THE HOLIDAY SEASON is upon us, and with it come holiday dinners,
which can be hazardous to your health. This is not because the
dinners are fattening or because you might choke on the wishbone.
It's because holiday dinners mean extended family gatherings, and
your family can drive you crazy.
This is true even under the best of circumstances. But holidays
are especially fraught with danger. Maybe it's the eggnog, or maybe
it's the fact that when people buy you gifts they feel entitled to
"express themselves". Whatever the reason, these occasions give
your relatives the wacky notion that they ought to tell you
precisely how they feel about your lifestyle: "It's none
of my business, really, but you're going to hell. Now please pass
the eggnog."
"My lifestyle? Hello, I live in Michigan.
Nobody here has a lifestyle." But by this point Aunt Sally
has moved on to the next offensive remark.
Never fear, dear reader: I've got your back. For over the next
several weeks, I'm going to do a series of columns on homosexuality
and morality. The point of these (aside from helping me to pay for
my extravagant Christmas shopping) is to provide you with
ammunition in the face of anti-gay attacks. The columns will be
based on my lecture "What's Morally Wrong With Homosexuality?"
which I've developed and presented around the country for the last
ten years.
Let's begin with a thought experiment. Suppose I told you that
reading the newspaper is morally wrong.
"Why?", you might ask. "Does it corrupt the mind? Is it produced
by child labor? Is newsprint environmentally unsound?"
"No," I answer. "None of those things. It's wrong because you
might get ink on your fingers, and ink-stained fingers are an
intrinsic moral evil."
The above exchange might lead you to think I had been hitting
the eggnog a bit early. My claim about the morality of newspaper
reading makes no sense - for two reasons. First, moral claims are
only as good as the reasons that back them up. Second, those
reasons must have some genuine connection with human well-being:
not just any reason is a moral reason.
And this fact bears repeating: morality has a point. That's why
the idea that ink-stained fingers are evil is just - well, stupid.
Typically, ink on your fingers won't hurt anybody. It won't detract
from your or your neighbors' well-being. There's no good reason to
condemn it.
What about homosexuality? Most arguments against homosexuality
fall into three broad categories: (1) the Bible condemns it; (2)
it's harmful; and (3) it's unnatural. Over the next three columns
I'll address each of these in turn.
But before I turn to the arguments against
homosexuality, I want to state a preliminary argument in favor of
it: namely, that homosexual relationships make some people
happy.
To say this is not to settle the matter. Some things that seem
to make us happy at first glance (e.g. Aunt Sally's pie) are better
avoided in the long run. Whether homosexuality is one of those
things depends on the success of the arguments in the next several
columns.
Rather, to say that homosexual relationships make some people
happy is to create a burden of proof for the other side. Most
everyone recognizes that falling in love and expressing that love
sexually are sublime human experiences. Romantic relationships can
be an avenue of communication, of emotional growth, and of lasting
interpersonal fulfillment. Anyone who would deny this opportunity
to homosexual people had better have a good reason. Do
they? Join me for the next several weeks as we explore this
issue.
And as we do so, please remember: morality is not the exclusive
domain of our opponents. Exhausted by the moralizing of Aunt Sally
- not to mention Jerry Falwell, Dr. Laura, and their ilk - we might
sometimes be tempted to reject the practice altogether. And then we
start to believe the fallacy that "Morality is strictly a private
matter."
Nonsense. Morality is about how we treat one another - and
that's very much a matter for public concern. It's about fairness
and justice. It's about what matters to us - not just as a
personal preference, but as a standard for public behavior. We have
as much right to espouse such standards as anyone else - indeed,
even more right, insofar as reason is on our side. And that's
precisely what I'm going to argue over the next several weeks.