolution (see I told you I was going to piss off everyone) is evolution because it is a process of genetic change and selection to improve the ability to propagate the species. Since being gay petty much means (unless you’re a hypocrite) that you aren’t going to reproduce. The “gay gene” (which is yet to be found, but the effects of it are clear and consistent, namely the physical make up of the brain of a gay person is completely differently wired than that of a straight person) is a genetic defect, because the only measure of the suitability of a mutation in the gene pool being positive or defective is if it enhances the ability of the species to propagate. (yes, scientists like to mince words and give it another definition, but when it comes down to it, this is what a genetic defect is based on the definition of Evolution which is the description of the process of genetic change for which genes are the players and they’re sole reason for existence)

So Rand was wrong because of a false assumption that was the popular opinion of her time and if she had bothered to think about it and educate herself on it instead of using the ignorant beliefs of her generation, she would have seen that it isn’t environment, or choice, it is genetic and a mistake of birth. She would have seen that it doesn’t affect the person’s value as a person one way or another as she so clearly and concisely and rightly pointed out repeatedly in all of her works, and the world would do well to listen to. Being Muslim doesn’t make you better because Abraham did sacrifice you when God asked, and it doesn’t make you worse because Abraham didn’t sacrifice you and sacrificed a GDFJ over you instead when God asked. (i.e. the story is pointless and we’ve been fighting a war for 2000+ years over nothing). In fact it is entirely irrelevant to judging the person’s goodness. (Well except those stupid gay pride parades that are just disgusting (and would still be disgusting if it was a straight pride parade and wouldn’t be allowed btw.)) (I think I’m the only person on the planet that uses mathematical notation for braces in speech… ((())) )

Oh ya, and Ayn Rand would have to be a hypocrite to state that choosing to not have children as an indirect result of the choice to be gay is evil considering she never had children of her own, as a direct and fully cognizant choice… as most objectivists seem to avoid as well….

So get this straight: (Damn I’m funny!) Ayn Rand was wrong, being gay is just fine (i.e. neither good nor bad). I just don’t give a damn because it doesn’t provide you with any value positively or negatively, so get over yourselves and live your lives. Have fun, do whatever you want behind closed doors just like the rest of us. And the church, well you’re wrong too, but you’re even less likely than Objectivists to come to your senses, so we’ll just ignore you and keep using condoms despite your best efforts, (gays especially please! (Damn that thing called AIDS eh?)) and you’re free not to marry gays, but you’re not free to dictate to them what they can and cannot do, so get over it. (the supreme court in Canada has already pointed this out, and the US supreme court will do the same eventually when it gets the opertunity)

Oh ya, and the cracks about women… get over that too. I have a hate on for stupid people, not women, not men. Being stupid is a choice (yes I said choice, because I’m using the word stupid to mean ignorant, not lacking intelligence), being male/female is not, so I don’t care about that one way or another either (unless you’re female, brilliant, tall, beautiful and fiery as a meteorite in the upper atmosphere… and in your twenties too please, in which case, send me an email, I’ve been looking for you for 27 years!), my example was just pointing out more hypocrisy.

PS: Yes this is laced with sarcasm (and man, I really love brackets!). I’m in one of those moods. And I did warn you that I would piss everyone on the planet off….

Comments

russellmz2

on Dec 29, 2004

just cause it's funny:

http://angryflower.com/atlass.gif

John Galt

on Dec 29, 2004

Sad funny yes. But if you have read Atlas Shrugged, the very people that this makes fun of do exactly this. They have grocery stores, and coal mines that they work themselves in Galt's Gulch. These people aren't afraid to work hard. The only difference is that they will work hard and in the process come up with better ways of doing what they're doing so that they can work hard at more important things. Thus instead of being slave labour tilling fields, quickly they do build robots that do it for them so that they can do greater things that improve everyone's life.

They do it because they are repaid for it in fair trade by others like themselves. No gun is held to their heads.

xtine

on Dec 29, 2004

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I actually enjoyed reading this article. I usually quit on these long winded passages not even half-way through. I have read Atlas Shrugged and must say I skimmed through most of Mr. Galt's famous speech at the end. Say what you mean, man, we get it already!

Good job. I agree.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 30, 2004

Ayn Rand's statements on Homosexuality were made at a time when it was listed in the "Diagnostic Criteria of Mental Disorders (DSM). Since it was listed in this "Bible of Psychiatry", it was deemed as a mental disorder. The churches, of course also deemed it a moral sin both in action and in orientation.

Since the publication of the DSM-III (in 1980), it has not been considered a "mental" disorder by the Psychiatric community. Of course, homosexuality is no more moral or immoral now than it was in Ayn Rand's time, and no more or less a disorder now than in 1979. The only real difference between homosexualily now and then is now there are special interest groups pushing an agenda.

What is interesting about this whole metamophosis in the politication of moral and psychological questions is how activities that are now considered mental and moral disorders will use the arguments of the Homosexual activists for their own agenda.

For example: In our society sexual urges and acts between adults and minors has always been considered both a psychological and moral disorder. Yet, Mary Kay Latourno had a huge groundswell of supporters and apologists, The North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is fighting for their "right" to marry who they love; When Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg was a lawyer for the ACLU, she advocated the lowering of the age of consent to 12; and The American Psychological Association has come under fire for suggesting that "pedophilia" should be stricken from the DSM and should be called "Intergenerational Relationships". Further drawing fire by suggesting that, unless there is physical harm done by involvement in these relationships, they shouldn't be considered unhealthy at all.

Of course, homosexuality does not mean the person is a pedophile, and I am in no way trying to imply that their is an actual connection between the two. However, the above examples show that those who advocate social change, in favor of acceptance of pedophilia, are using the arguments of the homosexual agenda with some success. In 20 years, will those of us who abhor pedophilia be considered bigots?

Ayn Rand made statements about homosexuality that were true for her time, and considered by her to be timeless social, psychological and moral norms. In 1979 those norms were forever changed, yet in that same year would a more modern day Ayn Rand have made the same statements concerning pedophilia? Would time show her to be right or wrong?

John Galt

on Dec 31, 2004

ParaTed2k

Excellent write up!

My problem with Ayn Rand's point which you alude to in your peice is that she took the current thinking of the time at face value. At no other time (that I have yet to ever find in anything else she ever wrote) did she EVER do this. In fact she repeatedly states that it is the moral man's obligation to question everything with a critical eye. As Terry Goodkind states "Question everything. Finding contradictions does not require intelligence or education, it just requires a little effort. By doing so you will know good from evil." (TG is an Objectivist for the most part). If she had just been wrong, that's fine, people are wrong (including myself

). But to be wrong because you failed to follow your own rule... it's just bizzare. What's worse, objectivists agree with Rand, simply because she said it, despite the obvious contradictions.

Whther pushed by special interest groups or whatever, the premise is still the same. Physical harm has to occur. In Canada the age of concent is 16. In serveral cases the courts have acknowledged that if the instigator is the minor and the minor can show that they fully were aware of what they were doing and the concequences, that it is not rape in any form. This type of judgement is a completely correct and just judgement. The same is true about incest. Based on the guidelines of if the two parties are both capable of informed consent, then there is no physical harm done. If they were to bring a child into the world that was deformed, well that would be assult and should be charged as such, but we dont' live in an age where there is no such thing as birth control.

Do I like pedophilia? Do I like incest? NO. But the point is that there is no physical harm and it doesn't affect me in any way, so they are free to do it if they choose. The government does not have the right to legislate based on moral outrage, or to protect others from being stupid. They have the right to legislate based on the concept of freedom and "do no harm to others unless asked to." (consent)

The really funny thing for Christians out of this whole thing is that enevitably polygamy is going to be legalized too (Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a little more "liberal" than the US Bill of Rights and includes the "freedom of association" and the "freedom of expression" which is much more encompassing than the US counterparts, hence this statement) and it's the Christians that always bring it up when talking about gay marriage. The funny part is that the Bible itself makes repeated references to polygamy as not only morally acceptable but required in some cases (i.e. if your brother dies and leaves a wife behind, you have an obligation to take her as your wife even if you have your own according to the old testiment)

John Galt

on Dec 31, 2004

xtine:

Glad I could entertain enough to allow you to get through it

ParaTed2k

on Dec 31, 2004

But the point is that there is no physical harm and it doesn't affect me in any way, so they are free to do it if they choose

This is where it gets sticky. Should "physical" harm be the only standard for determining if behavior should be legal or socially acceptable? It a 40 year old man has a sexual relationship with a 13 year old girl, most likely there will be no physical harm done. However what is the psychological repercussions to the girl. Turning the tables, what if the 40 year old is a woman and the 13 year old a boy? Then we can even go a bit further and include homosexual relationships, and as you brought up, polygamist intentions.

Many problems rear their ugly head when talking about this kind of relationship. In removing the taboo, and then the laws against these kinds of relationships, what are we encouraging. Are we to say that predatory adults are then free to prey on our kids, with no restraint by laws, social norms, or even psychological methods of rehabilitation? Will there be a day when I, as a father, could be prosecuted for doing nothing more than defending my son or daughter from a pedophilic predator? Furthermore, 12 or 13 is not good enough for NAMBLA, the mantra, "Sex before 8 or it's too late" is not merely their idea of a joke, they are dead serious.

A lot of people say that the state has no authority to tell us with who we can love; have sex; or even cohabitate. Well, if that is true then the whole concept of civil marriage shouldn't exist at all. Laws are nothing more than a table of contents of acceptable and unacceptable behavior in a society. Marriage is not merely between the two people, it is a contract between two people and the state.

It is the heighth of irony (and maybe even hypocrissy) for people to use the arguement, "the state has no right getting involved in our relationships", when their whole agenda is insisting the government be involved in the relationship. ;~D

What on earth is civil marriage, if not bringing the government into a relationship?

What's worse, objectivists agree with Rand, simply because she said it, despite the obvious contradictions.

The irony of this is that Ayn Rand's whole point is to not revere anyone to the point you accept everything they say, merely because they said it! ;~D

online casinos uncovered

on May 01, 2006

I like what you do, continue this way.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!