| |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
LOS ANGELES TIMES
July 16, 1993
Biblical Roots of Right and Wrong
By Dennis Prager
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, 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,
I 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.
This is: why many liberals find it difficult not to side with
all the demands of gay activists. They 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.
Blacks have been discriminated against for what they are and
homosexuals have been discriminated against for what they do.
This in no way exonerates gay-bashing or gay-baiting, let alone
such evils as the Nazi or communist incarcerations of gays. But
it does mean that a moral distinction between discrimination
against behavior and discrimination against color is possible.
For example, there is no moral basis to objecting to blacks marrying
whites, but there is a moral basis for objecting to homosexual
marriage.
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,
The first argument is specious because there is no "right
to marry." Society does not allow marriage to more than
one partner at a time or to a member of one's immediate family.
The second argument may have some merit, and insofar as homosexual
marriages would decrease promiscuity among gay men, it would
be a positive development for both gays and society. But such
an effect would be unlikely. The male propensity to promiscuity
would simply overwhelm most homosexual males' marriage vows.
It is women who keep most heterosexual men monogamous, or at
least far less likely to cruise, but gay men have no such brake
on their cruising natures. This is proved by the behavior of
lesbians, who, though also prevented from marrying each other,
are not promiscuous.
Just as we owe homosexuals human, decent and respectful conduct,
they owe the same to the rest of us. Homosexuals' use of the
term "homophobic," however, violates this rule as much
as heterosexuals' use of the term "faggot'.'. does. When
the term "homophobic" is used to describe anyone who
believes that heterosexuality should remain Western society's
ideal, it is a contemporary form of McCarthyism. In fact, it
is more insidious. "Homophobia" masquerades as a scientific
description, but does not exist in any medical list of phobias.
Finally, those who throw around the term "homophobic" ought
to recognize the principle of what goes around comes around.
Shall we label male homosexuals "women-phobic',' end "vagina-phobic" and
lesbians "men-phobic" and "penisphobic"?
It.- makes as much sense, and it is just as filthy a tactic.
There are many good people who care for homosexuals, and yet
fear the chiseling away of the West's family-centered sex-in-marriage
ideal. They merit debate, not name-calling. |
 |
|
|
