Tonight we’ll discuss, among other topics, Ted Cruz’s views on philosopher John Rawls, Legalizing Marijuana, and the Right to Gay Marriage. See Program Notes, below, for all the stories, etc., we plan to discuss.
Join us live, either by phone or in the chatroom!
The show can be accessed here.
To access the show’s page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode or to subscribe via iTunes and other services, use this link.
To access the iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.
Finally, if you would like to support the show financially, please donate using your Pay Pal account or Credit Card here.
Program Notes
The AFDI Muhammad Cartoon Contest People’s Choice Awards — The Winner
Stories from Current and Former Success Academy Parents
Levin: ‘US Senate Just Capitulated to Obama,’ and Rewrote the Constitution’s Treaty Provision
Iranian ship convoy moves toward Yemen, alarming US officials
Obama administration “declined to organize a rescue mission” for Americans in Yemen?
Male model from Australia dies fighting for Islamic State
Looming Greek ‘crunch’ threatens fresh global crisis, warns Osborne
Why Americans Don’t Want to Soak the Rich
Iris Scanner Identifies a Person 40 Feet Away
White House Hopefuls Gather In New Hampshire
HT Dan Norton
Carolla: ‘I Want to Support’ Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz Winning Over Orthodox Jews
Ted Cruz And Rick Santorum Answer The Same Sex Wedding Question
Ted Cruz Voices Support For States’ Right To Legalize Marijuana
VIDEO: Students are ‘Ready for Hillary’ just because she’s a woman
Don't Let It Go 
On the issue of homosexuality, Ayn Rand said it was “disgusting and immoral” at one of her Ford Hall Q&A. I believe there are a couple of places in her works (or writings approved by her) where it was indicated it was wrong. Rand used words with precision and never said “immoral” when she meant “not my cup of tea” so it’s pretty clear that opposition to homosexuality is part of the philosophy of Objectivism. It’s also hard to square Rand’s view of gender with approval of homosexuality.
In her journals, she occasionally used the derisive slang “nance” to refer to homosexuals, although these are not included in the printed version.
In The Ominous Parallels, Leonard Peikoff said “There are homosexual activists who feel righteous because there constituency is NOT normal . . . ” (page 291). I gather LP has moderated his view somewhat in recent years.
Of course, you can think something is wrong (such as entering a same sex marriage) and still think there is a right to engage in it.
This issue is bizaree. Ive even hear objectivists argue that its okay to be transgeered and that people who oppose mutilating ones body are bigots.
Its time for Leonard Peikoff to grown some balls. He booted John McCaskey and Reisman out of objectivism for less.
” Rand used words with precision and never said “immoral” when she meant “not my cup of tea” so it’s pretty clear that opposition to homosexuality is part of the philosophy of Objectivism.”
I would not agree with that statement. Objectivism is not just what Ayn Rand said, but a systematic philosophy created by Rand and fleshed out by Leonard Peikoff. Its full implications are still not fully understood today.
An important part of Objectivism, perhaps the most fundamental part, is the one about using reason to acquire knowledge about the world. Just because Ayn Rand found homosexuality repulsive does not mean that such a view should be part of Objectivism. As a first-hander, each Objectivist has the responsibility to decide for himself, based on the knowledge available to him, whether Objectivism is moral or immoral and whether it should be legal or illegal.
Ayn Rand’s personal views and preferences should be separated from formal Objectivism and any Objectivist view on homosexuality should be based on an understanding of human nature as human nature is, i.e. “man qua man”. UW.
“As a first-hander, each Objectivist has the responsibility to decide for himself, based on the knowledge available to him, whether Objectivism is moral or immoral and whether it should be legal or illegal.”
I think you meant to say, “whether *homosexuality* is moral or immoral and whether it should be legal or illegal.”
I agree, of course. Thanks for commenting!
” Objectivism is not just what Ayn Rand said, but a systematic philosophy created by Rand and fleshed out by Leonard Peikoff. Its full implications are still not fully understood today.”
Of course, that’s not what LP said during the split with Kelley. He said Objectivism was Rand’s philosophy and that any extension of it had to be judged based on the consistency with Rand’s thought.
Rand didn’t say her view of homosexuality was her “preference.” She said it was “immoral.” Unlike you, Rand used words with ruthless precision. Rand’s view of human nature was that we are “blank slates” and that human emotions are ultimately programmed by the mind. I think her view of human nature is a little naive, but that’s her view.
There are extensions, i.e., saying that something is part of the philosophy, and there are applications. Rand applied Objectivism to the issue of homosexuality, within the context of her knowledge at the time. We apply it in the context of our knowledge. It’s as simple as that.