Why Ayn Rand Disliked Homosexuality

[MalyshevEvgeniy]

One doesn't have a choice to be born a homosexual so to dislike it would be the same as disliking nature.

[MagisterPridgen]

@MalyshevEvgeniy Well there are certainly natural things that are harmful and undesirable. But people can't help how, when and with what attributes they are born and that certainly shouldn't be held against them. It's unjust to do so.

[MalyshevEvgeniy]

@MagisterPridgen Undesirable to whom? For me personally it's a necessity dictated by nature. Wrong or right, It's what I am.

[MagisterPridgen]

@MalyshevEvgeniy Then we agree. My point was that although there are natural things that are harmful and undesirable, whether or not people are sexually attracted to the same gender isn't among them. I could care less, so long as they don't try to force it on people of different persuasions.

[MalyshevEvgeniy]

@MagisterPridgen Ayn Rand certainly had lesbian inclinations judging by her idolization of the likes of Paula Negri.

[acustophile]

Good insight, Though I can't agree with rand on everything, the parts I take exception to are the more absolutist parts. All well put food for thought

[MagisterPridgen]

@acustophile Ok. Your point?

[wunderaaron]

No Women has any riight to commet on the love between two men. Women have no right judging male male relationships. They are much stronger than any male/female relationship.

[RJSoftware2000]

I use to think God was an idiot because God put the clitoris on the outside of the vagina. Why didn't God put the clitoris inside where the penus could rub to create more friction? Seems like that would make better sense for mutual stimulation. But later my wife give birth and I could then see the logic. How would penus size effect a vagina that delivered an 8lb baby? Else all women would eventually evolve to do donkey shows for stimulus. RJ

[RJSoftware2000]

A dog can eat out of garbage can and will sometimes eat it's own crap. But a dog would rather eat steak from the table as a family member. Opportunities from social constructs create the injustice. Clearly seen with the overwhelming acceptance of lesbianism and basic condemnation of gay men. If it where to be, that women suddenly found "gay" men irristable, then many so called "gay" men would eat vaginal steak and enjoy it. It is the woman who creates the constructs. Some call species specific.

[tinyflyonthewall]

I've read that most ALL studies on the topic no longer support the 10 percent gay demographic. Even San Francisco is only 15% gay. Given the preponderance of homosexual culture evidenced there, it would seem that SF should be more like 30 or 40% gay for us to accept that all other areas are 10% gay. More recent studies put the figure at in or around 4 % of the general population are gay or bisexual. If you want to argue the point, don't come to me, argue with those who publish these results.

[Esoparagon]

Juicy video. I think she had a blank slate view too which is erroneous.

[MagisterPridgen]

@Esoparagon Ayn Rand made mistakes. So do you. So do I. Do you think Ayn Rand thought that she was perfect and error free? She was pretty smart, so I find it highly unlikely. Seems more like an attitude that would be prevalent among religious folk.

[badnewswade]

Objectivism is NOT A REAL PHILOSOPHY. It is the self-serving credo of a shallow, mindless, asset-stripping ruling elite.

[XOmniverse]

@badnewswade What is a "real philosophy"?

[badnewswade]

@XOmniverse A real philosophy is one that asks real questions about the world and our place in it, not just a whinge for rich people who don't like paying tax. How shallow and self-serving can you be?

[XOmniverse]

@badnewswade Rand didn't just whine for rich people. If its your MO to believe that, then I have no ability to desire to convince you otherwise, but objectively it is a false claim.

[webmatros]

@badnewswade If you actually read some of Ayn Rands writings, you'd know that she was very well educated on all the classical philosophers, and that indeed her philosophy IS a real philosophy. You may then agree or disagree with her philosophy. But a philosophy it is. Lots and lots of food for thought.

[nactan]

i think the choice/genetics debate has zero relevance to the morality of homosexuality. there's no reason to conclude that homosexuality is immoral even if it's a choice.

[aaaaaaaars]

happened to also have been assholes, she still would have put it in the way I said and it would be something like: 'a sexual act in and of itself is not immoral, but it just so happens every one of them i met was a mean/nasty person'.

[aaaaaaaars]

is the oldest trick in the book. It is impossible to me that Rand would have had something against homosexuality because she advocates logic ( the people that shout the hardest that you should'nt actually do use it themselves as well, but they want to take advantage of you). According to logic there is nothing immoral about homosexual practice in and of itself if two people enjoy it and engage in it voluntarily. It doesn't come much more clear cut. Even if all gay people in her life would have

[XOmniverse]

@aaaaaaaars She publicly condemned homosexuality. It's not some made up nonsense concocted by Rand haters (and I am not a Rand hater) in order to discredit her. I'll post for you what she said in a Q&A session after a speech gave.

[XOmniverse]

@aaaaaaaars Q: This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?

A: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it." - cont

[XOmniverse]

@aaaaaaaars A: That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.

[aaaaaaaars]

What I would like to know is when did she say this and how do you know she really did say it.

The thing is I think I understand Rand having read her book and there are A LOT of things about her that just don't match the point she is trying to make.

She is so right I think actually by reading her book that I really wonder what people on the other side, those who she was a danger to, have been doing to descredit her.

Of course when it comes to that, accusation of intolerence of homosexuality

[lorenso415]

Any hypothesis based second hand knowledge or heresy is a distortion of her beliefs and is bound to be flawed

[XOmniverse]

@lorenso415 Actually, even if my reasoning is poor, poor reasoning does not guarantee that the conclusion is false. It simply means that the conclusion does not follow from the reasoning given.

That being said, I didn't make any claims with the assertion that they are absolute fact. I provided my hypothesis as speculation, nothing more.

[john42t]

That's a very interesting hypothesis and the best explanation as far as I can see. It's worth adding Rand's opposition to all of the social sciences on principle, especially Behaviourism. For a while I thought that she was merely attacking them as they were associated with liberalism, but it appears that she was genuinely opposed to every idea of instinctual influence on human behaviour. What I still don't quite get is...

[john42t]

...how she made this compatible with her view of an assymetry in the sexual desires of men and women. How would that follow purely from reason?

[XOmniverse]

@john42t That's actually a very good point. She would have to argue (and this would be a damn hard case to make) that the experience of being physically different (that is, the experience of having a penis/testicles or the experience of having a vagina/breasts) would lead to human sexuality a posteriori.

[Furuii]

No one is born a homosexual.

[MirageScience]

I have no good way of saying this but, if life was only deterministic then the implications would be far deeper than whether thing we did where good or evil. We would have to go back to whether life itself was good or not. With that I think many could find that life at its most basic is a bad thing. It would simply become the consumption of resources to reproduce, with desires and suffering being its motivation. Life would be just a nasty machine. The mind would have no value.

[XOmniverse]

@MirageScience Perhaps the problem is not in the nature of life but in what you consider the thing that makes life valuable?

[MirageScience]

@XOmniverse I find the mind valuable but I wouldn't if compatiblism didn't make sense.  Determinism would make me value the end off suffering more, for the minds choices would be pointless.

[XOmniverse]

@MirageScience I guess I can sort of see that. Compatibilism is my position as well.

[MirageScience]

@XOmniverse I don't know if he is a determinist but it is the way inmendham sees things, If you care about it any you might want to check out his videos.

[XOmniverse]

@MirageScience According to inmendham, I am a "bastard of the anarchy apocalypse"

[MirageScience]

@XOmniverse I suppose I am too? (Compatiblist, atheist, agnostic, anarchist, economic conservative, ass hole) <--- that's an bastard of the anarchy apocalypse? cause that's me

can I say objectivist since I'm not a materialist or mystic? xD Don't objectiveist support the state?

[BelieveIt1051]

I think you're wrong about Rand's thought process on the issue. Wether she used biology or morality, it doesn't matter. Both point to homosexuality being wrong and immoral. She rejected Darwinism because there was no proof. Simple as that. It had nothing to do with her views on free will or determinism. If proof existed that pointed to an alternative to her belief, she would have changed her mind and sided with the facts. The reasons she gave were based on real psychological studies. The end.

[XOmniverse]

@BelieveIt1051 "The end."? You fucking dick. Who do you think you are?

[BelieveIt1051]

This may be hard for you to accept, but the main thing to remember is... that I am always right.

[XOmniverse]

@BelieveIt1051 I think I'll just block you instead.

[pillsareyummy]

@BelieveIt1051 I studied psychology, and homosexuality is NOT considered abnormal. It's quite common in the animal world, thus it's natural. The only thing that is abnormal is the continual attack against homosexuals. And that is coming from a heterosexual male.Also,anybody who rejects evolution by natural selection is ignorant or an idiot (it's found in all biological sciences, and has been tested repeatedly for over 150 years,and is considered one of the most profound achievements in science).

[MrRazorChild]

First, let's be clear. She never said that it was so morally wrong that government or people shouldn't allow a person to be Gay. She understood the individuals right to their own sexuality. Secondly, I feel this is simply a case where Ayn Rand got the worst of herself. Which is rare and no one is ever perfect. I'm sure if she were alive today, she would simply attest to the fact homosexuality itself is not really open to moral judgment and would've wrote scathing article against Prop 8.

[fearfect]

I too agree with most of Rand's ideas and this was a good watch. But what really moved me to post was the irrational, subjective and emotional responses that I've read from your commenters. Ironically entertaining if you know what I mean ;)

[tothemax01]

Heres my theory: gays make sexually normal people queezy, Ayn Rand was fairly sexually normal (or perhaps oversexed), hence she objected to gays. Pretty easy.

[leicamaster]

She hated Libertarians by the way.

[MrTio75]

thanks for posting =)

[thatmark]

Yes, I think you are right.

[apophis529]

@dbmcmillan: You can be a hateful prick all you want, but I maintain that if you have a problem with what someone else is doing, it's YOUR problem, not theirs.

[Thill029]

I'm very surprised to hear this because I don't see how her philosophy leads to the conclusion that homosexuality is a psychological weakness (regardless of whether she is comming from the deterministic or blank-slate perspective). Homosexuality is not an act of altruism and it's not a violation of individual rights. Nor is it self-deprecating, harmful to one's health, survival, or personal happiness. So I'm very confused as to why she believed it's a psychological weakness.

[TheGodofAtheists]

I enjoyed this video a lot, Very well done! I heard a theory that basically Coincides with yours but Ive never heard it applied to Ayn Rand: this theory proposes why Gay rights are rejected especially in the South. You commonly hear homophobes/ religious people say how Gay rights are an abomination against Institution of Marriage (IoM) - which of coarse doesn't exist- there is no physical institution of marriage nor laws in nature.

[TheGodofAtheists]

So this theory proposes that because there is no IoM, an attack on it can not be made its nonsensical So this aggression is only in the minds of these homophobias- and its just that, an attack against them. Because it reminds them that they base their virtues that they hold so dearly - such being a straight man - on biological functions. It reminds them that their virtues are nothing but claims of vanity and equivalent to thinking your Virtuous because you can pee.

[TheGodofAtheists]

So they hear this wake up call that their virtues are not virtues at all but because they are so conclusion based (which Ayn Rand was as well in some parts of her philosophy) but they misinterpret their feelings. Just to rephrase this They get it sensually and emotionally but because Christians arent allowed to drive deep into their ambivalent feelings they just take it for face value and say Gays are attacking a concept.

[TheGodofAtheists]

So the correlation between Homophobes and Ayn Rand is that they are conclusion based and Narcissistic. So they same psychological projection could be happening. What do you think. I look forward to your ideas. Peace.

[St1kyFinguz]

Fantastic point. May I add that Ms Rand would probably have little patience for the hormonal intoxication infants assert on their mothers.

[dctrq]

I think you're over-analyzing things.

The simplest and most likely explanation for Rand's aversion to homosexuality is that it was simply a cultural bias she inherited without much thought.

Keep in mind that when Rand made that statement, the idea that homosexuality was immoral was even more widespread and the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was the mainstream view among professional psychologists.

[th3dark3rsh33p]

I think most modern objectivist say there is no real reason why homosexuality is immoral.  Now take that for what it is.

[combustibleballerina]

I really enjoyed this argument. I had always thought her views on homosexuality were derived from her flawed concept of genetics and her lack of an agility of thought, but I hadn't developed the argument to this degree.

I love my Rand, but this is definitely one issue upon which she and I have to disagree.

[peteypeege]

Interesting video. Nice to see someone challenging Rand for once with an actual argument instead of name calling.

I am very well read in Objectivism and Ayn Rand, and I think an interesting point to throw into the mix is that Rand didn't have a problem with gays as such. She actually did have gay friends and stated that love could exist between men. What Rand objected to is what we would colloquially call a "fairy".

[peteypeege]

She felt that such men were in a sense "acting" the caricatured social role of the female and this behavior was evidence of underlying psychological problems. As far as "regular" men who happened to be homosexual, to my knowledge, she had no problem with it.

[XOmniverse]

To be clear, I greatly admire Rand and agree with her on many, many things. There is no single human being that has influenced my thinking more.

I just don't bow before the altar of Rand because my ego has grown too large to bow before anyone :)

[Clemburke1111]

Of course it is disgusting to her, she is heterosexual, the thought of me having sex with a women as a gay man is sickening, she could not actually remove her self from the situation persoannly so she was not being objective.

[DixyHair]

Have you read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate? It goes into detail about how for a long time social scientists (who are mostly left-wing statists) have rejected the concept of human nature in favor of a blank slate theory because the blank slate allows them to blame all our problems on the way society is organized, so blank slate theory provides hope that if we just engineer society right, we can have Utopia.

[XOmniverse]

It's actually in the mail on the way to me right now along with The Meme Machine.

[ediblepet]

Great assessment. There are not only genetic elements but structural ones. People have vastly different life experiences, and it is possible one could end up "nurtured" into homosexuality (or just about anything else). Also, I prefer a more Kinseyian or Freudian model in which most people are somewhere on a bisexuality scale.

[combustibleballerina]

"...I prefer a more Kinseyian or Freudian model in which most people are somewhere on a bisexuality scale. "

I agree.

[webcrind]

apophis529: I am not judging anybody. I have no moral highground to stand on.

But I consider the homosexual act repugnant. And I also say, that a person that is considered "straight", is not a "better" person then a homosexual. This is not about morals, since that would be completely subjective. This is about what is natural in regards to producing offspring, or passing on genes. I am also pretty sure that Mrs.Rand would have found it repugnant if an insane person would try to have offspring.

[webcrind]

At 7:35 you state: "for a heterosexual it is totally natural to feel the homosexual act as repugnant ". I am not judging anybody, all I am asking is: what is wrong with your statement. My answer: nothing! If your parents wouldn't have been heterosexual, we would not have that discussion. And that's why it is natural, and psychological healthy to be heterosexual. If you'd really think different, where does the comparison to "poobing on somebody else" intellectually come from?

[ExistentialExistent]

Interesting about Rand.

[FerventDove]

The whole quote doesn't fit in this comment box, but to paraphrase Rand: Native Americans didn't have a right to North America and White Men who "brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." Seems to have a stiff evolutionary lean.

XOmniverse, that's determinism. They had progressed technologically slower in some regards, but because they didn't not have property rights that depended on a "state", they weren't entitled to the land of their fathers?

[greenghost2008]

in the virtue of selfishness she said somthing about man becoming gay because they are deluded in believing its wrong to be with a women.

[Sepero1]

I'd say that this is one of the best video's you've made in a long time. Very interesting insight.

Personally, I believe that every animal has some degree homosexual tendencies, and that sometimes they manifest, and sometimes they don't, depending on circumstances.

[apophis529]

What's wrong with the quote? First, the "morals" by which homosexuals are judged are completely subjective, mostly relating to an inaccurate, 2,000 year old book of fables. Second, that an individual does something that doesn't appeal to you doesn't give you the right to judge the quality of his or her character. What two consenting adults do is nobody's business but theirs, regardless of what you or I might call "repugnant." By the way, is it repugnant to you when two women are kissing?

[XOmniverse]

I'm confused. Did you get the impression that I agree with Rand on homosexuality? I have no problem with homosexuality.

[dbmcmillan]

Interesting that you're mocking fables yet supporting rights. "Rights" are fucking made up. Who says I don't have a right to judge the quality of another's character (whatever that means, "quality" is subjective)? That what people do may be repugnant to me is probably the best reason to judge them, since our passions are what motivate us. Don't buy the arguments of the psuedo-leftist tolerance junkies. There is no "right" to have your behavior tolerated, especially if it disgusts others.

[apophis529]

@apophis529: I love getting hate mail for expressing my opinion, but for those of you who aren't willing to let someone disagree with you, I'll say this. If you have a problem with someone else's lifestyle, it's YOUR problem, not theirs.

[webcrind]

XOmniverse, any straight man will agree with you: to watch two men making out is repugnant. Period. Now, to make that statement , one doesn't have to be homophobic or religious, but one just has to be in touch with himself, be convident and don't lack self-esteem. So why do you second-guess yourself? Mrs. Rand said, that it is morally wrong to be homosexual. What is wrong with that statement? Deep down, you know the answer.

[MaikUniversum]

great vid :)

[EvilEuropean]

For an atheist, Rand had the same hang ups as theists; a particular construction of the world that did not match up with reality.

[HymerSchmidt]

I don't know if you can conclude that. Her view of psychology was the predominate view in her time.

[fede2]

the tabula raza conception in philosophy of mind seems pretty mystical to me. if the human mind is completely absent of any specific traits at birth, how can anything possibly develope?

if rand turely held that position it would it would conflate with her view that woman is inferior to man (it's implicit in several interviews i've seen).

i can't help believing that rand was a closet social conservative but she couldn't possibly justify it in full rationally.

[Moragauth]

She didn't adhere to it.

[mihaiguy]

Could you point me to a video where you do explain how you reconciled free will and determinism? I haven't quite wrapped my head around it myself.

[XOmniverse]

Sure, search for one called Free Will, Determinism, and Compatibilism, wherein I cover the subject.

[chapaev36]

Because she was a cunt.

[XOmniverse]

Why did you bother to watch it? Clearly you don't consider Rand or discussion of Rand valuable.

[chorizo1337]

butthurt liberal spotted whos too tolerant

[vaguelyhumanoid]

@chorizo1337

Hello? He's a market anarchist and an objectivist/post-objectivist, not a liberal.

[chris3443]

"Why does this video even need to be made." An interesting comment from someone whose current featured video , "Simple Explanations", is such an unnecessary waste of time.

[Pentazoid111]

Thats an absurd claim to make . If we go by your line of reasoning, then because she was not a man, she held them in low esteem, which was obviously not the case since their the philosophers that heavily influenced rand's mindset the most were mostly men.

[Reptopia]

@TheAmazingAtheist not different from most people in the south...

[ObjectivistAesthetic]

This is an intelligent, articulate video, but I'm not entirely sure about it. I don't think all these views and implications follow. For instance, while that quote from Rand may be real, philosophically, she said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that philosophy had nothing to say about sex except that its good. I'm not quite sure if what you are saying is actually in line with Objectivism, but honestly, I have to watch this again to be sure. Interesting points--something to really think about.

[landfillpoet]

The two (determinism and free will) come together in dynamic systems theory. And I would strongly disagree that natural selection implies a large amount of our psychology is genetic. At least, if you are saying that our genes cause our psychology, which is not true. It is our dynamics that provide psychology, not genes.

[XOmniverse]

What is it that causes our brains, and as a result, the entire physical structure and framework in which our psychology operates?

[landfillpoet]

@XOmniverse Causality gets dicey when you're talking about biological levels.The central premise of dynamic systems is that if you totaled up the genes, the sum would still not account for all the behavior of a system - we can observe this in myriad biological systems and there is no reason to think we couldn't in humans.

[XOmniverse]

My claim, to be clear, is NOT that "your entire psychology is the result of genetics."

My claim IS, though, that the framework in which human psychology operates is a direct result of the physical framework of the human brain, which is mostly the result of genes.

[landfillpoet]

@XOmniverse I think I still have to disagree. The sum of the information in genes does not equal the sum of the information in neurons, which in turn do not equal the sum of information in populations, on up to behavior. As you move from one level to the next, complexity gets compressed, which produces whole new dynamics. This is why you can't draw a straight line from genes to cortical structure to behavior. It's an aside to this video, but important if talking about biological determinism.

[Epydemic2020]

interesting

[ladyattis]

From what I remember reading somewhere, Rand was asked the question privately about homosexuality later on and she admitted she didn't know whether it was im/moral. This happened I believe in '76/77, so I think most would remark it was about this time she started to change quite a bit even for her age.

[AshillaBeige]

Ayn Rand had very strict views on gender and what it means to be a woman or a man and the ideal relationship between the two. It makes sense why she opposed homosexuality. I don't think she was as exposed to the idea that some women are hormonally and mentally more like men and vice versa. If she lived through the age where there was a lot of psychological research into homosexuality, she may have had a different conclusion.

[grantsinmypants2]

Rand would certainly never call a less intelligent person less moral than a more intelligent person. I'm not very sharp on her exact take on free will and psychological determinism any more, but I do know that it's entirely possible to reconcile the "blank slate" concept with the fact that we all don't turn out the same even though we're all humans.

It's obvious when were talking about physical or existential traits, and it's not so obvious when discussing psychological, but its the same...

[grantsinmypants2]

... It's unavoidable, if one is alive, that experiences happen to us. If we continue to live, our particular traits cause us to develop unique psychological profiles. However, that doesn't change the fact that unlike if someone's height, for example, affects his psychology, everyone is born with a particular gender.

So when it comes to sexual orientation the only question, really, is to what extent is a person responsible for the "mistake" of not accepting his or her gender...

[grantsinmypants2]

... You mention that, evolutionarily speaking, it's not necessary for the species that everyone do so, and that's pretty compelling, but I dont think that proves that homosexuality is inborn in some people. I don't think heterosexuality is inborn either.

I think sexual desire is completely developed. If anything, it's a type of an inborn desire to socialize, but that doesn't change the fact that it's distinct....

[grantsinmypants2]

... so the question of responsibility for the mistake of not accepting ones gender is really responsibility for the mistake of not fully developing ones sexuality so that it's completely in line with ones metaphysical nature.

I think that there's alot more to be laid on the individual in question that most modern theories allow, but not completely. I do think that you have to blame the adults who impart the ideas that caused the emotional confusion...

[chris3443]

I am curious as to her aversion to soy products also (as expressed in Atlas Shrugged).

[brainpolice2]

Is it possibly the case that she leaned too much towards John Locke's epistemology and philosophy of mind (which does take a blank slate position)?

[brainpolice2]

This might be part of why she hated Kant so much as well, since a significant point of his epistemology was an overturning of the tabula rasa notion.

[XOmniverse]

@brainpolice2 Looking back on this is funny, since I basically adopted a similar rejection of tabula rasa to Kant's.

[aaron0883]

I agree. nice video