Dennis Prager
writes that advocates of religious acceptance of homosexuality say that while
the Bible is morally advanced in some areas, it is morally regressive
in others. Its condemnation of homosexuality is cited as one example,
and the Torah's acceptance of slavery as another. Far from being immoral,
however, Prager says that the Torah's prohibition of homosexuality was
a major part of its liberation of humans from the bonds of unrestrained
sexuality; by channeling their sexuality exclusively into heterosexuality
and marriage; and of women from being peripheral to men's lives. As for
slavery, while the Bible declares homosexuality "an abomination,"
it never declares slavery good. If it did, Prager would have to reject
the Bible as a document with moral relevance to our times.
Another argument advanced by gays is that the Bible prescribes the death
penalty for a multitude of sins, including such seemingly inconsequential
acts as gathering wood on the Sabbath. The answer is that we do not derive
our approach toward homosexuality only from the fact that the Torah made
it a capital offense. We learn it from the fact that the Bible makes a
moral statement about homosexuality. It makes no such statement about
gathering wood on the Sabbath.
The most frequent argument, though, is that homosexuals have no choice.
To many people this claim is so emotionally powerful that no further reflection
seems necessary. But even if we hold that homosexuals have no choice,
we will have to conclude that nature or early nurture has foisted upon
some people a tragic burden. How to deal with a tragic burden, however,
is a very different question from whether Judaism, Christianity and Western
civilization should drop their heterosexual marital ideal.
We could conceivably hold that while heterosexual sex ought to be society's
ideal, society should not discriminate against homosexuals. This solution,
while tempting, is not as tidy as it sounds. More than other issues, homosexuality
seems to force one into an extreme position. Either you accept homosexuality
completely or you end up supporting some form of discrimination. The moment
you hesitate to sanction homosexual marriage or homosexual men as Big
Brothers to young boys or the ordaining of avowed homosexuals, you have
agreed to discrimination against homosexuals. And then the ACLU, gay activists
and others will lump you with the religious right wing.
Liberals fear being lumped with right-wingers. And they loathe the thought
of discriminating against minorities. Gay activists have depicted themselves
as a persecuted minority, and this label tugs at the conscience of moral
individuals, both liberal and conservative. But gays are not a persecuted
minority in the same way that, say, blacks have been. Sexual lifestyle
is qualitatively different from skin color writes Prager.
Blacks have been discriminated against for what they are and homosexuals
have been discriminated against for what they do.
Gay activists and some liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties
Union argue for the right of homosexuals to marry. They say that society
should not deny anyone the right to marry, and that if homosexuals were
given the right to marry, they would be considerably less likely to cruise.