It’s a strange dichotomy that those most committed to natural ecosystems free from “man-made artificial constructs” reputed to destroy that ecosystem… are so in favor of artificial constructs in the ecosystem of the economy.

Obviously, I disagree that capitalism is the cause for social or environmental decay and destruction. A quick look at history reveals that the whole time humanity was mostly under the thumb of tyranny of various forms, starvation and death was the norm. As soon as capitalism entered the scene, the human population of the globe exploded. Now, the planet can support more human life than ever, as a direct result of capitalism.

I believe that the globe’s resources should be exploited for the betterment of human life, and that capitalism is the only resource allocation method that works. For instance, there is a lot of teeth-gnashing over oil, but the scarceness of oil is a self-correcting problem in a free market. As oil becomes scarcer, oil prices increase, and other forms of energy become more economically-viable. One only has to look at any communist country to see the results of policies that try to centrally manage resources.

Unfortunately, the United States is not a purely capitalist economic system. We are under what many call “crony capitalism”, whereby special interests pay the government to help them and hurt others, such as with the recent bank bailouts. This is why most libertarians argue for a separation of economics and state – so that it is impossible to pay the government to favor one person over another.

In any case, I can’t make a complete argument for capitalism in a blog comment, but I recommend visiting http://cato.org if you want to see more research on the benefits of capitalism and how we can fix our current government.

That’s a disgusting bit of package dealing. Of course your preferences and tendencies are valid justifications for choice. What else is individualism? Ayn Rand had an inclination or preference for the color blue-green- so she chose to make Rearden Metal that color and she decorated her home with blue-green pillows. Would Firehammer (a comically woeful name in this context btw) say that she had no right to have personal preferences or desires? Is a favorite color and necrophilia comparable because they both involve “personal preference”? More on this below.

Our preferences in sexual partners (and pillow colors) are neither inborn nor chosen- they are developmentally given. Human beings spend the first 13-18 years of life developing their rational ability. During that time, their personalities and preferences are not on hold- they are developing in response to their environment. A boy who admires male heroes and who sees only useless women in his circle, may respond to his life experience by loving and sexualizing men. A boy who is denied male friendship may long for what he cannot have. A physical pleasure such as a wrestling match with another boy or an accidental glimpse of a naked man or any other number of countless variables can become the kernel of a sexual identity (just as an emotional connection can be made between say, a favorite children’s book like green eggs and ham and a future desire to be a chef). The development of preferences and personality are not arbitrary, but they are not under direct rational control. Acting on your own personality in pursuit of your own happiness as an adult is not only moral and proper but mandatory. I’m gay not because of any choice I made as a rational adult, but because to my eyes women are just ok but men are sexy as hell. Simple as that. And I do not sacrifice my desires to Mr. Firehammer’s biological determinism.

Invoking necrophilia, pedophila & bestiality is arbitrary garbage. None of those things are actually even sex- they are masturbation facilitated by the improper use of dead, pre-rational, or non-rational beings. Sex is an expression of intimacy between two (or more) consenting rational adults. You can’t have sex with a rock or a table leg. I hate it when Oists are that intellectually dishonest.

Answer me this, Mr. F- if Gail Wynand and Howard Roark felt attraction and had sex below deck on the “I Do” (and who says they didn’t?) would it be any more unnatural than the “rape” of Dominique? Both instances would be unusual (but not immoral) sexual acts performed only in recognition of the context, psychology and mutual desires of the adults involved. And neither, if they happened in real life, would be any of Mr. Firehammer’s concern or business and certainly not a subject for his panicked, fevered little moralism.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

First, we know that she believed that sex should always be based on values:

“A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because it is too good and important.”

And more, she believed that one’s sexual attractions were a reflection of those values:

“Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself… [Sex] is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience – or to fake – a sense of self-esteem.”

Because of this, I assume she believed that a man who desires to surrender sexually to another man, or a man who desires another man to do so, can only result from corrupt values – that is, values that are against one’s own selfish interests and one’s own welfare.

But what values, specifically, would those be? I don’t know. She did have very definite ideas on the roles of men and women:

“The essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to a man. ‘To look up’ does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments… the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.”

This is why she said she would not want a woman President – because any woman who wants to lead men is not properly feminine. In her view, it is simply not a woman’s role to lead – that is a man’s job.

So perhaps we can further assume that it is immoral for a man to desire to look up to another man, since that would be the essence of femininity. Since femininity would be contrary to the nature of a man, perhaps this is a line of reasoning similar to Firehammer’s argument of acting contrary to one’s own nature.

Of course, if a biological basis for homosexuality is ever proven, it invalidates any such arguments. At that point, homosexuality is in one’s own nature. Even if it’s environmental, it’s very hard for me to think of something that happens at such a young age as being in realm of choice. I knew I was gay by the time I was 10.

Moreover, I’ve never understood her ideas on femininity and masculinity. Why, exactly, must a woman desire to look up to a man to be properly feminine? If a man is worthy of hero-worship, why shouldn’t other men be attracted to him too? Perhaps there are books out there that explore this issue, but if there are I haven’t read them.

My guess is that her views on the immorality of homosexuality arose from a combination of the factors I mention above, though. She had very definite ideas on the proper roles of men and women, and she contended that all sexual attraction is a result of certain values. Thus, if one strays outside of her proper roles and proper attractions, one holds the wrong values, or at the very least one has made an error somewhere in the hierarchy of concepts that leads one to choose the wrong actions to gain those values.

The only way this would be immoral by definition would be if it was detrimental to one’s own long-term best interests, so I’m sure she believed it was. And since homosexuality, in her thinking, is a result of one’s ideas, it is a moral judgment based one’s character.

Of course, these are just wild guesses based on what I’ve read. I’ll never know what she really thought, which is why I was so interested in the Firehammer book.

She states herself that the tieing of biology to morality is the sign of a brute. As I see it is how Ayn forms her opinion on homosexuality as a ,”psychological flaw”.

I do not use ‘opinion’ loosely as it seems after doing some digging online she goes to great lengths to avoid ever stating an argument.

What would Ayn mean by a ,”psychological flaw”? and how exactly is such a flaw immoral by definition? and would not this type of judgement be out of step with measuring a person by their character and actions?

Not being gay, I can’t comment on the morality of it … I like it that way.