Gay Parents

[Stephen Speicher 0]

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. 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that quote suggest that specialized knowledge (psychology) is needed to determine the morality of homosexuality? That would make sense, since such knowledge is needed to determine the morality of same-sex parenting.

Yes, and note how Harry Binswanger related his later conversation with Miss Rand, in which HB indicates that the view stated above was tempered by explicit recognition that there remains psychological unknowns. But, you can say something similar to that in general, for it is not always easy to make a moral judgment of others. Specifically, one cannot always determine from actions alone whether or not the action was based on an error of knowledge, or a moral failing.

However, I believe the one Objectivist who does have such specialized knowledge (Dr. Michael Hurd) has come out in support of homosexuality.

←

With all due respect to Dr. Hurd, he is certainly not "the one Objectivist" who has that specialized knowledge. I strongly doubt that he would represent himself that way. Perhaps you meant to say something else, something similar but not the same.

[Oakes 0]

With all due respect to Dr. Hurd, he is certainly not "the one Objectivist" who has that specialized knowledge. I strongly doubt that he would represent himself that way. Perhaps you meant to say something else, something similar but not the same.

I don't mean to say that he's the only Objectivist with knowledge of psychology, but he's one of the more well-known ones.

[JMeganSnow 0]

I hear a lot of nonsense from Christian conservatives, but the suggestion that children need a mother and father always seemed the least unreasonable to me.

←

Need for what?

If it's a question of improved psychological stability (and it's OBVIOUSLY not a question of whether such stability would exist at all, but merely of an improvement) are children thus entitled to anything that will improve their "chances" of having psychological stability?

So, anyone that doesn't live in a nice suburban home is immoral for having children, because living in cramped apartments negatively impacts a child's psychological stability? Anyone whose job requires frequent travel, because that negatively impacts a child's psychological stability?

This conservative position is a means for pushing their controlling agenda on people. Children (and human beings in general) are a lot more resilient than they might imagine.

[CodyD 0]

I'm sorry for jumping in the middle, but I have read all the posts.

Everything you have said is based from the view of the parents and whether they can raise the child(and all of them brilliant reasons as to why they can). However, from the same question on a different forum(sciforums.com), the main issue is whether the child can grow up in that environment. What of the child being"made fun of" or not quite understanding homosexual parents(this would be for older children-if raised from infancy, no problem would be noted)? I personally found both arguments ridiculous, as a younger child's friends would be the last to pay attention to a friend's parent, and the last to make fun of him(her) for it. If the child is older, say 13+, they should begin to realize that what strangers say don't matter(and, if they read Ayn Rand, they understand the concept of a self-sufficient ego). Even though I found them ridiculous, they(or something with the same premise) need to be discussed to understand the entire view of the matter.

If you haven't drawn the conclusion, I support the idea that it is fine if they adopt, especially compared to who else the child might end up with.

[Oakes 0]

So, anyone that doesn't live in a nice suburban home is immoral for having children, because living in cramped apartments negatively impacts a child's psychological stability? Anyone whose job requires frequent travel, because that negatively impacts a child's psychological stability?

This conservative position is a means for pushing their controlling agenda on people. Children (and human beings in general) are a lot more resilient than they might imagine.

Note again that nowhere in this thread was it suggested that the law should prevent gays from adopting; the question posed was only on moral grounds (hence the subforum it is in). As for your examples: Yes, if a parent chooses to have a child knowing that they will be very distant (due to frequent travel), it would be immoral. Same for a parent who had inadequate shelter in which to raise the child.

If you haven't drawn the conclusion, I support the idea that it is fine if they adopt, especially compared to who else the child might end up with.

Actually I haven't drawn any conclusion yet, because I don't feel I have adequate knowledge.

[JMeganSnow 0]

Note again that nowhere in this thread was it suggested that the law should prevent gays from adopting; the question posed was only on moral grounds (hence the subforum it is in). As for your examples: Yes, if a parent chooses to have a child knowing that they will be very distant (due to frequent travel), it would be immoral. Same for a parent who had inadequate shelter in which to raise the child.

←

My question did not pertain to adequacy, it pertained to a lack of supposed "perfect" conditions. The general assumption made by this statement is that anything less than "perfect" conditions is immoral.

My contention is that you want the best conditions possible to you given your context, and not worry about whether those are "perfect" given ALL possible conditions. So, if there were an option between two couples that were reasonably similar in all ways except that one was a same-sex couple and one was an "ordinary" couple, I'd say go with the "ordinary" couple. However, there's RARELY a line of happy, normal, financially secure people waiting to adopt most children.

Cody's idea above, that having gay parents might lead other children to "make fun of" the adopted child is somewhat amusing. . . teasing of that nature is (from my understanding) a result of a desire to create a scapegoat; to exercise manipulatory power. As such it doesn't MATTER whether there's actually something "peculiar" about the child singled out for the teasing. I personally was teased viciously for having a peculiar last name. Look at it! Snow! Isn't that weird?!

[Oakes 0]

My question did not pertain to adequacy, it pertained to a lack of supposed "perfect" conditions. The general assumption made by this statement is that anything less than "perfect" conditions is immoral.

I don't know of anyone here suggesting that perfect conditions are needed for it to be moral.

My contention is that you want the best conditions possible to you given your context, and not worry about whether those are "perfect" given ALL possible conditions. So, if there were an option between two couples that were reasonably similar in all ways except that one was a same-sex couple and one was an "ordinary" couple, I'd say go with the "ordinary" couple. However, there's RARELY a line of happy, normal, financially secure people waiting to adopt most children.

So your argument is: All else being equal, a heterosexual couple may be better, but all else isn't usually equal. This is basically what I said in post #8. When a same-sex couple wants to adopt a baby, the adoption agency needs to look at the alternatives before it is too quick to reject them. But as has been said many times in this thread, whether or not homosexuality is a superficial and unimportant factor in parents can be found only through specialized study.

[JMeganSnow 0]

Studies have been done, though, on other "sub-optimal" family situations (especially single mothers), and found that there was a "greater chance" of the child, oh, ending up in prison or some such thing. So I wonder what these specialized studies are really good for.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Well coming to this discussion a bit late, I see two separate issues here:

1) is it moral for two homosexual parents to have a child

2) is it advisable (healthy) for a child to be raised by two homosexual parents

For the first question, I think that clearly there is no moral issue involved here aside from the moral issue involving the parents' own homosexuality. But as for the second question, I would like to go even further than Stephen and say that not only is a heterosexual family advisable, but almost essential. In many ways a disfunctional heterosexual family will be a lot healthier for a young person than a very harmonious and happy homosexual family; parents are an absolutely enormous source of influence on a child growing up, and two men or two women sharing even the most wonderful and warm and genuine romantic relationship may cause serious deviations in the child's developmental process. At the same time, a disfunctional heterosexual family will introduce some problems and issues into the child's psyche, but will still allow him develop in a proper way.

It's kind of like this: a son of a happy homosexual family will not have many psychological problems, but I will expect him to just be naturally way way different in his approach to his life and to pursuit of his romantic parner. At the same time, while a son of an unhappy heterosexual family will have many problems arising from the things he has to endure, he will not "develop in a naturally different way". He will develop in a proper manner, and the problems he acquires can be solved later on through self-healing, introspection, therapy, etc. On the other hand, the child of a homosexual family will gain absolutely nothing from a therapy because he will almost acquire a different nature, a wholly different worldview; there will be nothing for him to heal, no psychological traumas, merely an approach to life in many ways very different from everyone else. As to the question of whether he will be happy even if he develops differently, I don't know the answer but I'd guess that the answer is that he will not be. A troubled child of a heterosexual family will have problems, but at least he'll realize those problems and will be capable of dealing with them to align himself to the proper ideas. A happy child of a homosexual family will have his own set of problems but he will think everything is perfectly natural. Unlike the other child, he will be completely incredulous at a suggestion that he might need a therapy of some sort, because he would simply have been growing up different.

I have heard of homosexual couples which allow their close female friend to bring a child to birth, and then let her be its mommy in addition to their own care for it. That would probably be the best course of action, under the circumstances.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

In many ways a disfunctional heterosexual family will be a lot healthier for a young person than a very harmonious and happy homosexual family; parents are an absolutely enormous source of influence on a child growing up, and two men or two women sharing even the most wonderful and warm and genuine romantic relationship may cause serious deviations in the child's developmental process.

←

What kind of "deviations" and how? The research I have read seems to indicate, for instance, that the children of same sex couples are as likely to be heterosexual as the children of heterosexual couples.

On the other hand, the child of a homosexual family will gain absolutely nothing from a therapy because he will almost acquire a different nature, a wholly different worldview; there will be nothing for him to heal, no psychological traumas, merely an approach to life in many ways very different from everyone else.

What kind of "different nature" would he acquire. What kind of "different worldview" would he have other than, perhaps, the view that a family with gay parents is an acceptable alternative for some people?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

In many ways a disfunctional heterosexual family will be a lot healthier for a young person than a very harmonious and happy homosexual family; parents are an absolutely enormous source of influence on a child growing up, and two men or two women sharing even the most wonderful and warm and genuine romantic relationship may cause serious deviations in the child's developmental process. At the same time, a disfunctional heterosexual family will introduce some problems and issues into the child's psyche, but will still allow him develop in a proper way.

It's kind of like this: a son of a happy homosexual family will not have many psychological problems, but I will expect him to just be naturally way way different in his approach to his life and to pursuit of his romantic parner. At the same time, while a son of an unhappy heterosexual family will have many problems arising from the things he has to endure, he will not "develop in a naturally different way". He will develop in a proper manner, and the problems he acquires can be solved later on

I am struggling to understand this. It seems as if you are saying that a child with homosexual parents will not have psychological problems but he will have some "serious deviations," and a child with heterosexual parents will have psychological problems but he will develop in a "proper way." This seems to imply the "proper way" includes psychological problems but the improper way does not. Maybe it would be helpful if you specified just what you mean by "serious deviations" in the context of a person who does not have psychological problems.

[Free Capitalist 0]

What I mean is, at least from introspecting myself and from observing and talking to other people, we develop in large degree, at first, based on someone else. That is, when we're young we try to model ourselves upon someone else that we feel already achieved the place in life that we want to get to. Here I don't mean a job or something as specific as that, but a metaphysical and an almost wordless sense -- how they walk, how they smile, how they carry themselves, how they talk to other people, etc.

And for a regular person, those people to model themselves after in metaphysical terms, are the parents. Parents are not, at least in my introspective analysis, a replaceable and conditional value that may or may not be present. They have to be present, or if not the biological parents then assumed parents -- mentors, older brothers/sisters, etc, but again biological parents by far outstrip all other influences.

Now these two people, in a regular family, will form the nucleus of the child's earliest and most fundamental development. He will watch and observe that they are a man and a woman, who are very different from one another in some ways but very similar on others. Not being an expert on early childhood development, I cannot explicitly trace all of the actual steps by which the child will become who he is. All I can say, and I think you'll (both) agree with me on this, is that the child will learn a lot of things from both of his parents, some things that only the father can teach him and some things that only the mother can teach him. In addition, the interaction between the two sexes will help him understand his own.

Much of this will be absent from a homosexual relationship (let's say two men, for the sake of this discussion). The child will not observe a receptive woman being cared for by an attentive man, and will not be able to extend this understanding into principled conclusions about genders and masculine and feminine natures. He will observe a receptive man being cared for by an attentive man. Let's assume that the two men here are both somehow biologically homosexual so there's no negative moral evaluation involved. The child, however, will most likely not be biologically homosexual, so he will want to be taught lessons and to understand heterosexual relationships to develop normally. Yet he will not be able to do so, because every day he will be confounded by two people who are supposed to exemplify a certain nature, both appearing to deny it. The submissive man will be the most puzzling and confusing one to him, not quite a woman but seriously deficient as a man; the dominating man will be easier to understand but still very confusing as to why he found himself a pseudo-woman, not a real one. So while all other children are already learning and understanding these and other fundamental lessons simply by osmosis, our boy will be far behind, still struggling to understand what the heck is going on, and why his environment is so different. In other words, he will not only be incapable of understanding these essential principles about the world, he will be actively prohibited from understanding them by the two people he looks up to the most (regardless of whether they want this to happen or not).

Eventually, what I assume he will have to do, will be to smother any concept of masculity as invalid, and thus undercut any possibility to encourage his own masculine nature, and value the feminine nature.

And this all only has to deal with his sexual natures; it would be even longer for me to get into many other aspects of this situation, including even a kind of 'fact' of malevolence of nature -- he didn't do anything himself and yet he is denied from his two most dear people what he finds his friends finding so easily at their homes; it wasn't his fault yet he is always made fun of at school for having such parents, etc. There is simply nothing healthy to be found for him in a homosexual family, and a lot of healthy things to not find. That I don't think you'll disagree with either.

Can he find these things in people than his parents? Certainly. Let's put aside the terrible requirement that we will have to put on this child, for trying to seek the justification for his most fundamental views in houses other than his own. Certainly he can be over at his friend's house every evening and embrace that family's proper family atmosphere. But how this is a healthy thing, I don't see; in fact what I see is an even more increasing level of bitterness toward his own home. Or, if he will be able to smother his concepts and not feel the need to go over to his friend's house and enjoy that boy's appropriate family environment, then that will be even worse. As I said, I simply see nothing positive in this arrangement, and a lot of negatives.

And I expect that I might get an answer like: "Isn't observing two people caring deeply and sexually for one another a positive aspect of the boy's own family?" Not when those two people are both men, it is not! So, expecting your arguments a bit, the simple fact of two people caring for one another is not enough. They have to be proper people, caring for each other in a proper way, for him to learn the proper lessons. A homosexual family will deny him many of these possibilities, regardless of how genuinely loving and caring both of the parents are.

[JMeganSnow 0]

I personally learned about romantic relationships by reading books and watching movies when I was, oh, TWENTY.

[Gideon Reich 0]

Free Capitalist (FC) has written a definite challenge to the notion that homosexual parents are no worse than heterosexual parents. He has based this challenge on an evaluation of the psychological needs of the developing child and his evaluation on the essential nature of homesexual relationships, their differences from heterosexual relationships, and the resulting negative psychological implications for the child.

I have to say I have been frustrated by the seeming lack of rational evaluative information on homosexuality. If one reads Conservative sources, then homosexuality is invariably condemned but usually the reason given is ultimately biblical, and thus is no reason at all. I get the impression that Liberal sources refuse to engage in any evaluation at all. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Ayn Rand apparently thought at one point that homosexuality was immoral but according to Dr. Binswanger backed off such a condemnation as a result of lack of psychological knowledge.

I think a key question needs to be asked and answered and it is clearly implied by FC when he uses such terms as "regular," "deficient," etc. That question is simple: Is there any negative evaluation to be made of homosexuality at all (and thus a positive evaluation of heterosexual relationships)? Note, I am not necessarily asking whether homosexuality is moral or immoral. That obviously depends partly on whether it is chosen or not (because only then is moral judgement proper). But even unchosen states and circumstances can be evaluated by the standard of life. As Dr. Peikoff pointed out in his excellent lecture course "Judging, Feeling, and Not Being Moralistic," evaluation can range from good vs. bad, terms which can be applied to apples, all the way to "saintly" vs. evil, terms which only apply to volitional beings.

And of course, the question then becomes, on what specific basis should we make such an evaluation and what are its implications for action. I think until we clearly and rationally answer this question, we will not be able to address the issue Gay adoption or any Gay issues for that matter.

[Tom Rexton 0]

...

Much of this will be absent from a homosexual relationship (let's say two men, for the sake of this discussion). The child will not observe a receptive woman being cared for by an attentive man, and will not be able to extend this understanding into principled conclusions about genders and masculine and feminine natures. He will observe a receptive man being cared for by an attentive man. Let's assume that the two men here are both somehow biologically homosexual so there's no negative moral evaluation involved. The child, however, will most likely not be biologically homosexual, so he will want to be taught lessons and to understand heterosexual relationships to develop normally. Yet he will not be able to do so, because every day he will be confounded by two people who are supposed to exemplify a certain nature, both appearing to deny it. The submissive man will be the most puzzling and confusing one to him, not quite a woman but seriously deficient as a man; the dominating man will be easier to understand but still very confusing as to why he found himself a pseudo-woman, not a real one. So while all other children are already learning and understanding these and other fundamental lessons simply by osmosis, our boy will be far behind, still struggling to understand what the heck is going on, and why his environment is so different. In other words, he will not only be incapable of understanding these essential principles about the world, he will be actively prohibited from understanding them by the two people he looks up to the most (regardless of whether they want this to happen or not).

...

←

This strikes me more as based on the traditional gender role argument rather than on the proper traits of "masculinity" and "femininity". How is femininity a submissive-passive-receptive role? Why assume that in a homosexual relationship there must necessarily be an active, dominant one and passive, receptive one? I would think the distinction between the masculine and the feminine is largely psychological in nature, not in who provides and cares for whom versus who passively receives support and care, or in who "dominates" and who is "submissive".

Dagny Taggart certainly provided and cared for herself. She wouldn't quit her job as transcontinental railroad executive, making millions of dollars more than John Galt ever could as a physicist-inventor, just because she wouldn't be able to be "cared for" by him then. I don't even think she could be characterized as "submissive", receptive--perhaps--during sex. But certainly neither submissive nor passive. And I don't think Galt would ever find it proper to "dominate" her or make her "submit".

[Stephen Speicher 0]

What I mean is, at least from introspecting myself and from observing and talking to other people, we develop in large degree, at first, based on someone else. That is, when we're young we try to model ourselves upon someone else that we feel already achieved the place in life that we want to get to. Here I don't mean a job or something as specific as that, but a metaphysical and an almost wordless sense -- how they walk, how they smile, how they carry themselves, how they talk to other people, etc.

This seems to imply the swishy stereotype of a homosexual, but I doubt you would be able to discern any of that in the vast majority of homosexuals who do not fit this stereotypical pattern. Is this the image of a gay dad putting his little boy in dresses and prancing around with him? I'll tell you something from my own experience, my own estimate of people I know. I would rather put a child in the hands of the usual homosexual I know than the average straight person with children that I have seen first hand.

I find your words here offensive to the very good and often very manly homosexual men that I know. To talk about a concern in a "metaphysical" sense, and "how they smile" or "how they talk to other people" is to me a bizarre misrepresentation of the character built by these fine men, a character based on rational and moral principles that I admire and uphold.

Now these two people, in a regular family, will form the nucleus of the child's earliest and most fundamental development. He will watch and observe that they are a man and a woman, who are very different from one another in some ways but very similar on others. Not being an expert on early childhood development, I cannot explicitly trace all of the actual steps by which the child will become who he is. All I can say, and I think you'll (both) agree with me on this, is that the child will learn a lot of things from both of his parents, some things that only the father can teach him and some things that only the mother can teach him.

I am what I am in spite of my mother and father, not because of them. I never had any reason to emulate either of them. On the other hand, I would have traded them in a split second for homosexual parents that had the character and values that matter to me. I'm sorry, but I find this whole line of reasoning patently absurd. I have a lot less concern about children being infected with their parent's sexuality than I do with the ideas, values, and strength of character that a parent has. This whole line of reasoning against homosexuals seems rather behavioristic and somewhat Freudian to me.

Much of this will be absent from a homosexual relationship (let's say two men, for the sake of this discussion). The child will not observe a receptive woman being cared for by an attentive man, and will not be able to extend this understanding into principled conclusions about genders and masculine and feminine natures.

I honestly would like to know where you getting this from. Is this something that you read somewhere? Do you know any homosexuals first hand? Do you know any children who have grown up with homosexual parents? Is this a deduction from some principles that you hold? Upon what do you base this entire line of reasoning?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

What I mean is, at least from introspecting myself ...  Parents are not, at least in my introspective analysis ... Not being an expert on early childhood development, I cannot explicitly trace all of the actual steps by which the child will become who he is. ...  Eventually, what I assume he will have to do ...

←

I see a lot of sweeping generalizations, predictions of specific bad consequences that WILL happen, and emphatic judgements about what is proper and improper based on nothing but introspection and assumption.

There have been studies done of homes with same sex parents and articles and books written by men and women raised in such homes. They are a good place to start to get an inductive understanding of the issue. Also, consider asking someone who IS an expert, like Dr. Rosman, what he thinks about the subject and why.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Well, let me respectfully bow out of this thread with the following post:

1)

I honestly would like to know where you getting this from. Is this something that you read somewhere? Do you know any homosexuals first hand?

Yes I do. And I have met quite a few over time, so I do feel like I know a bit of what I'm talking about.

I want to clarify that I am not coming down upon gay people, and I have never once here criticized homosexuality on moral grounds. In fact, I haven't criticized it at all. What I did say is that homosexuality is not a natural state; if the two people are born thus, then more power to them and I have nothing bad to say to them, and no reason to. But for a normal heterosexual child to grow up with homosexual parents strikes me as incredibly unhealthy for that child, and this brings me to my next point.

2)

Is this a deduction from some principles that you hold? Upon what do you base this entire line of reasoning?

Well, everything I said is based on the following methods -- my own memory of my childhood development, an introspective analysis of what would happen to me growing up with two fathers or two mothers, and a little bit of deductive reasoning based on the conclusions derived from the previous two methods. My own introspection and memory, are the only things, really, for me to fall back upon. I declaimed myself from the start as no childhood developmental expert, and merely put my $0.02 in based on my own analysis and understanding of the issue. In this issue, I would be more than willing to cast doubt on my own experience because of the limited nature thereof, but there was something Stephen said that indicates that we may be nearly on the opposite ends of this issue, the next point.

3) Stephen said,

I'll tell you something from my own experience, my own estimate of people I know. I would rather put a child in the hands of the usual homosexual I know than the average straight person with children that I have seen first hand.

This quote is so difficult for me to believe that I am having difficulty processing it. I have had a chance to enjoy and deeply value Stephen's ideas and thinking for over a year now and I know the following does not apply to him, but if anyone else other than the Speichers said the above, I would say what I really feel about it -- I find that to be an abominal thing to say. I mean literally, that quote made me almost terrified, just the image of it. After reading that phrase I feel as if, at least on this issue, there's an almost unbridgeable gap between our experiences of the subject matter, which is why I am bowing out of the discussion, respectfully.

4) What I am most surprised at is how upset everyone got about my classification of homosexuality as unnatural. I know (hope) that no one who replied has any traces of political correctness, but seeing the angry reaction and not the least bit of agreement with anything I said makes me feel as if it almost were not so. Having six fingers is unnatural. Drinking and eating one's excrement is unnatural. Men having sex with other men is unnatural. I did not say immoral, for that requires further knowledge of the men involved and the choices they made. But I did say that at least we can say that it is unnatural. For a child to be involved and deeply affected by an unnatural environment is not a healthy thing to do. How do I know this? Because I can easily imagine myself in that situation, and know that I would be seriously messed up. Even if one of my gay fathers didn't dress me up in girly dresses or gave me dolls, the mere continual presence in my life of the two my most deeply respected people being both men engaged in a homosexual relationship, would undoubtedly cause indelible impact on my psyche, my sexuality, and every other fundamental aspect of my being. So why is there such a huge backlash against me using the "u" word against gay people? I have no answer.

This brings me to my final point,

I find your words here offensive to the very good and often very manly homosexual men that I know.

It's important for me to note that nothing I said was aimed as an attack on gay people, nor did I at any point attempt to demean or put them down. Just look at how carefully and gently I treat the issue of homosexual relationships and you will find that I hold no antipathy toward them at all. One of my good friends is gay (hmm why is it that I feel a need to defend myself). The only thing I did do was classify gay people in the same category as the six-fingered people, and if that is found to be offensive, then I am sorry but they are offended inappropriately. Remember when some public official labeled Mexicans as short dark people with black straight hair, or something like that? I too was a little offended/embarassed that he said it, but then I realized that what he said was true, and that whether or not they were offended was their problem and not his.

This discussion is very similar. I merely stated what I believed to be my understanding of the natural state of things, and the reaction was, "No he didn't just say what I think he did, did he? How mean and insensitive". My intention was not at all to offend or to be mean, but if I say that six-fingered people are unnatural they will be offended too -- which is their problem and not mine, as long as I know that I intended no malice on my part.

On most other issues I am almost eager to reconsider my position when it conflicts with Stephen and Betsy, in light of their greater experience and knowledge. However this is one of those issues where I feel so strongly that cannot find any way to agree, no matter how I try, which is yet another good reason for me to simply exit the discussion and not create unnecessary argument. I hope that at this point I can exit the conversation without anyone being too offended or frustrated any longer.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

[...] homosexuality is not a natural state; if the two people are born thus, then more power to them [...]

←

For anyone:

What does "natural" mean here? If a person is born a certain way, then he is what he is. That is his nature (identity).

Perhaps, though, "natural" could mean "normal." A child may be born missing a limb. That condition is part of his nature, but it is abnormal -- that is, does not conform to what other members of the species are and need to be if they are to function successfully (including reproduction, as well as child-rearing).

What I am unsure about is this: In nature (the world of living organisms around us), do all individuals in a species need to be normal for the species to continue? In particular, for example, is man the only kind of social animal that includes individuals who act homosexually, at least at some point in their lives? Are their instances of "gay" parents among other animals?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Hopefully Free Capitalist will not mind me rearranging the order of the discussion. This first, was last.

I hope that at this point I can exit the conversation without anyone being too offended or frustrated any longer.

←

I want to apologize if anything I said seemed too harsh. My intention was not to attack you -- a person whom I value -- but rather to take a strong stand on an issue about which I greatly sympathize with homosexuals. With all due respect to Ayn Rand, to whom I owe an intellectual debt that I can never repay, can you imagine what it must have been like for a young Objectivist homosexual sitting in the audience at the 1971 Ford Hall Forum, to hear himself publicly denounced as being immoral and disgusting? I know some who were there, and to hear that was devastating to them. So, if, based on all that I know, I seem to come across a bit strongly in these discussions about homosexuals, please chalk it up more as my attempt at justice rather than an attack upon you.

I realize you said that you were bowing out of the conversation, so rather than pursue a myriad of points in your remarks, I will only clarify one of my comments that you responded to.

I'll tell you something from my own experience, my own estimate of people I know. I would rather put a child in the hands of the usual homosexual I know than the average straight person with children that I have seen first hand.

This quote is so difficult for me to believe that I am having difficulty processing it. I have had a chance to enjoy and deeply value Stephen's ideas and thinking for over a year now and I know the following does not apply to him, but if anyone else other than the Speichers said the above, I would say what I really feel about it -- I find that to be an abominal thing to say. I mean literally, that quote made me almost terrified, just the image of it. After reading that phrase I feel as if, at least on this issue, there's an almost unbridgeable gap between our experiences of the subject matter, which is why I am bowing out of the discussion, respectfully.

Having been intimately involved in raising a child, I have a vast array of experiences with other children and their parents to draw upon. Having a child is a relatively easy act, but being a good parent is not that easy, at least for some. I do not intend to write an essay here on this, so I will ignore all of my experiences with toddler playgroups when my son was real young, and with high school interactions when he was much older. Here and now I will only point out one general observation for those in between years.

My son went to school with many of the rich and famous, people with wealth beyond my previous experience. The children that my son befriended all had everything a kid could imagine, everything except parents who gave them what they really needed and valued. I simply cannot really get across how much these kids wanted to spend time with us in our more modest home, rather than playing video games in their theater-sized screening room. One boy who joined us to spend our usual weekend full day at the beach -- biking, playing, talking, shopping, eating, and swimming -- told us on the way home that this was the best day of his entire life. Why did he get from us in one of our usual days that which he did not get during most of his life? In simplest of terms, he got to spend time with the very same sort of character that I have seen in a great deal of the homosexuals I know. What a child needs most is to live in a world where his parent's strength of character, love and nurturing creates a most benevolent atmosphere. The child needs to learn that the world is a good place and that his ideas, views, and concerns matter. Over many years I found a handful of parents who fit this description, but many homosexuals who, if they wanted those children, would be able to give them just what they really need.

[Tom Rexton 0]

For anyone:

What does "natural" mean here? If a person is born a certain way, then he is what he is. That is his nature (identity).

Perhaps, though, "natural" could mean "normal." A child may be born missing a limb. That condition is part of his nature, but it is abnormal -- that is, does not conform to what other members of the species are and need to be if they are to function successfully (including reproduction, as well as child-rearing).

What I am unsure about is this: In nature (the world of living organisms around us), do all individuals in a species need to be normal for the species to continue? In particular, for example, is man the only kind of social animal that includes individuals who act homosexually, at least at some point in their lives? Are their instances of "gay" parents among other animals?

←

Good observation regarding "normal" vs. "natural".

It is probably not widely known that many animals act "gay". Male penguins, for instance, are known to mate for life and build nests together, often using stones as fake eggs. Swans are also known to have male-male pairs that raise young. Several animals, such as bulls, apes and sheep, also often copulate with the same sex (usually males), though obviously not for reproduction.

Here's a link to a wikipedia entry on "homosexuality in animals."

[CodyD 0]

You forgot seals.

What did Ayn Rand say as to homosexuality? I could see her denouncing it as disgusting, but she had never before(at least none that I have noticed) let the fact that it is disgusting to her effect her decision on the subject. Why did she go on to say it is immoral? Or, I should say, by what standards is it immoral? I can understand why she personally saw it as appalling(most see it that way), but why immoral?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

What did Ayn Rand say as to homosexuality?

I posted a transcription I made of Miss Rand's comments in this post ←, along with a clarification made by Harry Binswanger.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Hi Stephen, thanks for a heartfelt reply. I'm glad you've explained your personal reasons for being so emphatic on this issue, and so I would like to explain mine.

What I am most concerned about is that political correctness paralyzes cognitive function. I am just as against going around handing down condemnations as you are, and I certainly am not one to force my opinions down people's throats, especially if those opinions will hurt their feelings. I too am very concerned about saying what I'd like to say without people I value being hurt or insulted. For example, as I mentioned in my previous email, I have met many gay people in my life, and one of my good friends is gay too. I certainly do not go around them accusing them of things, or saying things that will make them feel bad.

In fact, I do my very best to not say or do anything that will offend these people that I value. But when it comes to making a cognitive evaluation about where I stand on the issue, I have to say what I really feel, regardless of how much it will be unpleasant to them.

Aristotle once wrote,

Now the man is thought to be great who thinks himself worthy of great things, and is worthy of them; he who does so beyond what he deserves is a fool, but no virtuous man is foolish or silly. The great man, then, is the man we have described. On the other hand, he who is worthy of little and thinks himself worthy of little is temperate, but not great; for pride implies greatness, as beauty implies a goodsized body, and little people may be neat and well-proportioned but cannot be beautiful.

Why can't we people today be more straightforward like that?

On the concrete issue we're discussing here, you said,

The children that my son befriended all had everything a kid could imagine, everything except parents who gave them what they really needed and valued. I simply cannot really get across how much these kids wanted to spend time with us in our more modest home, rather than playing video games in their theater-sized screening room.

[...]

What a child needs most is to live in a world where his parent's strength of character, love and nurturing creates a most benevolent atmosphere. The child needs to learn that the world is a good place and that his ideas, views, and concerns matter. Over many years I found a handful of parents who fit this description, but many homosexuals who, if they wanted those children, would be able to give them just what they really need.

←

But here's the thing: yes on a very important level homosexual parents will be able to provide a lot of things that a disfunctional family will not, all the things you listed -- love, a benevolent atmosphere, learning that his ideas and views matter, etc. But is this the most fundamental 'thing' that we can learn? Isn't there a very important level beneath even that, an almost non-verbal level where all our deepest values, our inner-most nature, reside? Who we are? Whom we will love? What kind of entity to be attracted to? Man? Woman? Etc.

People can consciously think and choose the ideas and opinions, which is what homosexual parents can help them with, but they don't consciously think and choose about their most inner-most personal values, which is what their homosexual parents cannot help them with. Nor can heterosexual parents for that matter; but what heterosexual parents do, by their very presence and existence, is help the children acquire proper values, and acquire proper opinions about the most fundamental aspects of their being.

I guess everything comes down to evaluation of homosexuality. If it is treated as just some irrelevant thing which really doesn't mean that much (some people eat with their left hand, and some with their right; some men have sex with men, others with women), then certainly there is no reason to say that they will cause any debilitary effects on their child's most fundamental development. But if homosexuality is classified as an unnatural phenomenon which, even if it is not immoral and up for condemnation, is a violation of the natural order and improper on some level, then having heterosexual children raised by gay parents will actively deprive them of some irreplaceable aspects of their development, even if those parents will be able to supply everything else.

And if homosexuality should be classified as unnatural on some level, then we should do so even if it will be highly unpleasant to those around us whom we would not like to be hurt under normal circumstances. That's why I am 100% on Ayn Rand's side here, even if I wholeheartedly sympathize with those who deeply were hurt by her words.

[Free Capitalist 0]

I should add that I agree not so much with AR's evaluation of homosexuality as immoral, as with her willingness to express her opinion straightforwardly, on a public stage, regardless of whom it may offend or of how many of them there will be. There's an old-fashioned kind of sincerity in that, and I value it deeply.