I want to start with a thought experiment.
Suppose I told you that I'm imagining an activity that takes place between consenting adults,
doesn't hurt anyone, and results in a great deal of pleasure for the people involved—and
that's all that you know about the activity that I'm imagining. Given that information,
it sounds pretty good. Suppose I fill in the picture a bit more and tell you that not only
does it result in pleasure for the people involved, but it's an avenue of communication
and a source of deep meaning in their lives. And, again, that's all you know about the
activity that I'm imagining. Given that information, it sounds great—the kind of thing we'd want
to encourage. But, of course, when I fill in the picture a bit more, and tell you that
the adults in question are two men or two women, and the activity is some kind of sexual
activity, suddenly people are not so keen on it anymore. In fact, not only would many
people condemn it, some would call it a moral abomination. Consider the fact that right now there are
thousands of people across the world having sex. It's kind of disconcerting when you think
about it. Especially when you realize you're sitting here listening to me. Some of those
people are with partners of the same race; some of them are with partners of a different
race. Some of them are with partners of the same age; some of them are in what we call
"May-December relationships." Some of them have known each other a long time; some of
them met last night on the Internet. Some of them are in loving, nurturing relationships;
some of them are in abusive relationships. Now those facts all have varying moral significance.
But when I tell you that some of these people are with partners of the same sex and some
of these people are with partners of the other sex, that fact seems to take on a significance
all its own. And the question I want to explore tonight is "why?" What's morally wrong with
homosexuality, if anything, and if nothing, what's all the fuss about? And the way I'm
going to do this is I am going to look at some of the most common arguments against
homosexuality and subject them to philosophical scrutiny. It sounds fancier than it is; really,
we're just going to look at these arguments, see what they are, and see if they work. Before I get to the arguments, there are a
few preliminary things I want to get out of the way. We're talking about homosexuality
tonight. What is that? A lot of people like to make a distinction between homosexual orientation
and homosexual activity—homosexual orientation, being attracted to people of the same sex;
homosexual activity, engaging in some kind of romantic activity with people of the same
sex. Like many such distinctions, this one is both
useful and problematic. It's useful, in part, because it reminds us that we all have feelings
that we don't act upon, and maybe shouldn't act upon. I'll give you an example. Sometimes
I'm in line, and there's somebody in front of me with one of those bluetooth earpieces
on. They're chattering and chattering, completely oblivious to the people behind them, and we're
all waiting while they keep chattering. And sometimes, when that happens, I fantasize
for just a split second about pulling out a sword and chopping of their ear. Whoosh! I don't act on that feeling; don't act on
that feeling. You may have had similar feelings. We all have feelings we don't act upon, and
that's part of being a grownup. That's part of being a human being; you have self-restraint.
Just because you have a feeling, doesn't mean you ought to act on it, and this distinction
reminds us of that. It's a problematic distinction because it
over-simplifies. For one thing, it draws a very sharp contrast between feelings and activities,
when the contrast between those things is not always so sharp. Sometimes they're intimately
connected. Sometimes who we are and what we do are profoundly connected, and this distinction
maybe makes us forget that a little bit. It's also problematic because it over-simplifies
each of the elements involved, both sexual orientation and sexual activity. Let me say
something about each of those elements. Let's start with activity. What do I mean when I
say, "homosexual activity?" Well, what do I mean when I say, "heterosexual activity?"
Intercourse? Sure. What about kissing? Sometimes. What about holding hands? What about going
for a romantic walk with someone? What about making a nice dinner for someone? What about
waiting outside someone's door because you have a crush on that person? Yeah, you know
who you are. Think about all of the activities that make
up our romantic lives, broadly understood. When we talk about heterosexuality, we talk
about that wide range of activities. When we talk about homosexuality, we focus on the
sex part of it. That gives us the kind of picture like the bedroom is the only room
in the homosexual person's house or the most important part of our lives and relationships,
and it's a false picture. This is not the only time we get this sort of false contrast.
We say things. With heterosexual people, we talk about relationships. With homosexual
people, we talk about sex. We say heterosexual people have lives; homosexual people have
"lifestyles." I teach at a state university. I don't make enough money to have a "lifestyle."
We say heterosexual people have a moral vision; homosexual people have an agenda. The words
we use to talk about these things really affect our way of thinking about them. Now, I'm going
to focus on homosexual sex tonight because that's the part that bothers people, but I
don't want you to get this kind of skewed picture that's the only part of homosexual
activity, homosexual relationships, or homosexual people's lives. What about the other side of this contrast?
Sexual orientation. I have a certain sexual orientation. What is that? I'm attracted to
people of a particular gender. That's true. I'm also attracted to people of a particular
age range, body type, personality type, and certain kinds of senses of humor. All of these
things make up my sexual orientation, broadly understood. But when we talk about sexual
orientation, we focus very narrowly on the gender of people that you're attracted to,
and then we divide everyone into these nice, neat categories. There are heterosexual people,
and there are homosexual people. Then there are bisexual people, and they mess up our
neat categories! Everywhere I go, people say to me, "I just
don't understand bisexuality." Let me take a little time to explain it; it's not a complicated
concept, really. Some people are attracted to both men and women. That's it! It doesn't
mean they're attracted to everyone. That'd be exhausting. It doesn't mean they're confused.
It doesn't mean that gender is not important to them. It doesn't mean any of those things.
It just means it's not an overriding factor in what makes people attractive to them. I
mention this because many of the same problems faced by gay and lesbian people in our society
are faced by bisexual people. Bisexual people are not half kicked out of the house or half
fired from their jobs or half harassed for being bisexual. I'm going to be focusing on
homosexuality tonight, but much of what I say can be applied with the appropriate changes
to bisexuality. Finally, in the years that I've been doing
this, a number of people have made the comment, at least in the early years (I started doing
this in Texas in the early 90's), people said to me, "You know, your approach seems so negative.
You're always talking about the arguments against homosexuality. Why don't you ever
give an argument in favor of homosexuality?" I say, "You know, that's a good idea." So,
I want to start with a kind of preliminary argument in favor of homosexuality. It's just
a preliminary argument; there's a lot more to be said, but, in a way, the preliminary
argument is quite simple: Homosexual relationships make some people happy. When I say it makes
some people happy, I don't just mean that they're pleasurable, although that's part
of it. But, there's more to it than that. A homosexual relationship, like a heterosexual
relationship, can be an important avenue of meaning and long-term fulfillment in people's
lives. This is the kind of thing that we celebrate when we talk about heterosexuality. We celebrate
it everywhere from great literature to romance novels to trashy shows on MTV. You know these
shows? You can feel your brain cells dying as you watch some of these shows; you know
the ones. But they have this point in common about finding a special someone, connecting
with that person, expressing your feelings for that person in a way for which mere words
would be inadequate. This is a wonderful, beautiful part of the human experience. If
we're going to deny this to a whole group of people by saying, "You can't have that.
That's wrong," we better have a darn good reason. So, let's look at what some of those
reasons might be. This first reason that I'm going to look at,
the first argument is the argument that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible condemns it. Now,
when I say "the Bible," I could be talking about a lot of different things. There are
many different scriptural texts that different groups of people recognize as authoritative.
Even if we focus on the Judeo-Christian tradition, which is actually a melding of different traditions,
there are arguments about which books should be included, which translations are authoritative,
and so on. We could go through all of that, but let's put that aside. Suppose you know
what I'm talking about when I talk about the Bible. When we look to that Judeo-Christian
Bible, we find some things that actually sound pretty negative with respect to same-sex relationships.
The book of Leviticus says, "Man shall now lie with man, as with woman. It is an abomination
unto God." Of course, the book of Leviticus calls a number of other things abominations
that we don't tend to pay attention to quite as often. The book of Leviticus says that
eating shellfish is an abomination unto God. Shrimp cocktail? Not if you follow Leviticus.
The book of Leviticus says that wearing clothing of mixed fiber is an abomination unto God.
Cotton-polyester blends? Not if you follow Leviticus. The book of Leviticus says that
touching the carcass of a dead pig is an abomination unto God. Football? Not if you follow Leviticus.
They used to be made of pigskin. Stay with me. It's not just the book of Leviticus, and
it's not just the Old Testament. As we look through the Bible, we find a number
of things that seem, at best, morally problematic. St. Paul says, "Women must remain silent in
the churches." Doesn't seem to me like good moral advice. The Bible suggests that those
who divorce and remarry should be put to death. Why? Well because the New Testament defines
divorce as adultery; the Old Testament prescribes death for adultery. Again, this doesn't sound
very good. The Bible suggests that slavery is morally acceptable. People don't believe
me when I tell them this. I say, "Okay, I'll read to you." This is from Leviticus 25:44-46: You may buy male and female slaves from among
the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who
sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land;
and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as
a possession forever. Who says this, according to the Bible? God
says that, according to the Bible. And yet, we have a hard time imagining how an all-good,
all-loving God could condone an institution like slavery. And it's not just the Old Testament,
either. St. Paul says in Ephesians, "Slaves be obedient to your earthly masters, in fear
and trembling, in singleness of heart as you obey Christ." Again, you look at this and say, "Well, what's
a believer to do?" One thing I think you can do is to say maybe the Bible is wrong about
certain things. This does not mean that God is wrong. Rather, maybe human beings have
been wrong in discerning God's word. After all, we should not confuse complete faith
in God with complete faith in our ability to discern God's voice. And, in fact, any
honest look at history should tell us that we should be wary of people who are too certain
that they speak directly for God. But, some people want to say, "No no no, the
Bible is God's word. The Bible is infallible. The Bible contains no error." And, I say,
"The Bible contains no error? What are you going to do with those slavery passages?"
And you know what the people say to me? They say to me, "John, you are pulling those passages
out of context. You can't just take passages out of the Bible and quote them as if they
mean the same thing today as they did for the people at the time. You can't just pull
the passages out of context!" And I say, "Well, wait a second! If it's not okay to do that
with the slavery passages, then why is it okay to do that with the homosexual passages?"
Because, after all, the context surrounding same-sex relations was very different in Biblical
times than it is during our own day. And indeed, in the handful of places that the Bible talks
about homosexuality, it's almost always in the context of a discussion of idolatry because
homosexuality was very much associated with certain pagan practices. If that's the kind
of thing that Biblical authors had in mind, if that's what they meant, then what they're
talking about and I'm talking about are very different things, and to use those passages
that way would be to pull them out of context. Now, a few caveats and clarifications. First
of all, I want to make it clear what I'm not saying here. I'm not saying , "Hey, the Bible
is old, so forget about it. Ignore it. Just pick the parts you like." A lot of people
do that on different sides of the debate. I don't think that's a very good way to proceed.
Rather, I'm saying that if you're going to understand what the Bible means for us today,
we have to understand that the Biblical authors' concerns and our concerns may be different,
and that's relevant to our interpretation of the text. And the alternative to that is
to commit ourselves to very strange views on women's roles, on slavery, and a host of
other things. Second, having said that, I'm not so convinced
that any amount of context is going to help the slavery passages. I think that when we
look to those passages, we have to admit that the prejudices and limitations of the Biblical
authors crept into the text, and if they did that with respect to slavery, then it could
have happened with respect to homosexuality. Finally, it seems to me in many cases, not
all, but in many cases the Bible is not really the root of the objection here. What often
happens is people have an objection to homosexuality, maybe for reasons they don't quite understand,
and then they use the Bible and bring it in to back that up. Why do I think this? Well,
let me tell you a story. Many years ago, I was briefly a graduate student at Notre Dame,
which, as you know, is a major Catholic university. At Notre Dame, we were told by the administration
that we could not have a gay and lesbian organization on campus because that would conflict with
Catholic teaching. Over and over, the administration would say, "You cannot have a gay and lesbian
group. That conflicts with Catholic teaching." We did have a Muslim student group on campus
and a Jewish student group on campus. Muslims and Jews both deny the Divinity of Christ,
which, when I went to Catholic school, was a very important part of Catholic teaching.
This wasn't really about Catholic teaching, I don't think... You know, they had this objection,
and they pulled in Catholic teaching when it was convenient. So, what is it really about? We need to look
to some of the non-religious, or secular, arguments against homosexuality, and we especially
need to do that if we are genuinely committed to living in a society that embraces freedom
of religion. So, what are some of those non-religious arguments
against homosexuality? Well, the second argument I'm going to look at tonight (the first non-religious
argument) is the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it's not universalizable.
That's not a word you get to use every day. What does that mean? I first heard of this
argument back in '92. I gave an early version of this lecture at St. John's University in
New York, where I had previously done my undergraduate work. There was a priest, Father Prior, who
wrote to the school paper. He was very upset that I had been invited to give this lecture,
and he wrote this long letter to the school paper. In his letter to the school paper,
on of the things he said was, "Of course homosexuality is bad for society. If everyone were homosexual,
there would be no society." And I call this the "universalizability argument." If everyone
were this way, if we universalize the activity, that would be bad; therefore, the activity
is bad. Now, I disagreed with a lot of what Father Prior said in his letter, but I thought
it was nice that he took the time to write to the school paper. And I said, "You know
what, I'm going to write to the school paper, too." And, I did. I wrote an open letter to
Father Prior. It said, "Dear Father Prior, if everyone were a Roman Catholic Priest,
there would be no society, either. Sincerely, John Corvino." What's the problem with this argument? There
are a few problems. One, Father Prior seems to assume that just because society needs
some people to procreate that everyone is obligated to procreate, but, of course, that
doesn't follow. Society needs some people to be doctors. That doesn't mean everyone
is obligated to be a doctor. Society needs some people to be sanitation workers, which
doesn't mean that everyone is obligated. Yes, we need some people to procreate, but it doesn't
follow that everyone is obligated, as Father Prior surely recognized. People have pointed
out to me, "Yeah, well some Catholic priests actually do have children." Fine. The point
is the argument applies equally well to celibacy. But, let's suppose that we were to grant this
premise that everyone is obligated to procreate. Even that would not be an argument against
homosexuality. At best, it would be an argument against exclusive homosexuality. Homosexuality
doesn't prevent a person from procreating, anymore than you sitting here listening to
this lecture prevents you from procreating. I mean nobody is procreating right now, as
far as I can tell. The lights are kind of bright; I can't really see to the back. It's
just a non-procreative activity. And, so, Father Prior's argument would not apply to
gay and lesbian people who had children through prior relationships, artificial insemination,
or, if we take procreating broadly, through adoption. So, we need a better argument to
cover those things. I want to turn to the third argument that
I'm going to look at: the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it's harmful. And this is
not just one argument, of course. This is a whole host of arguments. Throughout history,
gay and lesbian people have been blamed for all kinds of disasters: earthquakes, plagues,
famines... Liza Minnelli (We were party responsible for that one, actually. You've got to accept
blame where it's due). Even today, we hear all kinds of crazy claims
about homosexuality being associated with disease, suicide rates, pedophilia, and all
kinds of social ills. When you listen to these claims, you've got to ask a couple of questions.
One question is: are they true? Another question is: and, how would we know this? It seems one way we might know is by talking
to gay and lesbian people—because we know something about our own lives. But, a lot
of people say, "No, no, you can't trust them; they're biased." Okay. So, how do we find
out about gay and lesbian people's lives? Well, we could look to statistics, but there's
a problem with doing this. It's not just the usual problem that, well, sometimes it seems
like you can find a statistical study to back up any claim you want. There are better and
worse statistical studies to be sure. The problem is that in order to make any kind
of accurate comparison between gay and lesbian people on the one hand, and straight people
on the other, you need some way of separating the two. How do we do this? We ask people!
Are you gay or straight? You can't just check behind people's ears. You've got to ask them!
And in a society that stigmatizes homosexuality, some people are not comfortable answering
that question, which makes it very difficult sometimes to get accurate samples for research
on gay and lesbian people versus everyone else. Now, for many of these claims, we don't have
to settle the statistical arguments in order to address the arguments. Part of the reason
for this is that correlation is not the same thing as cause. How many of you have heard
this before? Just because two things go together, it doesn't mean that one causes the other.
I usually illustrate this with the old story of the scientific drunk. Scientific drunk
wants to know why he gets hangovers, so he starts keeping a journal. He writes in his
journal, "Monday night, scotch and soda. Tuesday morning, hangover. Tuesday night, gin and
soda. Wednesday morning, hangover. Wednesday night, vodka and soda. Thursday morning, hangover."
And he looks back at the journal and says, "Aha! Soda causes hangovers!" I think that
when we say that homosexuality is responsible for all these problems, we might be looking
at the soda. So, what's the alcohol? Well, at least part of the alcohol seems to be society's
treatment of gay and lesbian people, which might make it stand to reason that life is
more difficult if you're a gay or lesbian person, and you might be more likely to exhibit
problems as a result of that. In fact, there is something here that I call
"the argument of the bully." A bully on the playground knocks another kid, kid falls down
and starts crying. Teacher says, "Why did you hit the kid?" Bully says, "I hit him because
he's crying and that bothers me." Teacher says, "Well, he's crying because you hit him."
Bully says, "Yeah, and if he keeps crying, I'm going to hit him again!" Now, what's the
problem with the bully's argument? The bully tries to justify what he does on the grounds
that he doesn't like the effect of what he does. Now, imagine somebody like, oh I don't
know, Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson says, "Homosexual people lead miserable, unhappy lives!" And
I want to say, "Why do you think that might be?" Could it have anything to do with the
kinds of things that you say about gay and lesbian people? Could it have anything to
do with the kinds of positions you take? I mean that might stand to reason that gay and
lesbian people's lives are a little more difficult. Now you might say, "Okay, well that might
work for some of the alleged problems, but not all of them. What about AIDS? Doesn't
homosexuality cause AIDS?" Um, no. A virus causes AIDS, and that virus can be passed
along by homosexual activity, by heterosexual activity, by some activities that are not
sexual at all. Consider the fact that from the standpoint of AIDS risk, it is infinitely
more risky for me to have sex with an HIV positive woman than with an HIV negative man.
Why? Because it's the virus that causes AIDS, not the sex. And, if the virus isn't present,
two men can have sex for days on end without worrying about AIDS. Fatigue, yes. AIDS, no. And furthermore, if AIDS risk was somehow
supposed to be the barometer of morality, lesbians would be the most moral people in
the world—because, from the standpoint of AIDS risk, lesbian sex is the way to go. (I
see some of you are very risk-averse in this audience.) I mean think about the headline:
Surgeon General Recommends Lesbianism. Okay, it's probably not going to happen... I mean, there are just too many gaps in this
argument. The argument seems to assume that: all homosexual sex is risky, all risky activity
is immoral, and therefore, all homosexual sex is immoral. That argument falls apart
in two places: the first premise and the second premise. They're both false as written. Some
homosexual sex is risky, some is not, some heterosexual sex is risky, some activities
that are not sexual at all are risky. Some risky activities are immoral, some aren't.
There are just too many gaps here. Now, in the early days of my lecture, when
I used to talk about risk, that is all I would say. But people would sometimes try to ask
me a question during the Q&A period. I say "try to ask my a question" because it would
often come out in a kind of garbled and uncomfortable way, and it took me a while to figure out
what was going on. It would go something like this, they'd say, "Yeah, but isn't it risky
because, you know, um, uh, when two men um, it's risky because uh the parts don't fit
and um uh the parts don't fit because uh when two men um and the parts..." And they'd go
on and on doing this for a while. Finally, I would interrupt them and say, "Excuse me,
are you trying to ask me about anal sex?" "Oh my God, he said 'anal sex' in Texas! Arrest
him!" I mean, it was a bad scene. But, in fact,
they were trying to ask my about anal sex, and I recognized that there was an interesting
phenomenon going on. When people think about homosexuality, they think about male homosexuality.
When they would think about male homosexuality, they would think about anal sex. When they
would think about anal sex, they had this argument in their minds that the "parts don't
fit," and I realized that if I was going to address people's actual concerns, I would
have to address this argument. So, I actually have two responses to this
argument. First response: yes, they do. How do I know? Well, because if they didn't, people
would try it, it wouldn't work, and then they'd go do something else. I mean what's that scenario
going to look like? "Oh my God, the parts don't fit! What are
we going to do? I don't know! Do you want to go bowling? Sure, this isn't working!" I would actually have people during the Q&A
portion of my program (I'm not making this up) say, "Well of course it's wrong because
[pointing two fingers at each other]. And, I want to say that if you're doing it this
way, you're doing it wrong. What do you want me to tell you? Gay people aren't stupid.
We don't sit there saying, "Oh my God, the parts don't fit! What are we going to do?"
I began to understand why people always focus on male homosexuality, right. What's lesbianism
going to look like? [banging fists together] At this point, we don't have an argument anymore.
We have a panic. This brings me to the second, somewhat more
serious response to the "parts don't fit" argument. Suppose you have an argument against
a particular sexual practice, say anal sex. What do you have? You've got an argument against
that practice—which is not tantamount to an argument against homosexuality. Because
not all homosexual people engage in anal sex (as I've mentioned, there are many different
experiences) and not only homosexual people engage in anal sex. This point also surprises
some of my audiences. There's this great story about Strom Thurmond. People always laugh
when I say Strom Thurmond. You remember Strom Thurmond. Strom Thurmond was the senator from
South Carolina. He had been a segregationist many years ago, then he ended up being in
the Senate, and he was there until he was like 116 years old or something. They had
to dust him off and wheel him out. It's kind of like Weekend at Bernie's at the Capitol. "Senator Thurmond, how do you feel about gay
marriage?" [grabs back of head and shakes it "no"] You could actually see the wires on C-SPAN;
I'm not kidding. But, there's this great story about Strom
Thurmond. They were talking about sodomy laws. Now, many of you don't realize that before
the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in 2003 (Lawrence vs. Texas), the dozen-odd
states that had such laws generally applied them to both anal sex and oral sex. People
didn't realize they applied to oral sex. About half of those states made the laws apply both
to homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy. So there are these laws on the books against
heterosexual oral sex, as well as heterosexual anal sex and things like this, and this got
brought up in this congressional debate. It's like "You know, heterosexual people do these
things, too." And Strom Thurmond actually stood up (which was no small feat), he stood
up and said, "No, they don't!" Suddenly, I understood why that man was so cranky. I don't want you to lose the serious point
embedded in all of this, which is the following: When we're talking about homosexual activity,
we are talking about a wide range of experiences, often the same kind of experiences that heterosexual
people have, sexually. And to try to define people in terms of one particular sexual act
is such a reductionistic picture of people's experience, and it really gives us a false
view. I've been talking about arguments that suggest
that homosexuality is wrong because it's harmful to the people who engage in gay and lesbian
relationships, but sometimes people say that homosexuality is wrong not because of what
it does to gay and lesbian people, but because of what it does to the larger society. We
hear lots of claims about this, "Homosexuality is a threat to the moral fabric of our country.
It's a threat to the nation's infrastructure." I must admit I find some of these bizarre.
How does what I do in bed "threaten the nation's infrastructure?" I might think I'm powerful
in bed, but whoa, that's a crazy claim. The nation's infrastructure better watch out tonight,
baby. But I just said to you it's not just about what people do in bed, right? I'm being
facetious there. In what way is this a threat to society? And there are all different kinds
of arguments around this. I want to focus on two. I want to look at the argument that
says it's a threat to children, and then I want to look at the more general argument
that says it's a threat to marriage and the family. The argument that says homosexuality is a
threat to children could mean a number of different things. One thing it might mean
is that as homosexuality becomes more visible, children will be more likely to grow up gay
and lesbian. Now, first of all, there is absolutely no evidence for this, but, even so, the argument
is entirely circular. You can't argue that something is bad because, if we allow it,
other people will do it because that still doesn't explain why that's bad. It's like
saying well if we let people play golf, more people will want to play golf. Okay, but why
is that bad? The argument doesn't get us anywhere. So, then there's the other version of the
argument that says it's a threat to children because homosexual people, particularly gay
men, are more likely to be pedophiles. Now again, the evidence does not bear this out.
This claim is just false. But also, I want you to think about this: whenever a heterosexual
person does something terrible—molests a child, rapes a woman, commits some horrible
crime—we don't think of this as reflecting on all heterosexual people. Why then, when
we read in the paper about a man molesting a boy, this somehow becomes a fact about all
gay people. Look, if you want to fight child abuse, I am right there with you. Child abuse
is a horrible thing, but let's not confuse that with consensual adult relationships because,
to confuse those two things not only slanders innocent people, it also directs our attention
away from the real threats to children, and that's a serious moral concern. So, then people sometimes move away from the
children argument a little bit and say, "Yes, but this is a threat to the family." I go
around the country debating same sex marriage. I've heard this argument many times, and I
must admit to you there's a part of it that I just don't quite get. Do we think that if
we support gay and lesbian people in their relationships that heterosexual people will
stop having relationships and all go gay? This seems implausible. The usual response
to a gay person is not, "Hey, no fair! How come he gets to be gay and I don't?" Heterosexual
people will continue to have relationships, and that's a good thing. We can support that,
while recognizing it's not for everyone. In fact, I want to take this a step further.
I want to say not only does this argument scapegoat gay people and make that sort of
mistake, it actually is a greater threat to the family than what it's trying to fight. Let me tell you another story. Many years
ago when I lived in New York, there was a guy, Joe. He had a wife and several small
kids, and they went to my church. And, one night, I saw Joe out at a gay bar. At first,
I wasn't even sure if it was him because, how could that be Joe? He has a wife and kids.
But, every time I looked over, he'd cover his face. It's kind of conspicuous in a gay
bar. So, I went over to him and I tapped him on the shoulder and said, "Joe, what are you
doing here?" And Joe, who was about ten years older than I am, explained to me that when
he was growing up, being gay was just not an option, and he felt a lot of pressure to
"do the right thing," which, for him, meant marrying and having children, but it wasn't
really working for him. So, he was living this double life. Now, I don't want to condone
what he's doing there; I think that's a terrible thing. On the other hand, I've never walked
in his shoes. I don't know the kinds of struggles he went through. I don't really know enough
details of the situation to make any real kind of informed commentary on the specific
situation, but I do want to say that we would have fewer such difficult cases if we would
simple recognize that heterosexual marriage is not necessarily right for everyone. We
don't do anyone any favors by pressuring them into situations that they're not suited for.
We don't do gay people any favors. We don't do their spouses any favors. We don't do their
kids any favors. Okay, I want to move to the fourth and final
argument that I'm going to look at this evening—the argument that homosexuality is wrong because
it's unnatural. Now this could mean a lot of different things. What is unnatural? Clothing
is unnatural in some sense. Buildings are unnatural in some sense, but we're not doing
this naked and outside. Be thankful. So what do we mean when we say that homosexuality
is unnatural, and, also, why does that matter? Unnatural? So what? So we need to specify
some morally relevant sense of unnatural. Let me look at a few different things that
people might mean when they say this. One thing they might mean is that most people
don't do that; it's statistically abnormal. Well, that's true. Most people don't engage
in homosexual relationships. Then again, most people don't play the mandolin, most people
don't pilot planes, most people don't read Sanskrit. The fact that most people don't
do something doesn't make it wrong. So, that doesn't seem to be morally relevant. Well, what else might we mean? We might mean
animals don't do that. There was a legislator when I lived in Texas, Warren Chisum, who
used to love this argument. He said, "Homosexuality is unnatural! Animals don't do that!" Since
when did animals start providing us with our moral standards, particularly in the area
of sex? I mean, think about this. Animals don't become state legislators, either. Can
we lock Warren Chisum up now? But, beyond that, think about the premise behind this
claim. I want to make you a promise. I've made this promise to hundreds of audiences,
so I've got to follow through on this if it ever happens. If I ever encounter Warren Chisum
in public, I'm going to get down on the ground and start humping his leg, just to drive home
the point that animals do not provide us with our moral standards. And even if they did, well then homosexuality
wouldn't be a problem because not only do animals engage in homosexual sex, some actually
form homosexual pair bonds. People are always sending me clips about this kind of thing.
You read this stuff in the paper "Gay penguins in Central Park." I'm not making this up.
Lesbian seagulls. What? Do they have short haircuts and Birkenstocks? What does that
mean? I mean it's all very fascinating, scientifically, but it's not going to answer the moral argument
for us. You know what other scientific debate is not
going to answer the moral argument for us—that whole nature v. nurture debate. You know what
I'm talking about? Back when I started doing this, there was a lot of research going on
about the hypothalamus of the brain, and we used to hear this argument. And, it seemed
right away that there were two camps that formed. One side says, "I was born this way, therefore
it's natural, therefore it's okay," and the other side says, "No, it's a choice, therefore
it's unnatural, therefore it's wrong." I think those are both really lousy arguments, both
of them. Let's take each one. I was born this way, therefore it's natural therefore it's
okay. Well, first of all, I don't really remember the way the world was when I was born and
neither do you. I mean the best you can say is that "I've had these feelings as long as
I can remember." I mean you can't just by some act of introspection see your own genetic
makeup. You've had these feelings for a long time,
okay, but just because you've had these feelings for a long time it doesn't mean that you ought
to act on them. I might have had violent feelings for as long as I can remember, but if I start
hitting the people in the front row, you're not going to say, "He was born that way; it's
okay." We don't judge the moral status of an activity by looking at the cause or origin
of the disposition to that activity. On the other hand, there's the side that says, "No,
it's a choice, therefore it's unnatural therefore it's wrong." What do they mean when they say
that it's a choice? This is one of those places where the orientation/activity distinction
actually comes in handy. They might mean that homosexual orientation is a choice, having
those feelings. If that's what they mean, that just seems false. How many of you choose
your sexual feelings? Ask yourself whether you've ever been attracted to somebody that
you wish you were not attracted to. Maybe the person was already involved with somebody
else. Maybe you were already involved with somebody else. Maybe the person just couldn't
stand you. We've all had these kind of experiences where we've had these feelings and wished
we could get rid of them. We can't. Or, the other side sometimes happens, where we don't
really have the feelings and wish we could. So-and-so is so nice, we had great conversations,
but the spark is just not there. We don't have that kind of direct control over our
feelings. But if we don't have that kind of direct control over our feelings for particular
individuals, why would anyone think that we would have that sort of control over our feelings
towards men in general or women in general? And, why would anyone choose to be gay in
a society that stigmatizes homosexuality? It just doesn't stand to reason. So then, the other possibility when they say
"it's a choice" is that they mean the activity is chosen, and if that's what they mean, there's
only one appropriate response—Duh! (It's a technical philosophical term; you can write
that down.) Yes, the activity is chosen. You don't just sort of wake up and find yourself
saying, "Oh, I'm living with this person. How interesting." You make choices, but that
doesn't say anything about whether it's a good choice or a bad choice, a natural choice
or an unnatural choice, in the relevant sense. Think about this by way of analogy. I am probably
naturally right-handed in the sense that I've just been discussing. I've always written
with my right hand. Everyone in my family writes right-handed, but if I were to pick
up a pen and start writing with my left hand, you wouldn't say, "Unnatural! Sinner!" There
was a time in history when people would have said that. People were burned at the stake
for writing with their left hands. We think that's crazy, but it has nothing to do with
whether left-handedness is something genetically determined or something learned in early childhood
or something that I just do for some reason because I think it might be fulfilling to
me. The scientific debates are not going to settle the moral debates. So what else might we mean when we talk about
unnatural? Well maybe people are grasping at this kind of natural law tradition that
goes back to Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. The idea is something like the following:
all of our organs have certain "natural" purposes—our eyes are for seeing, our ears are for hearing,
our genitals are for procreating, and to use your organ for some purpose other than its
"natural" purpose is unnatural, and therefore, wrong. Now, there are a number of problems
with this argument. A lot of our organs have multiple purposes. I can use my mouth for
talking, for singing, for breathing, for licking stamps, for blowing bubbles, for kissing a
woman, or for kissing a man, and it seems very arbitrary to say that all of those are
natural, except the last one. And if you say, "Well, okay, using it to lick stamps is not
natural, but it's okay." Well, then we don't have a morally relevant sense of unnatural. What about the sexual organs? Obviously, one
purpose of the sexual organs is procreation; nobody denies basic biological facts here,
but is that the only legitimate purpose? Heterosexual people often have sex, even if they don't
want children, don't want children yet, don't want any more children, or can't have children.
Why? Because there are other purposes for sex—building and expressing a kind of intimacy
and connection and relationship, showing affection for a person. Even the Roman Catholic Church
(which by no means is a permissive organization), will allow sterile heterosexual couples to
marry and have sex and will allow pregnant women to have sex with their husbands, even
though further procreation cannot result. Why? Because they recognize these other dimensions
of sex, this unitive dimension of sex. But, if it's okay for heterosexual people to pursue
that in the absence of procreation, why is it not okay for homosexual people to do this? I think one of the best ways to show this
is by analogy to certain other organs of the body. Take the digestive organs. What's the
purpose of the digestive organs? Nutrition and hydration. So, it seems that any time
you eat or drink something, it should be to bring nutrition or hydration to the body.
You've been drinking something. Can I borrow that? This is the audience participation portion
of the program. Diet Coke. Diet Coke contains less than 2% of the following. There's no
nutrition in Diet Coke. Why would you drink it? Just for the taste of it? Presumably,
you would drink it for hydration because it brings fluid into your body, yes? No, because
Diet Coke contains caffeine. Caffeine actually functions as a diuretic; it removes fluid
from your body. This is why you're not supposed to drunk caffeinated drinks while you're engaging
in sports. It's why you pee a lot after you drink caffeinated drinks. And yet, we all
know that the purpose of eating and drinking is nutrition and hydration. That's the purpose
of the digestive organs. Get this away from me, you pervert. Oh sure, you laugh now, but
the next thing you know, Diet Coke drinkers will want to teach in our schools and parade
in our streets. You're laughing, and that's good because it means that you follow me.
This is what we commit ourselves to when we insist that our organs have a "natural" purpose,
and to use them for any other purpose is unnatural, and therefore, wrong. Frankly, when I hear people say that homosexuality
is "unnatural," it's really kind of a fancy dressed-up way of saying, "It's gross! It
bothers me. It's icky." I have no doubt that a lot of people feel that way about homosexuality.
Maybe you're one of those people, and that's okay. A lot of us have feelings. A lot of
things might gross you out. You might think that having reptiles as pets is gross. You
might think that eating broccoli is gross. You might think that cleaning the bathroom
is gross. You know, here at Wayne State University, where we're doing this lecture tonight, we
have one of the largest mortuary science programs in the Midwest. Many of my students are in
the mortuary science program; they take Ethics class. They touch dead people on a regular
basis. I think that's disgusting. They hand their papers in to me and I'm like, "Ew!"
But, the fact that it grosses me out, the fact that it would gross most of us out doesn't
make it wrong. At best, it gives us grounds for an aesthetic judgment, not a moral judgment. Okay, where are we? I have looked at some
of the most common arguments against homosexuality and explained to you why I think they don't
work. I want to conclude tonight by talking about what the real problem is. And I should
say, by talking about what part of the real problem is because I don't think there's any
simple problem or simple explanation here. I think it's complex. I think part of it goes
back to something that I said a moment ago about it making people uncomfortable, grossing
people out. You know, we are often uncomfortable in the face of things that are unfamiliar,
and that's especially true when we're talking about sex. I want you to think back to the
first time you ever heard about sex. I remember when my parents gave me this book Where Do
Babies Come From? (It was about two years ago. I learned fast.) Seriously, I was a child, and my parents gave
me this book. I'm reading through it, "Two people love each other very much (apparently
that's the key to the whole process)." I thought that if I loved my mother too much she might
become pregnant. Then she became pregnant with my sister and I was kind of freaked out
by that. But I remember when I was going through this book, coming to this page, going, "You're
supposed to put what, where, and do what with it?!" It wasn't just because I was a little
gay kid. Sex is weird. I mean think about it. Two people, they get naked, they rub up
and down, they exchange bodily fluids, and then you try and think, "Oh, I get it now."
But, in the abstract, sex is kind of weird, and I think that when it comes to homosexuality,
a lot of people never get past that whole "that's just weird" reaction. Then, they translate
that "that's just weird" reaction to "that's wrong!" So, if that's the problem or at least part
of the problem, what's the solution? Am I going to suggest that you all should go out
and try it? No. That would be interesting, but no. I think a big part of the solution
is for straight people to actually get to know gay and lesbian people because only then
do we come to realize that we have many of the same hopes and dreams, fears and challenges
as everyone else. That sounds very simple, but it's not easy. It's not easy because it
gives us all a responsibility—a kind of homework assignment, if you will. It gives
a responsibility to straight people because it means you've got to get outside of your
comfort zones a little bit, when talking to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Straight
people say to me, "Oh no, I'm cool with the gay thing. I used to watch Will and Grace."
Yeah, great. That's not just what I'm talking about. I'm talking about real life, flesh
and blood people. But that, of course, puts a responsibility
on those of us who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual because it means that in order to do that
kind of education by example, we have to be out of the closet. When I saw out of the closet
I don't mean, "Well, I go to the bar on the weekend." That's nice, but I just mean being
honest about who we are. That's not easy to do. Sometimes it's not safe to do. Maybe you're
not at a point where you can do that, but it's so important. It's important because
it puts a face on the issue. Now, a lot of people at this point will say to me, "You
had me part of the way, but now here you go being all open about it now, and that's what
I don't get." A couple days ago, I got an e-mail. It was
actually a very nice e-mail. The title of the e-mail was "looking to understand," and
the person was, I think, genuinely trying to understand something about homosexuality.
The person wrote, "You know, I don't understand that if you're okay with it, then why do you
have to be open about it? Why does everyone have to know? I don't understand why gay people
have to be so open about it." I've heard this question before. The first person I ever hear
this question from was my mother. Back when I came out to my parents, many years ago,
we used to have long discussions, and I remember during one of these discussions (or arguments,
whatever you want to call them. We didn't throw things, but they were lively) my mother
said, "I just don't understand why you have to be so open about your sexuality! Your father
and I aren't open about our sexuality!" I want you to think about that sentence. "Your
father and I are not open about our sexuality." Not only is the person who utters that sentence
openly heterosexual, she's also open about having sex at least once. Heterosexual people do this all the time.
They talk about their wives, their husbands, their boyfriends, their girlfriends, people
they have crushes on—perfectly normal. We do the exact same thing and were "flaunting
it," were "making an issue out of it," and that's a double standard. It's not fair. I don't mean to pick on my mother here because,
over the year, things have changed quite a bit. She's grown; both of my parents have
on this issue. They've been wonderful. A few years ago, I was home for Christmas
with my partner, and my parents took us to this restaurant that they go to all the time.
They know all of the waiters and waitresses by name. At one point, we were sitting there
eating, and my mother sees a waitress walk by and says, "Oh, Jane, come over here. I
want you to meet my son, John, and his partner, Mark." I nearly spit my food clear across
the table. Who are you, and what have you done with my mother? It was such a powerful
moment. It was a powerful moment, in part, because of what it said to me, which was,
"You know what? We're not going to treat this like a dirty little secret anymore because
there's no reason to." In the simple act of saying "his partner, Mark," not "his friend,"
or not "his roommate." (I mean you could hear the quote marks around the words. This is
John's "roommate.") His partner. In that simple act of calling
things by their right names, it shattered a taboo, and that was beautiful and important.
But, it wasn't just important because of what it did for us at the table. It's also important
for those come after us. You know, one of the interesting things about gay and lesbian
people, as a minority group is that, in a sense, our children are not born unto us.
What I mean is this: black people generally have black children, Jewish people generally
have Jewish children, any kind of people can have gay or lesbian children. Sometimes rabidly
anti-gay people have gay and lesbian children. We can't protect them from a hostile world
the way other minority groups can. We can't necessarily give them the benefit of our experiences
the way other groups can. I feel for these kids, partly because I was there and I know
what it's like, and partly because they are, in a sense, our kids. So, what do we do for
them? Well, one thing we can do is we can educate their parents. And you know, that
day when my mother said, "My son John and his partner, Mark," some day that waitress
may have a lesbian daughter or a gay son, and she may remember back and say, "Hey you
know what? The Corvinos had a gay son, and they went out to dinner with him and partner,
and they seemed to be okay with that. That may seem so simple, but it's powerful. Sometimes
it can make all the difference, but we're only going to have things like that if we
have moral courage. And I mean it when I say moral courage. This
is a very important point. One of the biggest misconceptions about the work that I do is
that people think that I'm out to attack morality, that I'm out to espouse some moral relativism
where I just say do whatever you feel, it doesn't matter, or that I'm telling people
morality is a private matter—keep it to yourself, don't judge other people, I'm not
about the moral judgments. People think this about me. Nothing could be further from the
truth. So much of what I've said tonight is based upon my moral convictions, convictions
about fairness, convictions about justice. I think the way gay and lesbian people are
treated in our society is wrong, not just irrational, but morally wrong. I think there's
something perverted about the fact that we hate people because of whom they love. We
do violence against people because of the affection that exists in their lives. The
effects of that treatment are a far greater moral tragedy than sex between consenting
adults could ever be. And I'm not just talking about the obvious cases—gay bashing, the
murder of Matthew Shepard—you don't need me to tell you that that's wrong. I'm talking
about all of the people living in silence and in fear, all of the wasted talent and
energy that goes to building up walls. Why? Because somebody loves in a different way
than other people do. That's terrible, and I want it to stop. But, that takes moral conviction.
You see, morality has a point. It's about enabling us to flourish as human beings in
a society where other people are trying to do the same thing, and that's everybody's
concern—conservative, liberal, red state, blue state. All of us have a responsibility
to stand up for morality. So, let me make myself very clear. I am not
asking you to stop making moral judgments or to keep your judgments to yourself. I'm
all about the moral judgments. I'm asking you to make sure you have reasons for the
moral judgments that you make. I'm asking you to put yourself in people's shoes before
you judge them. And I'm asking you to judge people not on whom they love but on whether
they love. That's my moral vision. That's my "agenda." And I thank you for listening
to patiently to it tonight. You've been a great audience. Thank you very much!
I missed one argument. I thought homosexuality was considered immoral in biblical times because it was about putting one's own needs before those of the tribe. I don't think love and personal happiness were considered life goals back then the way they are now. You were supposed to marry strategically to build family ties and get as many children (boys) and goods (cattle) as you could. This would explain why it was considered more wrong for men to be gay than for women. Women didn't have the power and plight to start a family and lead it: they would just be married off anyway.
Religious people who are against homosexuality often try to transfer these morals to the present day. They claim that traditional families are still very important and every person has a duty to adhere to this or stay single, irregardless of his or her personal happiness. I would have liked him to address this issue, because it is more complex than the ones he did address.
It's a bit frustrating that a lecture like this is even needed. The question in the title is really stupid, but ofc that just helps prove the point.
That was effing brilliant!
This is such a great video.