Is homosexual conduct moral?
Ben W. writes:
A good thing that has come out of the Pace comment concerning homosexuality is that it has forced people to address the issue whether homosexuality is immoral or not (e.g., Alan Simpson).
Now Hillary weighs in on the discussion, stating that homosexuality is not immoral.
Previously public figures would not comment on its morality or immorality. It was defined either as a genetic condition, or cultural phenomenon, or private choice. Pace has drawn a line forcing people to come down on one side or another. Once an issue is characterized in terms of its moral quotient, people have to react to this one way or another.
Will be interesting if Giuliani is confronted with the Pace statement on the campaign trail and how he responds to it.
LA replies:
Yes, absolutely right. And the question of morality is the one that matters. When I had discussions grappling with this issue 15 or 20 years ago it iwas the morality of it that was the subject. Around 1990, I took the position that homosexuality was not wrong, but “less good” than heterosexuality and therefore less deserving of protection etc. A few years later I realized that wasn’t true and I took the position that homosexual conduct is wrong, period. Up to about 1995 people, conservatives and liberals, had discussions about issues like this. Then around 1995 discussion broke down and there were all kinds of topics that liberals were simply unwilling to hear discussed.
Ben continues:
Addendum to previous email concerning the moral dimension of homosexuality.
Obama has followed suit and also has described homosexuality as not immoral: “I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral.” So now that Democrat presidential candidates have established in their own minds that homosexuality is not immoral, it will be interesting how Republican candidates respond. I’m aware of one—Brownback—who has agreed with the Pace statement.
Homosexuality has now completed the circuit, going from “aberrant behaviour” years ago to “personal choice” to “biological condition” to now “moral behaviour.”
Interesting that public, political figures who previously restricted themselves from commenting on personal choices from a moral standpoint now label a private condition as “moral”…
Ben W. writes:
One final note on the issue of the morality of homosexuality, listen to DerbRadio on this subject (at the 10 minute mark in the audio file).
What a mass of illogical rationalizations, irreconcilable logic and self-contradiction. The Derb states that the Pace statement (and the reactions to it) simply underline the fact that “moral understanding is highly mutable” through the ages.
He then goes on to say that homosexuality is not appropriate within the military culture (therefore do not admit homsexuals into the military). But since the military is an exceptional organization that is not “normal” (i.e. its mission and activity is extraordinary), it has to be walled off from society with its own set of rules. Homosexuality, according to The Derb, is harmless in society but not so within the military.
Ah a “conservative” who reasons through principles of exception…
LA replies:
My memory is that Derbyshire in the past was hostile to homosexuality without exception. But as I always pointed out, his dislike was personal, not reasoned; based on an instinctive repugnance, not on any principle derived from religion or human nature. And now the result of the lack of principled basis for his opposition to homosexuality is to be seen: the former scourge of the homosexualists is now saying that homosexuality, outside the special confines of the military, is harmless.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 16, 2007 02:00 PM | Send