Luke Ford

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.