I agree. I don't want any mob ganging up on me, and using the government’s guns to extort my values. Even if it is your needy child! Sorry but I shouldn't have to pay via taxation for people who continue to breed more ignorant, infirm, and drug-addicted babies. If I find your family and your infirm children to be particularity charming I would be pleased to lend a hand If get something out of it too. But stop extorting my values as well for your mob-rule theistic, delusional Christian agenda or the disintegrated liberal agenda of nirvana which is composed of any entitlement imaginable, a secure padded cel, a feeding tube, SOMA Drip and 3D Hi Def Surround sound media.

I am gay, and I do not give a damn about the governments legal sanction of my life. This is about taxation without representation. Many (theists in particular) wish to enjoy the benefits of my tax dollars but simultaneously wish to sweep me aside as a second class citizen. They enjoy a myriad of irrational altruistic-point-of-the-gun government benefits that we do not. I do not want "special rights", but I do want individual rights and to not be treated with prejudice in the application of my rights.

What about hermaphrodites? Are they an abomination? What should be done with "abominations"? {what does the post office have to do with this?}

On this issue Ayn Rand has left the sphere of her integrations in favor of emotional misintegrations. I am a gay “objectivist” philosopher but I am expanding the philosophy to incorporate other fields of science. Theists and Philosophers often have a tendency to disregard other disciplines and thus fail to integrate other fields involving human behavior –like evolution, human behavioral psychology, human behavioral evolution, Psychiatry, Psychology, neuroscience and Biology for instance. These also must be taken into consideration when examining and understanding human behavior. Human behavior is not exclusively guided by frontal lobes philosophical thought. The brain has evolved with ancient, reptilian, mammalian and primate, physical areas as well. These areas of the brain must also be considered as well as evolution and genetic influences. Inherent in Ayn Rands paraphrased statement /assertion: "It involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises .... Therefore I regard it as immoral ... And more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion. It's disgusting." There are a number of problems (and I wont dig any deeper than this) that beg her (feelings-based) premise: 1. One must assume that all humans are exclusively male and female whom possess perfectly functional brains with no variations (maybe she mistakenly believed this) to reach the emotional value-judgment of “disgusting”. Humans are NOT born in exclusively Male or Female configurations: What about Hermaphrodites? Are they psychologically flawed, corrupted, full of errors and automatically immoral? If one can be physically born male, female, both or any degree of either; that implies variations in the genetic unraveling that occurred during fetal development. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that all men and women are exclusively male or female. Humans present every genetic variation from horrible deformations to stellar examples of genius. There is no ‘standard human’. By her own standards someone who is deformed is “disgusting”. Some deformed people are brilliant. (uh, Steven Hawking!) 2. What then, metaphysically, is the standardized state of Man? By what right and whose values are we to determine who is the ‘standard man’ (Ayn Rands, God’s, The states)? 3. She completely sweeps aside the existent of the individual engaging in the act and that they are exchanging values based on their terms NOT hers! At this point she is not integrating but emotionalizing. Ayn Rand was human and experienced emotions too. In considering her position, one must consider to what degree was she sexualized in her orientation? For exclusively heterosexuals or homosexuals the opposite sexual act is emotionally perceived as “disgusting”. For those who are bisexual, either act is exciting. The first premise that must occur for her idea to be a complete philosophical integration, as an axiomatic primary of reality, is that ALL human beings are born with perfect attributes and that they have willfully deviated from such attributes. However, The only perfection in humans is that we exist and we possess a vast array of differences among each other. Perfection is similar to infinity. Perfection is simply a step better than “the best” we previously perceived. Who is to be the example of “the best”? By “what right and whose values?” are we to follow that example? There is absolutely no evidence from the sciences to suggest that homosexuality is a deviant act or abnormal. And if there were, by what right and whose values should I succumb to societies new revelation that I should be deprived of my “choice”? Ayn Rand simply did not have the benefit of fMRIs and other state-of-the art technologies and psychiatric and psychological practices. On this issue she was simply ignorant, uneducated and emotionally reactive to her gut. And yes, I am sure Ayn Rand had psychological issues as well. She was a phenomenally brilliant philosopher and integrator. However, she also made a lot of emotional and personal assertions in her various essays and addresses that I do not completely agree with philosophically. Everything Ayn Rand said is not fully integrated, she simply did not have the data, and I can only imagine the spin on “the gay lifestyle” that she was exposed to by the culture and media in her time… Finally, there is nothing that would change the importance of Atlas Shrugged philosophically, if Hank Reardon and John Galt were lovers or sex partners. A is still A.

Homosexuality is a behavior, it does not deserve respect nor should it be forced on others which is the mail activist goal.
I indeed regard it as an abomination and a mental weakness.