Why the social conservative platform benefits homosexuals

Titus' post below calls to mind a canard commonly traded among homosexuality advocates, academics, and the mainstream media, that those of us who defend conjugal (monogamous, opposite-sex) marriage and oppose special rights for homosexuals are motivated by some anti-gay animus. We here in the Cloakroom have recently expressed our opposition to same-sex marriage (here, here, and here) and to Ted Kennedy's so-called "Employment Non-discrimination Act." It behooves us, I think, to explain why our positions are borne not out of antipathy toward homosexuals but rather out of principles of universally-accessible practical reason.

The case for conjugal marriage and the case against distinguishing homosexuals as a suspect class under the Equal Protection clause and federal employment discrimination laws both begin with the observation that not all sexual acts are equally good. That is to say, not all sexual acts fulfill a basic human good. In fact, only monogamous, conjugal, marital sex draws a person into the two-in-one-flesh communion that integrates the human person. Unless one adopts the view that sex is something less than what it self-evidently is, one cannot argue that all sex acts are equally constitutive of, and fulfilling of, the instrinsic good of marriage.

Sexual acts performed outside the intrinsically-valuable relationship of conjugal monogamy disintegrate the human person by objectifying the human body. This is true of fornication, adultery, pornography, and homosexual acts. The institution of conjugal marriage promotes the integration of human persons by directing sexuality into the channel in which it instantiates a basic, human good. And it disincentivizes disintegrating, non-marital sex acts.

Homosexuality advocates respond that, while conjugal marriage may be well and good for heterosexuals, homosexuals want no part in it. Homosexuals, they argue, are fulfilled by pursuing their preference for same-sex intimacy. The autonomous choice of same-sex intimacy enables homosexuals to express their true identities.

The fundamental problem with this response is its failure to distinguish between proclivity and choice. As the Vatican has affirmed in recent years, homosexuality is a tendency and not an identity. That a person struggles with homosexual temptation does not entail that he should succumb to that temptation. I have known men (perhaps I have also known women in this category, though they have not so identified themselves to me) overcome the temptation to homosexual acts and lead healthy, fulfilling lives in their victory.

When Gene Robinson, the Episcopal priest who abandoned his wife for a homosexual lover and whom the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire nevertheless elected as Bishop in 2003, called alcoholism a "disease," he was on to something. However, he failed to see the implications of that fitting appellation. The parallels between alcoholism and homosexuality are many. Both disorders stem from a compulsive proclivity. Both take something that is essentially good -- the fruit of the vine in one case, human sexuality in the other -- and pervert the goodness beyond recognition. Both destroy. Though neither proclivity is a sin, both drive people to indulge in unhealthy, disintegrating acts.

Laws creating a special class for homosexuals encourage homosexuals to identify themselves as homosexuals. We would never create a special class in employment discrimination law for alcoholics, because such a classification would encourage people who tend to drink too much to identify themselves as alcoholics. Such a law would cause moral, and perhaps physical and psychological, harm to those persons.

Homosexuality activists claim, dishonestly, that they want equality with heterosexuals. When subjected to the same rules as everyone else -- uniform pre-requisites for marriage, anti-discrimination laws that permit discrimination based upon tendencies -- they demand special treatment. Special treatment means legal approbation for choices that harm. That is why we here in the Cloakroom oppose creation of special classes for homosexuals.

The Christian perspective takes this one step further. If, as Christians like myself believe, all sexual activity outside of monogamous, conjugal marriage disintegrates human persons and relationships, then we are doing homosexuals no favor by giving the approbation of the state to choices that harm them. In fact, we are discriminating against them by denying the same grace -- truth about the sinfulness of their actions and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and forgiveness and restoration to the way God made them -- that we Christians are to extend to all sinners, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

On a personal note, I invite anyone who considers me antipathetic to homosexuals or a homophobe to consider these facts. I shared an apartment with a homosexual in college. I have two openly gay cousins. I have other close friends who have struggled with, and overcome, homosexual temptation. I want the best for these friends. That is why I am so firm on these issues.