This was previously posted on my primary blog.
What is a right?
In Objectivism a right is a moral principle that defines and sanctions an individual’s freedom of action in a social context. There’s only one basic right, a person’s right to their own life.[1]
So what is a Gay Right?
The so-called Gay Right is a political privilege, a law enacted for the private benefit of homosexuals, which negates the freedom of non-homosexuals. In most of the cases on record it’s the freedom to not associate with homosexuals.
Why disassociate from homosexuals?
In the cases that have come up for judicial action individuals are being punished for complying with the Christian moral code. In Christianity homosexuality is identified as a sin and as a result they are to be shunned. In reality the act of shunning a homosexual does not violate his real rights because in a free society all personal interactions are voluntary.
In a case that came up for judicial action a homosexual couple entering into a pretend marriage sought to buy a wedding cake for their ceremony. When they were refused on Christian moral grounds they sued the baker for the act of discrimination. Instead of choosing a different baker to voluntarily provide the cake as is proper in a free society they chose to reject the principle of freedom and to judicially inflict their will upon the baker.[2]
Are there grounds to disassociate from homosexuals and thus a rational basis to do so?
In reality homosexuality is a mental dysfunction. The homosexual act runs counter to the normal biological functions of human life. And homosexuals have been disruptive to the normal interactions in civil and military groups. [3]
Given that there are both religious and rational grounds for disassociating from homosexuals it’s no surprise that the adherents of tyranny, those that seek to establish the Primacy of the State with themselves fully in control, have quickly and firmly moved to exploit the homosexual voting block. In exchange for the privilege of negating the rights of non-homosexuals this collective is consistently supporting the complete effort of the tyrants to impose their rule upon our nation. This should result in a negative outcome for the homosexual collective. When the present cold civil struggle becomes an open war the victims of the homosexual collective will seek an end to their problem.
A permanent end.
What are your questions on this block of instruction?
Footnotes
1. Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.
2. In finding for the homosexual couple the judge acted in the opposite manner of a judicial officer in a free society. For this he should be taken out and shot.
3. The ancient Greek city state of Thebes had a dedicated all homosexual military formation. It was wiped out in action.
2 comments:
If you insist in considering gay rights only in terms of things like denying the purchase of a wedding cake, well then, you will find few rational people who will disagree with your distaste for the concept, which in the cited instance concerns a voluntary relation between two private entities -- i.e., the marriage-minded couple and the baker. Pence will get you pounds, though, that the highly sanctified baker -- who so resents being constrained by government to provide (sell, actually) his wares to sodomites -- has no problem with the government using its monopoly on force to keep them from getting married, and gaining the government-conferred privileges of other married couples, in the first place.
A continuation by the same commentator:
As a disclaimer, first of all, I am not of the homosexual persuasion, and I find the mechanics of it to be off-putting. My reason for defending homosexuals is that I favor the concept of fairness, and I disdain smugness based upon religious folklore.
You say, "In reality homosexuality is a mental dysfunction. The homosexual act runs counter to the normal biological functions of human life." I object to your use of the tactic of intimidation inherent in your as yet unvindicated use of the phrase "[i]n reality". Is homosexuality any more of a mental dysfunction than, say, believing that bread and wine become the flesh and blood of the Christ?
As to your claim that "the homosexual act runs counter to the normal biological functions of human life," I assume that you mean that the act does not result in conception, gestation and parturition. Well, neither does (1) copulation wherein one of the parties is sterile or (2) copulation wherein contraception is employed. I hate to rain on your parade, but you need to know: Some folks have sex because it (gasp) feels good.
You end up by saying, "When the present cold civil struggle becomes an open war the victims of the homosexual collective will seek an end to their problem. A permanent end."
Some Objectivist!
Post a Comment