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,
Yes, she was inconsistent in this and some other things. She is not the best example of her own philosophy in this particulr area, unless you regard the fact, that where she failed to follow her own philosophy in her own choices the consequences were bad, just as her philosophy predicted they would be.
Hank