WHO GETS VIAGRA? Should doctors refuse to prescribe the new virility pill to a man whose wife uses birth control? Should unmarried men be prohibited from taking the drug? What about gay men?
For decades now, gay men have been lectured to by heterosexuals that the purpose of sex is procreation. The possibility of creating life, it is said, stands as the moral foundation of sexuality. Since same-sex couples cannot hope to conceive a child, their sexuality lacks any chance of being moral. And it goes without saying that this sort of moral sexuality can only occur within a valid marriage, which, given the current rules of marriage is yet another reason same-sex couples are supposed to be excluded from having moral sexual relationships.
This tissue of an argument has been the thin flag of gay-rights opponents for a long time, but now it may stand or fall on the wild popularity of Viagra. That drug has caused a sensation across the country as men have flooded doctors and pharmacists with requests. It reportedly works for up to 70 percent of impotent men, a home run for the drug's manufacturer and a boon for the sex lives of couples across the nation.
But how many of those couples will be using Viagra with the intention of having children? From front-page stories, it appears to be very few. Common sense explains that men in their prime reproductive years tend not to be the ones who have impotence problems.
The question of reproduction, however, is all but absent from the rush of attention Viagra is getting. What heterosexuals are interested in, of course, is the drug's ability to enhance physical intimacy, not the possibility of children. And there is nothing wrong with that. Sexual intimacy is one of the most important parts of any relationship, and it is a factor independent of fertility. The importance of sexual intimacy detached from fertility was also the driving force when birth control pills for women became widely available in the 1960s.
These two pills -- one for women and one for men -- reveal the paradox that lesbians and gay men have to negotiate every day. Heterosexual couples, who can biologically have children, don't have an obligation to, while homosexual couples are criticized for not living up to the biological norm that heterosexuals don't have to live up to. More pointedly, heterosexuals are permitted to celebrate their nonprocreative sexuality on magazine covers and prime-time TV shows, while homosexuals are expected to apologize for theirs.
Viagra's popularity isn't such a long step from the tolerance that President Clinton's alleged sex life has garnered among Americans. If anything, the constant drumbeat of reporting on this story reveals how little most Americans actually think about reproduction as a moral argument. The list of moral grievances surrounding Clinton's alleged sexual escapades is a long one, but no one has yet argued that our famously heterosexual president is immoral because he lacked procreative intent.
Would heterosexuals be willing to live by the moral rules that they apply to lesbians and gay men? Should Viagra be limited to legally married couples who want to have children but cannot because of the husband's impotence? Or is sexual intimacy such an important part of an adult relationship that impotence should be viewed as a problem that should and now can be cured?
In this, as in all things, there should be one rule for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Whichever one heterosexuals think they can live with, homosexuals will live with, too.