Does Homosexuality Pose a Threat to Society?

                            By Dr. Niclas Berggren

    "[H]omosexuality is unhealthy, immoral and destructive to individuals,
              families and societies." - Family Research Council


I. Introduction

It has long been asserted, primarily by various religious and politically
conservative groups, that homosexuality is detrimental to the well-being of
any society in which it occurs. In this essay, I plan to examine this sort of
assertions and, ultimately, demonstrate that they are without rational
foundation. In other words, it will be shown that homosexuality does not per
se constitute a threat to society.

The structure of the essay is as follows. First, a list of the most some
common negative arguments against homosexuality will be considered, namely:
  * "Homosexuality is harmful for society"
  * "Homosexuals do not reproduce and thus threaten the survival of society"
  * "Homosexuals pose a threat to children"
  * "Homosexuality is a depressing and sad lifestyle"
  * "Homosexuals are obsessed with sex with different partners"
  * "Homosexuality causes AIDS and other diseases which are costly and
    deadly"
  * "Homosexuality undermines religion and hence stability in society"
  * "Homosexuals want special political rights"
  * "Homosexuality threatens the family"

After the critical analysis of these arguments, some concluding remarks are
offered.

II. Arguments Against Homosexuality

In this section, I will present nine arguments against homosexuality and, in
each case, analyze them carefully in order for us to see whether or not they
are valid.

Argument #1: "Homosexuality is harmful for society"

It is not altogether clear what this claim means; in fact, I consider it
meaningless. First, we have to ask ourselves what is meant by
"homosexuality". If it refers to a sexual orientation, which denotes a
non-chosen condition, it is trivially clear that homosexuality, in itself,
cannot be harmful in any direct sense. The reason for this is that a
condition cannot perform acts: it just defines a passive state. It thus
appears as if the statement above is incoherent.

However, it might be argued that what is meant is that the condition of
homosexuality influences acts, both acts performed and acts not performed, in
a manner which is harmful. On this reading, the statement above is not
incoherent; rather, to invalidate it, it is necessary to evaluate each
suggested way in which homosexuality allegedly influences behavior in a
harmful fashion. To this we will return shortly, in the analysis of other
arguments.

If "homosexuality", on the other hand, is not meant to refer to a sexual
orientation - that is, if the existence of such a thing as sexual orientation
is denied - then the statement is simply a shorthand way of writing
"homosexual acts are harmful for society". In essence, this amounts to the
same thing as the coherent view espoused in the preceding paragraph: in no
way is the condition of homosexuality said to be harmful (in the one case
because it is realized that only acts - performed or not performed - that are
influenced by this condition can be harmful and in the other case because it
is thought that this condition does not exist).

Second, we must define what we mean by "harmful". On both an objective and a
subjective ethics (these are two mutually exclusive meta-ethical views, one
of which must be held with regard to normative statements), whether one
considers a certain phenomenon harmful or not depends on what one's moral
guidelines assert. A believer in an objective ethics may refer to a sacred
rule book which states that certain acts are always harmful, whilst a
believer in a subjective ethics may refer to his sentiments or some
consequentialist arguments. My counter-arguments generally belong to the
second genre: as a believer in a subjectivist ethics, I wish to motivate my
normative views by referring to effects of certain types of behavior. If a
person who advances Argument #1 thinks that this approach is agreeable, it is
possible to meet in rational discourse. If, however, such a person believes
that a set of acts is intrinsically harmful, no matter what anyone has to say
about its consequences, then it is not possible to discuss this issue
rationally. It is my hope that this category of persons is insignificant in
number.

Third, we come to the term "society" in Argument #1. This is normally taken
to mean some aggregate of individuals (along with their formal and informal
institutions) who live together in some politically defined area. Hence, when
one says that a set of acts is harmful for society, one implies, in some way,
that these acts are harmful for a large number of individuals who live
together in some political arrangement. This understanding then reduces the
argument to the micro level, although this is seldom made explicit. So, in
order to explain how a some acts are harmful to society, one must (i) explain
how they are harmful to individuals and (ii) that the number of individual
thus harmed is quite large or that the harm in question is of a particularly
serious nature.

So what about Argument #1? Is homosexuality harmful for society? My claim,
based on the reasoning above, is that this is a meaningless question. For it
to obtain meaning, it must be rephrased as "Are the acts which are influenced
by homosexuality harmful for a large number of individuals?". And then, to
answer this question, it must first be specified what acts that are being
discussed, how they relate to homosexuality, what our normative view of what
we consider harmful is, and how the effects of these acts spread to encompass
a large number of individuals or, alternatively, how the effects of these
acts are sufficiently serious to render them harmful for society. Below, such
detailed arguments will be conscientiously considered.

Argument #2: "Homosexuals do not reproduce and thus threaten the survival of
society"

On our tour of the more precise arguments for why homosexuality could be said
to pose a threat to society, we begin with this classic argument. This
argument is rather unique in that it bases its view of what is harmful by
defining it passively: homosexuality does not lead to the good act of having
children and, for that reason, is harmful.

To this, one might offer the following replies. First of all, if the one who
advances this argument believes it to be true, one wonders why he holds this
belief when one of the major problems for the survival of many people, and
perhaps human life as such, is the serious overpopulation of the earth. With
this in mind, it should rather be welcomed that not all reproduce as
intensely as most heterosexuals do. If one holds that the problem of
overpopulation is only a problem in certain third-world countries, then at
least one should modify one's argument to say that homosexuality is harmful
only in the Western world, or something like that.

Second, one wonders why all people must have children, even if there is no
problem of overpopulation. Homosexuals have existed as a small minority in
all cultures throughout history (see the essay "Revolutions, Universals, and
Sexual Categories" by historian John Boswell), and obviously, most societies
have been quite able to sustain themselves over long periods of time anyway
(assuming that homosexuals have not reproduced). People who do not bear
children may fulfill other important duties in society, such as support other
families, work more for the benefit of others, etc. We do not generally look
down on spinsters who do not want children or sterile couples because of
their inability to have children. This reveals that Argument #2 seems to be
used, not because the ones proposing it really think it good, but because of
other reasons: this argument is just added on, because it sounds useful in
the overall effort to defame homosexuals.

Third, the fact is that many homosexuals do have children. Historically, due
to social disapprobation, many homosexuals have married persons of the
opposite sex and have had children with them - and this is certainly not an
unknown phenomenon in our modern days (I personally know of quite a few such
situations). In addition, many homosexuals who are not in heterosexual-type
relationships inseminate and hence have children. Ironically, the very same
persons who claim that homosexuals pose a threat to society because they do
not reproduce also combat any attempt to legalize or facilitate insemination
- which leaves homosexuals in a Catch 22 situation.

Fourth, what about the common claim that homosexuality is harmful because if
all were homosexuals, the human species would die out? First, this is not
true, since homosexuals can and do reproduce, e.g., via insemination. Second,
this claim considers a hypothetical situation which has never been, and never
will be, realized. The fraction of homosexuals, as far as we can tell, has
always been rather small in any society, and for that reason the claim is not
really interesting when discussing reality: a homosexual minority coexists
well with a heterosexual majority.

To conclude, Argument #2 does not hold, both because it may be good not to
have children (or at least not bad) and because many homosexuals do have
children and do want to have children.

Argument #3: "Homosexuals pose a threat to children"

"I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such
people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of
the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will
do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their
contagious infection to the youth of our nation." - Pat Robertson, May 24,
1994 letter

This argument is based on several misunderstandings: that homosexuals are
more prone to molest children and that it is possible to recruit children
into homosexuality and that homosexuals carry out such acts of recruitment.

On the issue of molestation, this is what Dr. Gregory M. Herek at the
Psychology Department of the University of California at Davis has to say:
"The empirical research on adult sexual orientation and molestation of
children does not show that gay men are any more likely than heterosexual men
to molest children. This is not to suggest that molestations of children by
adult homosexual men never occur. They do. But molesting children has nothing
to do with whether a man is heterosexual or homosexual." For more on what Dr.
Herek has to say, including an exposition of the false claims of right-wing
favorite Paul Cameron (ousted from the APA), click here. Some additional
research results are presented here.

On the issue of recruitment, this idea entails two theories: (i) that
homosexuality can be induced by conscious acts, and (ii) that homosexuals
wish to and do recruit. As for the first theory, this is clearly at odds with
almost all expertise. Let me offer two arguments as to why it is false.
First, almost all the research in psychology and biology indicate that
homosexuality is a part of a person's inner personality, just like
heterosexuality, which is not the result of conscious acts (see The American
Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and the site
The Gay Gene, which documents the biological findings of a genetical
component to homosexuality). And if this is so, it is not possible to
recruit. Second, an overwhelming majority of homosexuals surveyed by The
Advocate (over 90 %) a few years ago stated that they did not choose to
become homosexuals. I know, for one, that I did not choose to be gay, nor did
anyone act consciously to make me gay, and all my gay friends have the same
experience.

As for the second theory, that homosexuals wish to and do recruit, this is
without any basis. First of all, as has just been argued, homosexuals would
have to know how to make someone gay, if they were to engage in attempts to
recruit. Yet I do not think anyone can safely say that they know how to
determine the sexual orientation of someone. Parents, that spend much more
time with their kids than anyone else, do not possess such knowledge,
presumably, since straight parents often have gay kids. Traits like sexual
orientation are very complexly determined, and homosexuals in general do not
think that it is possible to change a person's sexual orientation, period,
and if so, that no one really knows how to do it. (On the so-called ex-gay
movement, see several articles on my homo page under the heading "Is It
Possible to Change from Gay to Straight?")

Furthermore, why would homosexuals be interested in recruiting youngsters
when, clearly, each new generation brings with it gays and lesbians quite
spontaneously? And why is it assumed that gays and lesbians want everyone
else to share their sexual orientation?

It is often said that homosexuals wish to portray homosexuality in an
attractive manner in the media and in the schools in order to attract young,
impressionable children. This accusation is incorrect, for the reason that
almost all homosexuals do not think it possible to influence the sexual
orientation of a youngster by means of movies, articles, or factual classroom
information. Even if that were the case, the heterosexual lifestyle is
clearly so predominant in society (which heterosexuals most often do not even
reflect upon), that the impressions taken by youngster must be much stronger
from that side than from the side of homosexuality. As President Weinberg of
The American Psychiatric Association stated in 1977: "A parent's fear that
their child will be recruited at school or elsewhere is without scientific
foundation".

Rather, the information about homosexuality in media and schools is desired
by gays and lesbians solely to help kids who feel attracted to kids of their
own sex to accept those unchangeable feelings. The sole purpose is to make
these kids feel better about who they are, because most of us who grew up
with homosexual feelings felt quite lonely and scared of society's reaction.
Good information can help these kids to grow up to be healthy and
self-confident. This must be considered especially important, since gay and
lesbian teens are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than
their heterosexual peers and account for up to 30% of all completed suicides
among teens - in 1989, suicide was the leading cause of death among gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgendered youth (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 1989). It should be obvious that honest information, positive
role models, support from well informed teachers, counselors and friends
could be immensely helpful to a teenager who is struggling to come to terms
with his or her sexual orientation.

And, in addition to this, the argument presupposes that there are solid
reasons to think homosexuality harmful in the first place. As we shall see in
this essay, there are no such reasons, and hence, even if homosexuals did
recruit (which they do not), this could hardly be considered a bad thing,
aside, possibly, from the negative attitudes that one has to endure as a
homosexuals, not the least from condemning Christians and conservatives.

But what if it were the case that there was a larger proportion of
homosexuals than heterosexuals who molested children, for instance (which is
not the case)? Of what use is that information? Consider if it was found that
the proportion of heterosexuals who molested children was higher than that of
homosexuals, what conclusion would be drawn from that information? Should we
therefore make life as hard as possible for all heterosexuals (perhaps on the
belief that they would become homosexuals, and hence less prone to molest
kids, through that type of treatment)? Clearly, such ideas seem bizarre and
at odds with basic notions of justice: both because all would be punished for
the activities of a minority (the molesters) and because the actions are
probably counterproductive (repressed molesters are probably more prone to
molest). And we must not forget that underlying this idea is the erroneous
theory than one can consciously change the sexual orientation of people.

To conclude, then, the claim that homosexuals pose a threat to children is
defaming and without basis. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, generally
love and care for children and wish them only to lead good, rewarding, and
honest lives.

Argument #4: "Homosexuality is a depressing and sad lifestyle"

As we can see, one argument easily leads to another: the high incidence of
suicide among gay teenagers could also be used as an argument against
homosexuality, along with other problems, such as discrimination or violence.
But let us first ponder upon why gay teens feel depressed to a large degree.

I know, as I have been a gay teen (you can read my personal story for a
fuller explication), and it is not because of something inherent in
homosexuality. The reason is instead to be found in the religious and social
attitudes of the surrounding society. Everyone is brought up on the
presumption of heterosexuality; one hears questions all the time to that
effect while growing up along with movies and examples from real life around
you which illustrate that boy meets girl. When one feels that this is not the
case, one feels confused and sad, because there is discordance between the
signals you receive from society and your inner feelings. This conflict can
be made more severe in a religious context, where also a god may be said to
be against what one feels inside. This is hard to handle for a young person.
Ironically, those who think that they do gay and lesbian teens a favor by
withholding information in schools and by preaching harshly against
homosexuality, they are the ones who are largely responsible for causing them
their problems.

As for discrimination and violence, these things unfortunately occur, but it
would be as incorrect to deem homosexuality a sorry condition because of that
as it would be to deem being black a sorry condition as a result of the
discrimination and violence that happen to blacks. In addition, although it
is not a tactic that I mention here without some reservation, it is possible
to lead a life as a homosexual without others knowing about it. In that
manner, discrimination and violence can be avoided. But, of course, this
problem should not be overstated. I have never been discriminated against or
been subjected to violence, although I am quite open with my orientation; and
this holds for all my gay friends as well.

To conclude, most people are sad sometimes, for some reason or another, and
there is no reason to think that homosexuals are sadder, on the whole, than
others. One exception might be during the teenage years, when it is hard to
come to terms with oneself sometimes. That is why encouraging information is
so vital and should not be suppressed.

Argument #5: "Homosexuals are obsessed with sex with different partners"

This argument may be true, but then it is also true of most heterosexuals
(especially heterosexual men). If there is a difference, on average, between
hetero- and homosexuals in terms of how much sex they actually have, this
difference, I argue, stems from different views on sex between the two sexes
and not from anything inherent in the respective sexual orientation. But no
such reliable knowledge is available, so we may merely speculate about it. In
any case, I think that the argument is of no relevance.

First, there seems to be a difference between male and female sexuality,
which probably accrues both to biological and social factors. Biologically,
it can be argued that the role of the woman for the survival of genes over
evolutionary history has been one of nurture, building on her limited
capacity for having children. Men, on the other hand, have acted so as to
spread sperms quite a lot, since they can father a very large amount of
children, which is in their interest. Thus, men are more keen on temporary
sexual encounters and are more direct in their sexuality than women, who
desire more of romantic love in order to have rewarding sex. For more on
this, see Chandler Burr's review of Gabriel Rotello's book Sexual Ecology:
AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (which I highly recommend). The gender roles
have been supported by social traditions over time. Now, this has some
implications for the argument under consideration, since sex between men then
incorporates two or more persons who have a sexuality which probably is more
directed towards temporary sexual encounters. It is not that they wish to
have more (or less) nonmonogamous sex than heterosexual men, but it is
probable that they have some more sex, simply because of their gender. The
woman is, so to speak, a "stabilizer" on the male sexuality which is absent
in homosexual sex encounters. But the opposite holds for lesbians: there, the
total wish to have sex with different partners could be expected to be lower
than in heterosexual relationships. So, if the number of gays in relation to
lesbians is about the same, that means that the average fraction of persons
that are "promiscuous" is about the same for homo- and heterosexuals. It is
possible that the average number of partners is higher for homosexuals, as it
could be harder for heterosexual men to find willing women.

But however interesting this might be, I claim that it is of questionable
relevance. Argument #5 presupposes that "promiscuity" is harmful, but my own
position is that there is nothing morally wrong with having multiple sexual
partners per se. Rather, if anything, I think most people value sex
positively, and homosexuality enables "promiscuous" men to have sex with each
other and "faithful" women to cling to each other, which means that
preference satisfaction is quite easily secured. If one does not subscribe to
the absurdly strict view of sex espoused by conservative Christians, sex with
different partners is something to enjoy. I fail to see how my having safe
sex with different partners from time to time affects anyone at all but
myself and the ones I have sex with. If we all enjoy it, how can it possibly
be inferred that our behavior is harmful to society? (I comment on diseases
in my response to the next argument. And then, if it turns out that
"promiscuity" leads to disease in a large amount of cases, I think there may
be a case for voluntary attempts to promote mongamy.)

It has been suggested, in the Swedish Pentecostal daily Dagen (July 25,
1997), that casual sex is damaging to people's mental health, that it is
intimately connected with violence, drugs, and prostitution, and that it
prevents people from developing a sense of closeness to others. Of course,
these are nothing but absurd, unsubstantiated allegations which are
proclaimed, not on the basis of facts, but on the basis of a reactionary
ethics and an interventionistic political philosophy, which I think should be
rejected. In fact, these statements remind one of the warnings that used to
be issued, not the least by Christians, on the dangers of masturbation -
warnings which today are viewed as seriously erroneous.

However, as always, this argument rests on the mistaken idea that one can
choose one's sexual orientation. Since that is not the case, this argument is
not really pertinent, since even if gay men are more "promiscuous" than
straight men, and even if that is viewed as a bad thing, there is nothing one
can do about being gay. The question is, if one is against casual sex, how to
best alter such behavior.

This, in turn, hinges on what one perceives to be the reason behind the
possible relative "promiscuity" of gay men. In addition to the male
biological sex drive, with the characteristics referred to above, there might
be an influence from the ostracism which has traditionally accompanied open
and stable gay relationships. That is to say, religious and conservative
people seem to have a hard time dealing with homosexuals who live just like
them, in form and content, and therefore such "traditional" homosexual
lifestyles have been socially (and legally) punished. These enemies of
homosexuality seem much more content with gays and lesbians remaining "in the
closet" - but interestingly, that might foster "promiscuity" among gay men.
If there are no traditions of, say, the institution of marriage, there is
every reason to think that people will be less inclined to form stable unions
and instead satisfy their sex drives with different partners. So, to reduce
casual sex between gay men (if one should view that as desirable), my
suggestion is to institute same-sex marriage, which would add stability to
gay unions.

To conclude, while gay men may be as keen on sex with different partners as
heterosexual men, lesbians are probably as inclined to be faithful as
heterosexual women. But since it might be easier for gay men to find willing
sex partners, it is possible that they actually have more sex than their
heterosexual counterparts. This effect might be reinforced by the
traditionally negative treatment of gays and lesbians in open, stable
relationships. But "promiscuity" need not be a negative thing, so long as
sexual acts are carried out safely (e.g., by mutual masturbation); and it is
not a necessary thing either - which is important for all gay men to realize.
If one dislikes casual sex, then one should, and can, stay away from it.

Argument #6: "Homosexuality causes AIDS and other diseases which are costly
and deadly"

According to a fact sheet from UNAIDS, the joint AIDS program sponsored by
the United Nations and The World Bank, between 5-10 % of the total HIV
infections in the world at the end of 1996 had been caused by male homosexual
intercourse - which corresponds to most estimates of the proportion of
homosexuals in the general population. Almost no cases of lesbian sex has
resulted in HIV spreading. And over 70 % of the total number of HIV
infections had been caused by heterosexual intercourse. Are we to conclude
that "heterosexuality causes AIDS"? Of course not: unsafe sex may cause one
to become infected with the HIV virus, and this holds for all persons. (But
to be on the safer side, we should perhaps recommend all girls to become
lesbians? - This, of course, is an ironic note to those who argue as if it
was possible to choose one's sexual orientation on the basis of how many with
a certain orientation that contract a certain disease.)

So it does not do to argue that homosexuality threatens society because
homosexuals cause AIDS more than heterosexuals; as we just saw, the opposite
holds. Actually, it is more fruitful to analyze the types of behavior that
are conducive to HIV infection, and such behavior can be displayed by gay and
straight alike. That is, e.g., why gay men in the West and straight people in
parts of Africa and Thailand experience high rates of HIV infection: because
they engage in high-risk behavior. Hence, there is nothing inherent in
homosexuality that causes AIDS. How to change risky behavior is an issue
which I do not go much into here, but I have strong sympathy for the message
of Gabriel Rotello. That is, even though I do not perceive "promiscuity" as
bad in itself, when it is common in a context where people seem unable not to
take very high infection risks, I think there is a case for attempting
(through voluntary means) to encourage gay men towards more of monogamy. In
any case, it is somewhat hard to see how AIDS threatens society as a whole.
It threatens the AIDS victims, of course, and their close ones, in a very
direct way. It could be costly for the government, if the government finances
hospital care - but then, that is a political system chosen democratically
and cannot be blamed on the small minority of gay men. (Do the enemies of
homosexuality attack fat people for eating fat foods and for not exercising,
as this causes diseases? Do they attack smokers in the same manner? If not,
why?)

As for other diseases, there are some statistics that indicate that gay men
are overrepresented in cases of sexually transmitted diseases. Again, it is
hard to see how this, in any clear way, threatens society. It is, admittedly,
a negative thing for those affected, but it is the result of a choice of
behavior which presumably entailed a net utility gain for the person who
chose it. In addition, lesbians can be expected to have very few instances of
diseases of this sort, which is normally not taken into account by those who
attack homosexuality.

And if one is concerned with diseases, is not the proper question to ask: How
can their incidence be reduced? Gay men are gay men, and that cannot be
changed. But certain patterns of behavior can be changed, such as inducing
people to use condoms. Interestingly, those who complain that homosexuals
spread diseases are unwilling to supply condoms in schools, colleges, etc. -
which reasonably contributes to the continued spreading of these diseases (as
free condoms would increase the demand for them, as revealed to us by the
basics of economics). More transformative changes of sexual patterns of
behavior may also be called for.

To conclude, there is no basis for stating that homosexuality as such causes
more diseases than heterosexual behavior. Furthermore, it may not hold that
homosexuals are more disease-ridden than heterosexuals - especially not when
including lesbians. But even if they were, one wonders what the point is,
since homosexuality is not a choice that can be avoided if it was shown that
it was linked to various diseases.

Argument #7: "Homosexuality undermines religion and hence stability in
society"

This argument is problematic on several counts. First, many of us think it
highly beneficial if religion is undermined (see my atheism page), and we
furthermore think it incorrect to equate the spread of religion with
"stability" (whatever that is; probably, the definition is tautological, such
that stability is defined as following some religion). As is clear from
several essays on morality on my atheism page, it is quite possible to have a
well-functioning society with caring individuals without any religion at all.

Second, even if it is probable that quite a few homosexuals are negative
towards (conservative) Christianity, due to the simple fact that
(conservative) Christianity is negative towards homosexuality, there are, in
fact, many gay and lesbian Christians. The total effect in this area, if
there is one at all, must be considered small.

Third, for an orthodox Christian, leading a non-celibate life as a homosexual
involves going to hell. This could be considered harmful. However, it is both
possible to question the existence of hell and, if one believes in the
Christian god, to question whether he would send gay and lesbians to hell
simply because of their loving someone of their own sex. Such a cruel god
could be capricious enough to send anyone to hell, so perhaps even
(conservative) Christians are in peril.

To conclude, this argument wrongly presupposes that religion is need for
"stability" and also thinks that gays and lesbians are less religious than
others, which is not certain.

Argument #8: "Homosexuals want special political rights"

Different homosexuals want different things in the realm of politics. What
almost all agree on is that there should be equality under the law, which
means that if a certain favor is granted to one group of people, then it
should also be extended to other groups. More specifically, this means that
two particular areas are important with regard to homosexuality: marriage
laws and government discrimination.

As for marriage laws, it is clear today that heterosexuals can enjoy a number
of economic and practical favors that come about through marriage. In the
meantime, this is denied to those who wish to form homosexual marriage
unions. (Notable exceptions: the Nordic countries and the Netherlands.) This
is a clear case of inequality, which could easily be rectified without
causing any major problems (in fact, if anything, it would promote an
institution which is anti-promiscuous, which should appeal to conservative
Christians). Why are some against it? It is clearly not a "special right" for
gays and lesbians to be married; rather, heterosexuals today have that
special right. The most common argument against this measure is that it
threatens the "family", by which is meant the traditional, heterosexual
family. But how does it do so? Allowing homosexuals to marry does not in any
way make it more difficult for heterosexuals to marry. And since being
straight or gay is not the result of a choice, giving equal rights to
homosexuals would not cause more people to be gay. The only plausible effect
would be for gays and lesbians to be able to enjoy the safety and comfort of
a legal union.

As for government discrimination, this means that the government, who
supposedly represents all citizens, does not treat gays and lesbians
differently solely because of their orientation. In the U.S., this implies
that the virtual ban on gays and lesbians in the military be lifted (as it
has been in most other Western countries, with no negative effects) and that
they, as well as everyone else, are judged on conduct, not on who they love.

As for anti-discrimination laws, there are different views among homosexuals.
Although it is probably true that most are in favor of laws outlawing their
being discriminated against at work or in housing solely because of their
orientation. Are these special rights? Not really, since they would state
that sexual orientation is no grounds for discrimination. This means that it
would also be unlawful to discriminate against someone who is straight.
Anyway, I am opposed to these type of laws on principled grounds, as I am a
libertarian, but I do think that as long as they are offered on some grounds,
such as religion or ethnicity, sexual orientation should be included as well.

As for adoption of children, this is clearly no special right either, since
heterosexuals today can be tried as adoptive parents. Their is no basis for
thinking homosexuals less capable of taking care of children (see the current
research from The American Psychological Association on this issue). But what
about the children? Well, children may be bullied for many reasons, but it
would be wrong, I think, to yield to ignorance and hatred: that would give
the opponents a triumph they do not deserve. In fact, the studies that have
been conducted indicate that children to gays and lesbians cope as well as
other kids, overall.

To conclude, gays and lesbians do not want special rights; they just wish to
be able to take part of government favors, just like all other taxpayers.
This involves marriage rights, adoption rights, an end to government
discrimination in the military, and, possibly, anti-discrimination rights.

Argument #9: "Homosexuality threatens the family"

This argument involves similar considerations as the first one, namely, that
it is thought that people involved in homosexual acts - either in stable,
monogamous relationships or in temporary encounters - somehow undermine a
collective entity referred to as "family".

What, first of all, is meant by this term? If one defines the term as "two
married adults of the opposite sex with one or more children", then the
argument reduces to a few of the arguments above, as is seen when considering
what is threatened in this constellation of persons. For instance, are
children threatened by homosexuality? We saw above that this is clearly not
so - neither in the sense that reproduction is hindered overall nor in the
sense that children are more at risk to be treated badly.

Is the institution of marriage threatened by there being gays and lesbians
around? Clearly not, since gays and lesbians have existed throughout history
alongside heterosexual marriage. And even if same-sex marriage would be
allowed, it is hard to see why opposite-sex marriage would not continue to be
the option for many straight persons.

Is fidelity threatened, such that if gays and lesbians exist, some
(bisexual?) spouse is more prone to have sex outside of the marriage? To
this, one might first reply that the principle that Jesus put forth in his
Sermon on the Mount was that adultery can also be committed in the mind.
Hence, even without an actual possibility for, say, a married man to have sex
with a gay man, the married man would still have fantasies about other men
and, in that manner, still be unfaithful in the heart. So there being gay men
around does nothing to alter this. Besides, most married men, when
unfaithful, have sex with women. Should we therefore say that heterosexuality
poses a threat to the family? That, rightly, seems bizarre. It is not a
particular sexual orientation which causes infidelity, it is unsatisfactory
marriages.

Lastly, could this argument mean that the forming of alternative family
arrangements in itself threatens the family? Well, this view only seems
coherent on the view that sexual orientation involves a choice and if one
thinks of "family" as meaning the future predominant existence of the
arrangement "two married adults of the opposite sex with one or more
children". But since sexual orientation is not the result of a choice, there
is no reason to think that the predominance of straight marriage in any
significant way will be undermined by gays and lesbians. Even if it sexual
orientation was the result of a choice, this would probably not threaten
straight marriage, at least not in the short run, since - given the negative
attitudes that still exist in connection with homosexuality - most people, if
given a choice, would opt for this arrangement. Generally, given an
appreciation of non-paternalism, it seems odd to question the free choices of
individuals: if more people in the future decide that they will be more happy
in same-sex relationships, what could anyone have to say against their
revealed preferences?

To conclude, the assertion that homosexuality poses a threat to the family is
empty. In fact, gays and lesbians today form their own families, some with
children, some without, and they strive for love, care, and stability just as
much as any heterosexual couple. It is, evidently, time to widen the
definition of "family" and to embrace nontraditional arrangements in this
realm of affairs - without fear that traditional arrangements will lose out.

III. Conclusions

This expose has clarified that there are several common arguments that have
been proposed to demonstrate that homosexual acts, in various ways, pose a
threat to the a large number of individuals. Likewise, it has been clarified
that all these arguments are built on loose ground indeed; in fact, most of
them are either meaningless or false.

So if there are no sound arguments to the effect that homosexuals contribute
negatively to their fellow human beings, are there arguments to the contrary?
I think that most gays and lesbians - and I know quite a few - regard
themselves as just as compassionate, caring, loving, generous, intelligent,
ambitious, honest, etc. as their heterosexual friends. We are not really
different than others in terms of values or behavior which hurt others. And
is it not quite clear from history that homosexuals have contributed greatly
to society? Need I mention more than Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo,
Tchaikovsky, Benjamin Britten, W. H. Auden, Leonard Bernstein, the most
recent vice-chairman of Ford Motor Co., Versace, Elton John, k.d. lang,
Martina Navratilova, Henry James, Walt Whitman, Tennessee Williams, H. C.
Andersen, Oscar Wilde, Arthur Rimbaud, Julius Caesar, Aaron Copeland, E. M.
Forster, Rock Hudson, Lytton Strachey, W. Somerset Maugham, Sir Ian McKellen,
Sir Peter Pears, Alan Turing, Gertrude Stein, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Niclas
Berggren (just kidding )...

At this point, I think it proper to briefly touch upon the idea of the
liberal democratic state vs. the idea of theocracy, advanced by some
Christians. The basic idea of the former is that everyone in society are
allowed to do whatever they wish so long as they do not inflict harm upon
others. Clearly, as discussed above, it is crucial how one defines "harm"
here. It is clear that some Christians have a much stricter definition than
most, but I think I have showed, quite in detail, above that there is no real
basis for viewing homosexuality as being harmful for anyone else. Hence, as
long as we remain democrats in the Western tradition, it seems utterly hard
to retain the oppressive view towards homosexuality which some give voice to.
If individuals wish to associate in churches which dislike homosexuality, I
think they should be so allowed, but they should not be allowed to legislate
on the basis of such views, viewed as irrational and demeaning by many other
citizens. In fact, due to the irrational foundation of such views, it may be
divined that a general and quite cruel homophobia underlies them. And if so,
the reason is ever the greater to resist and argue for tolerance and full
inclusion in society of all, including gays and lesbians. Some of us may
dislike Christianity, and it is our legal privilege to do so; some others may
dislike homosexuality, and it is their legal privilege to do so. But it is
wrong to use the law as a tool for advancing views on the private morality of
others. That is the tenet of liberal democracy, and that is worth fighting
for.

To conclude, I have shown that the arguments against homosexuality do not
stand up to critical scrutiny: homosexuality is as good or bad as
heterosexuality. I have also demonstrated that being gay is not something one
chooses, and hence, any political actions based on the erroneous view that
sexual orientation is a choice are bound, not as their supporters think to
reduce the number of homosexuals, but rather only to cause unnecessary
discomfort and misery to those of us who happen to have been born as gays or
lesbians. Such treatment is unworthy of a modern society.


Note 1: There is one "researcher" who is cited more than others by antigay
groups, Paul Cameron. Be warned! Click here for a detailed critique of his
methodology, which seriously undermines his credibility.

Note 2: If you have an argument which you think could be used to assert that
homosexuality in some way poses a threat to society, I invite you to mail it
to me for consideration, and I might include an analysis of it above.