On March 28, I published a blog post entitled “I am Married … to a Woman,” in which I opposed the notion of same-sex marriage. On April 3, in a comment to that blog post, I gave myself the goal of writing a new post that would reply to various comments regarding the broader issue of sexual orientation. I set the goal of posting something in time for the decisions by the Supreme Court related to these issues.

The Supreme Court’s decisions are expected tomorrow or Monday, and so it is time for me to publish something. The planned blog post has grown into a long essay or short book, and I am still writing the final polemical sections. Today I am posting the introduction and a tentative full list of references. I will post the second installment two or three days from now, and the third installment two or three days after that. I plan to publish the fourth and fifth installments about a week apart.

The thesis of the essay is evident from the title.

I will not be accepting comments until a couple of days after the final installment appears. That will give me some time to (try to) catch up on the rest of my life. It will also give commenters time to read my entire essay before commenting, and to weigh carefully their comments on this emotionally charged issue.

In moderating comments, I will accept respectful ones only. I do expect that most comments will be thoughtful and valuable.

I would like to thank Nicola Huntley, Glenn Marcus, and Brad Thompson for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this essay. Of course, any errors are my own.

The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage, Part 1

She knew, even though she was too young to know the reason, that indiscriminate desire and unselective indulgence were possible only to those who regarded sex and themselves as evil.
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (1957, 109 [Part 1, Chapter 5]).

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 immoral, but because sex is too good and too important.
—Ayn Rand ([1964], n.d., 8)

Romantic love, like Romantic art, requires utmost selectivity. As Romanticism is a theory of art that entails such selectivity based on one’s deepest values, so I use the word ‘Romanticism’ to denote an analogous theory of romantic love.

For romantic love—as opposed to mindless, indiscriminant sex—an individual must select, out of the whole world, only one other person as his sexual partner. Given all the possible criteria for selecting a partner, one must know which criteria are essential and which are not, which are indeed consistent with one’s deepest values.

Is gender—that is, whether one’s sex is male or female—one of these essential criteria, along with fundamental character traits such as honesty and integrity? Is it essential for a man to select a woman and not another man? Or is gender a non-essential quality, such as hair color?

Individuals who are exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual act in accordance with the premise that gender is indeed an essential criterion in selecting a romantic partner. Bisexuals may act as though gender is not essential.

For heterosexuals and homosexuals, what is the basis in each case for limiting the selection to one gender? Are the basis for heterosexuality and the basis for homosexuality equally rational, equally conducive to survival and happiness? Is ‘heterosexism’—the idea that heterosexuality is better than homosexuality, bisexuality, or other ‘sexual orientations’—an aspect of Romanticism, or is it like racism?

Moreover, does an individual even have a choice in whether he is romantically—which includes sexually—attracted to those of one sex or the other? If volition is involved, in what way is it involved in these attractions? Or are differences in sexual orientation determined by biological and environmental factors?

In this essay, I present a theory of heterosexual romantic love. I argue that heterosexuality in particular enables romantic love in a way that integrates with all aspects of a man and woman. I argue also that sexual orientation is the result of volition in the same way that other aspects of romantic love are volitional. I also discuss implications for the meaning of the concept of marriage and for interactions between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

But the main theme of my essay is that every individual should understand the reasons underlying his own sexual orientation.

My original motivation for studying this subject was to understand the differences between heterosexuality and other sexual orientations. But that initial motivation gave way to a much deeper motivation: to understand sexual orientation as a conceptually explicit, conscious conviction integrated with one’s deepest values and emotions, instead of as a vague idea merely led by emotions.

Ayn Rand ([1966] 1975, 33) writes,

Love is the expression of philosophy—of a subconscious philosophical sum—and, perhaps, no other aspect of human existence needs the conscious power of philosophy quite so desperately. When that power is called upon to verify and support an emotional appraisal, when love is a conscious integration of reason and emotion, of mind and values, then—and only then—it is the greatest reward of man’s life.

In this essay, I seek to demonstrate that an individual’s sexual orientation is an integral part of the expression of his philosophy. By understanding his orientation and what that orientation implies for his relationship with his romantic partner, it is possible for a man (or woman) to express his identity more consistently, more thoroughly, and more joyfully.

Consistent with my theme, I argue that a terrible injustice has been committed against all individuals—heterosexual, homosexual, etc.—by the intellectual mainstream of the psychological and related professions, which have assured all individuals—especially non-heterosexuals—that there is no need to understand the source of their sexual orientation. I refute the schools of thought, now predominant to the point of virtual unanimity, that claim that sexual orientation is the non-volitional product of heredity and/or society.

Based on my theory of heterosexual romantic love, I do not see how there can be a comparably integrated theory of same-sex romantic love; but I invite anyone to present or reference such a theory.

My theory may be opposed by most people—of all sexual orientations—who read it. But to detractors and supporters alike, I offer—in good will—this challenge: I can explain my sexual orientation; can you explain yours?

No other individual owes me an explanation of his sexual orientation. But he owes such an explanation to himself.

In this essay, I have chosen to explain my sexual orientation publicly, in the hope that it might help others understand their own and perhaps shed further light on this important subject.

Man is born with certain physical and psychological needs, but he can neither discover them nor satisfy them without the use of his mind. Man has to discover what is right or wrong for him as a rational being. His so-called urges will not tell him what to do.
—Ayn Rand ([1964], n.d., 9).

See next The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage, Part 2.

References (updated July 22, 2013)

Altman, Dennis (1971), Homosexual Oppression and Liberation. New York: Avon Books.

Altman, Dennis (1982), The Homosexualization of America: The Americanization of The Homosexual. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

American Psychiatric Association (1973), “Homosexuality: Proposed Change in DSM-II”. Arlington, VA: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2008). Answers to your questions: For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Washington, DC: Author. www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2013.

American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. (2009), Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: Author.

Aristotle (2000), Metaphysics. Translation by W.D. Ross. The Internet Classics Archive by Daniel C. Stevenson, Web Atomics. http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/metaphysics.html. Accessed July 21, 2000.

Aristotle (1941), Poetics. Translation by Ingram Bywater. In The Basic Works of Aristotle. Edited by Richard McKeon. New York: Random House.

Bailey, J. M. (2003), “Biological Perspectives on Sexual Orientation”, Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences. Edited by Linda D. Garnets & Douglas C. Kimmel New York: Columbia University Press.

Berger and Luckmann (1966), The Social Construction of Reality. London: Penguin Books.

Bieber, Irving (1987), “On Arriving at the American Psychiatric Associatation Decision on Homosexuality”, Scientific Controversies. Edited by H. Tristam Engelhardt Jr and Arthur L. Caplan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 417–436.

Binswanger, Harry (1986), The Ayn Rand Lexicon. New York: Meridian.

Chall, Leo P, (1961), “A Survey of Advances in Modern Sex Research”, The Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior. Edited by Albert Ellis and Albert Abarbanel. New York: Hawthorn Books, 25–34.

Connell, R. W. (1987), Gender and Power: Society, The Person, and Sexual Politics. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Connell, R. W. (1992), “A Very Straight Gay: Masculinity, Homosexual Experience, and the Dynamics of Gender”, American Sociological Review 57: 735–751.

D’Emilio, John (1993), “Gay Politics and Community in San Francisco”, Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian & Gay Male Experiences. Second Edition. Edited by Linda D. Garnets & Douglass C. Kimmel. New York: Columbia University Press.

D’Emilio, John ([1983], 1999), “Capitalism and Gay Identity”, The Columbia Reader on Lesbians and Gay Men in Media, Society, and Politics. Edited by Larry P. Gross, James D. Woods. New York, Columbia University Press, 48–55. The essay, without the quoted preface, is reprinted from Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality. Edited by Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, & Sharan Thompson. New Feminist Library Series. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Foucault, Michel (1978), The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction. Translated from the French by Robert Hurley. New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, Michel ([2008] 2010). The Government of Self and Others. Lectures at the Collège de France, 1982- 1983. Translated by Graham Burchell. Houndmills and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Quoted from http://www.michel-foucault.com/quote/2010q.html. Accessed July 19, 2013.

Frontline (n.d.), “Homophobia Questionnaire”, Public Broadcasting System. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html. Accessed June 23, 2013.

Frumkin, Robert M. (1961) “Sexual Freedom”, The Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior. Edited by Albert Ellis and Albert Abarbanel. New York: Hawthorn Books, 439–449.

Garnets, Linda D. & Douglas C. Kimmel (1993), Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian & Gay Male Experiences. New York: Columbia University Press.

Garnets and Peplau (2001), “A New Paradigm for Women’s Sexual Orientation: Implications for Therapy”, Women & Therapy 24: 1/2, 111–121.

Gergen, Kenneth J. (1985), “The Social Constructionist Movement in Modern Psychology”, American Psychologist 40: 266–275.

Gonsiorek, John C. (1991), “The Empirical Basis For The Demise of the Illness Model Of Homosexuality”, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. Edited by John C. Gonsiorek and James D. Weinrich. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 115–136.

Gonsiorek, John C. and James R. Rudolph (1991), “Homosexual identity: Coming out and other developmental events”, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. Edited by John C. Gonsiorek and James D. Weinrich. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 161–176.

Halperin, David M. (1990), One Hundred Years of Homosexuality. New York: Routledge.

Haslanger, Sally (1993), “On Being Objective and Being Objectified”, A Mind of One’s Own: Feminist Essays on Reason and Objectivity. Edited by Louise M. Antony and Charlotte Witt. Boulder: Westview Press.

Herek, Gregory M. ([1986] 1993), “On Heterosexual Masculinity: Some Psychical Consequences of the Social Construction of Gender and Sexuality”, American Behavioral Scientist 29: 563-577. Reprinted in Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian & Gay Male Experiences. Edited by Linda D. Garnets and Douglas C. Kimmel. New York: Columbia University Press: 316–330.

Herek, Gregory M. (1993),”The Context of Anti-Gay Violence; Notes on Cultural and Psychological Heterosexism”, Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian & Gay Male Experiences. Edited by Linda D. Garnets and Douglas C. Kimmel. New York: Columbia University Press, 89–108.

Herek, Gregory M. (2000), “Homosexuality”, Encyclopedia of Psychology. Alan E. Kazdin, Editor-in-Chief. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press.

Herek, Gregory M. (1993),”The Context of Anti-Gay Violence; Notes on Cultural and Psychological Heterosexism”, in Garnets, Linda D. & Douglas C. Kimmel, Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian & Gay Male Experiences, 89–108.

Jones, Stanton L. (2012), “Sexual orientation and reason: On the Implications of False Beliefs About Homosexuality”. www.christianethics.org. Accessed May 27, 2013.

LeVay, Simon (2011), Gay, Straight and the Reason Why. New York: Oxford University Press.

Levin, Roy J. and Willy van Berlo (2004), “Sexual Arousal and Orgasm in Subjects Who Experience Forced or Non-Consensual Sexual Stimulation – A Review”, Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine 11: 82–88.

Mazlish, Ed (2013), “Gay Marriage and the Role of State”, Capitalism Magazine. http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/04/gay-marriage-and-the-role-of-state/. Accessed June 2, 2013.

Parsons, Jeffrey T. and Christian Grov (2012), “Gay Male Identities, Desires, and Sexual Behaviors”, Handbook of Psychology and Sexual Orientation. Edited by Charlotte J. Patterson and Anthony R. D’Augelli. New York: Oxford University Press.

Peikoff, Leonard (1982), The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America. New York: Stein and Day.

Peikoff, Leonard (1991), Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton.

Peplau, Letitia Anne, Leah R. Spalding, Terri D. Conley, and Rosemary C. Veniegas (1999), “The Development Of Sexual Orientation In Women”, Annual Review of Sex Research 10: 70–99.

Peplau, Letitia Anne (2001), “Rethinking Women’s Sexual Orientation: An Interdisciplinary, Relationship-Focused Approach”, Personal Relationships 8: 1-19.

Peplau, Letitia Anne (2003), “Human Sexuality: How Do Men and Women Differ?”, Current Directions In Psychological Science 12 (2): 37–40.

Pisaturo, Ronald (2013), “‘I am Married … to a Woman’”, Ron Pisaturo’s Blog. http://ronpisaturo.com/blog/2013/03/28/i-am-married-to-a-woman/. Accessed June 2, 2013.

Rand, Ayn (1957), Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House.

Rand, Ayn ([1964], n.d.), “The Playboy Interview with Philosopher Ayn Rand” Playboy 11(3): . Reprinted New Milford, Connecticut: Second Renaissance Books.

Rand, Ayn ([1966–1967] 1990), “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, The Objectivist 5(7)–6(2). Reprinted in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded Second Edition. Edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff. New York: Meridian.

Rand, Ayn (1971), “The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing’”, The Objectivist 10 (3): 1–8.

Rand, Ayn (1972), “The Stimulus…”, The Ayn Rand Letter 1(8): 1–4.

Rand, Ayn ([1966], 1975), “Philosophy And Sense Of Life”, The Objectivist 5(2): 1–6. Reprinted in The Romantic Manifesto. Second Revised Edition. New York: Signet, 25–33.

Rand, Ayn ([1968], 1990), “Of Living Death” (Part 1), The Objectivist 7 (9): 1–6. Reprinted in The Voice of Reason, New York: Meridian, 46–63.

Rattner (1993), “Treatment Issues for Chemically Dependent Lesbians and gay Men”, Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian & Gay Male Experiences, 567–578.

Rostand, Edmond ([1898], [1923], 1980), Cyrano de Bergerac. Translated into English verse by Brian Hooker. Toronto: Bantam Books.

Schwartz, Peter (1999), “Gender Tribalism”, Return of the Primitive. New Expanded Edition of The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand. Edited by Peter Schwartz. New York: Meridian, 205–216.

Socarides, Charles W. (1992), “Sexual Politics And Scientific Logic: The Issue Of Homosexuality”, The Journal of Psychohistory, 19(3). Transcription at http://www.kidhistory.org/homopolo.html. Accessed June 23, 2013.

Spiegel, Alix (2002), “81 Words”, This American Life. Transcript of radio broadcast. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/204/transcript. Accessed June 3, 2013.

Steyn, Mark (2013), “Tiptoeing on Ever-Thinner Eggshells”, Orange County Register April 5, 2013.

Thompson, C. Bradley (2012), “The New Abolitionism: Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of our Time”, The Objective Standard, 7(4): 13–37.

Walsh, George (1970), “Herbert Marcuse, Philosopher of the New Left”, The Objectivist 9 (9): 7–16, 9 (10): 8–16, 9 (11): 8–16, 9 (12): 6–13.

Weinberg, George (1972), Society and the Homosexual. NewYork: St Martin’s Press.

Weinberg, George (2012), “Homophobia: Don’t Ban the Word — Put It in the Index of Mental Disorders”, The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-weinberg/homophobia-dont-ban-the-w_b_2253328.html. Accessed July 11, 2013.

Wolf, Sherry (2004) The Roots of Gay Oppression. International Socialist Review 37. http://isreview.org/issues/37/gay_oppression.shtml. Accessed June 15, 2013.

Wolf, Sherry (2009), Sexuality and Socialism. Chicago: Haymarket Books.