The final two rounds in the The Great Debate, which I characterized as an intellectual boxing match over the issues of homosexuality and Ayn Rand's Objectivism in our controversial books: "Dr. Sciabarra's Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation and Mr. Firehammer's The Hijacking of a Philosophy, Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand's Objectivism."
The second to last round: Response To "In Praise of Hijacking," in which I answer Dr. Sciabarra's first criticism of my book, published in the Free Radical, and republished on SOLO/HQ, "In Praise of Hijacking."
The final two rounds, which includes my final article, and Dr. Sciabarra's final-final rebuttal, "Sciabarra's Rejoinder to Firehammer," are published on SOLO.
This debate has been the most objectively and non-emotionally argued debate on homosexuality, I suspect, there may have ever been. I have great respect and admiration for Dr. Sciabarra and have thoroughly enjoyed this challenging and serious exchange of ideas.
Dr. Sciabarra has made, I think, the best possible case for the normalization of homosexuality, although I obviously do not believe it was convincing. I do believe he has made the case that their is no place for the kind of irrational abuse and mistreatment of individuals who choose to be homosexuals in a civilized society. That is one view of homosexuality we shared long before the debate.
My Response To "In Praise of Hijacking," may be the only comprehensive, objective, secular repudiation of the movement to normalize homosexuality that is totally without rancor.
--Reginald Firehammer
Please vote in the poll: What is the biological/ethical status of homosexuality?
(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)
Hank
One aspect of a philosophy debate such as this is you wind up dealing with persons who characterize themselves with their mental processes (philosophers) dealing with a class of people who characterize themselves with their sexual preferences (homosexuals). How much better if homosexuals put their sexual activities in the background and their mental dealings in the foreground. There are many places where homosexuality simply ought not to be an issue. (classrooms and clubs in the high school and lower years for example)
I tried reading this article and didn't succeed. The lack of college education prevented me from forcing my mind to concentrate enough. Maybe one of you can do it; it looks interesting.
Maybe after a couple of cups of coffee I could try again.
If I were to ever change my name, it would be to something like 'Rod Firehammer'.
>>I can think of no better words to express my attitude toward government or anyone else who would use force or intimidation to dictate or even influence how others choose to live their lives then these by Dr. Sciabarra: "Leave All of us Alone!"<<
Have you heard of "Molon Labe"?
>>whatever passions one has are automatically integrated with their mind, without thought or analysis. How? As Ayn Rand would say, "blank-out."<<
This doesn't only apply to the defenders of homosexuality.
We tend to go through life this way, "without thought or analysis" of why we do things the way we do because we have found this to be the easiest.
Why should we think about why we do something a particular way, when it is accepted by our friends and family as being normal?
Follow the leader without thinking if we are being led in the 'best' direction. This is what makes sheeple.
When we are accosted by something that requires thought, we ask others, "How would you do this?" instead of taking the time and making the effort to make our own decisions which we then would be responsible for.
Just the idea of being responsible for everything we do is too frightening for many people. It is so much easier to do as everyone else does. Or at least as a signifigant percentage of the population does.
We then know we will be accepted as being normal and our personal identity won't stand out from the crowd.
Integrating Reason and Passion
We have a sense of smell and taste buds for the same reason that we will shiver when it is cold and feel pain from an injury. To inform us what is good and what is bad for our bodies.
Heterophobia
An aversion is not a phobia. I have an aversion to homosexuals, a strong aversion to them; I find them disgusting. Only someone with an agenda (like homosexuals) would call my aversion to their sexual practices, homophobia.
Attempting to kill debate is a common practice. Generally with calm reasoned debate, the final discovery is truth. Homosexuals, or as I prefer to call them queers, do not appreciate the truth. It shows their perversions, their lack of self responsibility, their lack of normalcy.
Very few groups attempt to gain respect by exaggerating their size. Queers have done this for quite a few years and it is unPC to question their numbers. From people who profess to be normal I find this a queer response.
Please vote in the poll: a href="" target="ref">What is the biological/ethical status of homosexuality?</a
You need to put a URL in here.
I am not an objectivist. While I'm in general agreement with your position, the post raises numerous questions in my mind. Let me address just one here;
...'Ayn Rand said "homosexuality" resulted from "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises." [Emphasis mine.] No clash or dichotomy between reason and emotion, or, as Lindsay Perigo puts it, between reason and passion, are necessary, provided one observes the proper relationship. Reason and passion are not automatically integrated, a rational individual must intentionally seek to understand the source of their passions and determine if they are consistent with the requirements of his nature, all of his nature, physical and mental.
She goes on, "He never acts on emotions [or desires] for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated...."
This is a picture of the fully rational, fully objective individual who understands the source of all his feelings and passions and how they are consistent with his nature.
This brings a question to my my mind as to how Rand could account for "human nature". What did she regard as "human nature"? With regard to her own practice of sexual immorality, her philosophy did not seem to allow her to account for her own lack of "integration" with her professed view of what is "consistent" with human "nature", which apparently includes "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises."
Cordially,