Over the course of many conversations I have had with people who dislike Ayn Rand, one of the few things they use to create a negative view on her is her “hatred” for homosexuals. She has been noted as saying it is disgusting and immoral. However, Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff, in this podcast, indicates that is not necessarily true of Ayn Rand’s views on all homosexuals. Indeed, it was towards only those who flaunt femininity and demand special privileges. He also makes the point to indicate that philosophy really has nothing to say about sexuality whatsoever and that is the case with Objectivism. He goes on to say that morality is a part of any couple of any sexuality.
Sexuality does not play any role in philosophy and it is not the job of philosophy to make such verdicts on it. It is the role of philosophy, primarily ethics, when it comes to the morality of individuals, but that goes to every single individual and not one group or the other, or one sexuality or the other. It’s important to realize that the only form of “philosophy” that tries to take any stand against certain sexualities or groups is primarily religion, which is a primitive form of thought.
Furthermore, even though Ayn Rand did speak out negatively against homosexuality in terms of morality, she did not seek to ban their right to be together, to get married, and to have the same rights as straight married couples. She believed in individual rights and individual liberty. While she may have viewed it negatively, she believed the government has no role in such things and that it should not have the power to ban or prevent same-sex couples from marrying.
As an Objectivist myself, I do not advocate for same-sex marriage because I do not believe the government has the right to define marriage. There is certainly a part of me that believes that voting to make it legal by law must be done to make things “equal”, but my philosophical view is much wider than that. Since marriage is categorized as a choice (there is no such thing as a “right to marry”), what it actually boils down to is the right to freedom of choice, i.e. right to liberty. Government, state or otherwise should not be allowed to define “allowable” choices and who can make those choices. It is an infringement of rights and even the determination to define marriage can be seen as an act of coercion against those who are not straight.
For me, the battle is to remove government from such roles as a whole. It should neither ban same-sex marriages nor force others to marry same-sex couples. It should not be allowed to define marriage or have any role in such personal matters. Just as Ayn Rand, I believe in individual rights and I believe that all men and women should be able to live their lives freely and make their own choices without government force.
Though I do not speak for all Objectivists, I will always speak out against government tyranny and speak up for those being crippled by the tyrannical authority. While my views philosophically may be different from most, I believe in the protection of the individual’s right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness and I believe that no one, neither government, the majority, nor any man should have the power to rob the individual of his rights.
It is certainly disheartening to live in a country and in the world where rights are cast aside so easily to win votes, to be “selfless”, to be “safe”, and to rob men of their livelihood.
