BURTON M. LEISER

 Throughout history, various moralists have condemned homosexuality as immoral, and many societies have outlawed it. In this essay, Burton M. Leiser, professor of philosophy at Pace University, examines and rejects several arguments intended to show that homosexuality is wrong. After challenging Sir Patrick Devlin's contention that homosexuality is a threat to the common morality that holds society together, Leiser criticizes the claim that homosexuals pose a danger to children as well as the idea that homosexuality is a psychological problem. He then turns to the argument that homosexuality is wrong because homosexuals violate the laws of nature by using their sexual organs in a way that frustrates their procreative purpose. Leiser argues, to the contrary, that it is impossible to violate a descriptive or scientific law of nature and that homosexuality is not unnatural in the sense of being art)ficial, uncommon, or abnormal. The assumption that any bodily organ has one and only one "proper" or "natural function" is arbitrary and without foundation. Leiser concludes with a discussion of the rights and responsibilities of homosexuals.

 Study Questions

  1. Why did Sir Patrick Devlin oppose legalizing consensual homosexual conduct? On what ground does Leiser criticize Devlin's position?

  2. What is Leiser's reason for rejecting the idea that a homosexual orientation is a psychological "problem"?

 3. Why is it impossible to violate a law of nature?

  4. How does Leiser respond to the argument that homosexuals violate the principal purpose or function of their sex organs?

 5. Why is it implausible to assert that whatever is unnatural is bad?

 PHILOSOPHERS AND
 OTHERS have insisted
 for centuries that homosexuality is immoral. The Bible proclaims that it is an abomination (e.g., Leviticus 18 22), but in ancient Greece and in some other societies, homosexuality was accepted as a normal form of sexual activity. In our own time, some nations have repealed laws discriminating against homosexuals and others have given legal recognition to homosexual relationships.

  Arguments in support of the thesis that homosexual behavior is immoral and ought to be outlawed run the gamut from utilitarian arguments—that homosexuality causes harm to innocent persons or to society as a whole—to those based on the theory that homosexual relations are contrary to the laws of nature. In addition to these attempts to justify an anti-gay stance on philosophical grounds, substantial numbers of people have powerful emotional reactions to the very thought of homosexual relations, while others, relying upon Scripture or religious tradition as the source of their moral judgments, need no philosophical justifications for their feelings.

  This article will critically examine the principal arguments that have been advanced in favor of the proposition that homosexuality is wrong. It will then consider some of the responsibilities that gays and lesbians have in relation to others who may be associated with them, as well as the responsibilities that others have toward gays and lesbians; and finally, some of the moral issues that have arisen as a result of recent attitudes and developments in this area.

 I. Devlin'sArgument
 Against Homosexuality

 . . . It has . . . been argued that homosexual relations are a threat to the integrity of vital social institutions and are inconsistent with the moral perceptions of ordinary people. In an influential essay he prepared for the British House of Lords long before the AIDS epidemic, Sir Patrick Devlin, one of England's most respected legal experts, responded to a committee that had been charged with recommending legislation on homosexual relations. The committee (known as the Wolfenden Committee) had concluded that consensual sodomy (that is, anal or oral intercourse to which the parties consent—assuming that they are of age and are mentally competent to make such decisions for themselves) should be legalized. Lord Devlin concluded that the committee's conclusion was erroneous, and that the British Parliament should adhere to the traditions of the past, under which homosexual behavior was legally forbidden and violators were subject to severe penalties. The law is not designed solely for the protection of the individual, he said, but for the protection of society. Socalled victimless crimes, or crimes to which the "victim" has consented, are criminal nevertheless, for society as a whole is the victim in every such case. A murderer who acts with the consent of his victim, or even at the victim's request, is still a murderer, because the purpose of the law is the preservation of "one of the great moral principles upon which society is based' . . . the sanctity of human life." Thus, acts committed in private and with consent, such as dueling, suicide, and incest, may nevertheless be criminal.

  The institution of marriage, Devlin argued, is one of the moral foundations of society. Consequently, adultery is not merely a private matter. It is a concern of the public as well, for it strikes at the very heart of the institution of marriage. The same is true of homosexuality, he said, for no society can exist without a shared sense of morals and ethics—common bonds of thought that constitute the glue that holds a society together. A common morality, he argued, is part of the price we pay to live in a civil society, for a society can be as readily destroyed from within, by the destruction of its moral standards, a loosening of its moral bonds, as it can from without. Therefore, he concluded, the suppression of vice is very much the law's business, and it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit homosexual relations.

  But what criterion ought to be employed in determining what ought to be the moral standards upon which such legislation should rest? The test of a society's morals, Devlin said, is the standard of the ordinary man in the street. Immorality, he said, is what "every right-minded person is presumed to consider immoral." When ordinary people feel a deep sense of reprobation and disgust, and there is evidence that the practice in question is injurious to society, then, according to Devlin, we have reached the outer limits of toleration, the point at which the practice may be outlawed.

  Devlin does not consider the possibility that a society's moral standards, as measured by "the
 ordinary man" test, might change or that they might differ from place to place, as they clearly do in various regions of the United States. In a very real sense, that "community of ideas" that is fundamental to Devlin's thesis simply does not exist in the vast, multicultural society that stretches across an entire continent and encompasses communities as diverse as Boise, Idaho, Anita, Iowa, New York City, and San Francisco. Nor, for that matter, is it likely to exist in any part of the industrialized world where the government does not impose severe restrictions on movement or the free exchange of ideas. The ordinary person on the streets of the Bronx is likely to have rather differene attitudes from his or her counterpart in Charleston, South Carolina, and those differences are likely to be reflected in the persons elected to the state legislaeure, to Congress, and to the courts....

 II. OtherReasonsforCondemning

 Homosexual Behavior

 Philosophers, theologians, and social critics have come up with a number of other reasons for condemning homosexuality. None of them, however, seems to hold up under critical analysis. Most, in fact, would apply equally to heterasexuals, if the logic were consistently carried to its ultimate conclusion.

  It has been argued, for example, that homosexuals tend to molest children, and that once a young person has been seduced by a gay or lesbian individual, he or she is likely to be initiated irreversibly into that way of life. But ehe offense being denounced is not homosexuality as such, but pedophilia—having sexual relations with minors. Persons guilty of pedophilia should be strongly denounced and their behavior should remain punishable under criminal statutes. The law has always presumed that minors are not capable of giving meaningful consent to sexual relations with adults, since they are not mature enough or well enough informed to understand the full implications of what they are doing.

 Criminal sanctions have been imposed upon adults who take advantage of their greater age and authority to seduce youngsters who are under the age of consent, regardless of the alleged willingness of the youngster to participate in such sexual conduct. Thus, an adult who has sexual relations with a 14-year-old may be tried and convicted of statutory rape despite the youngster's express willingness to enter into a sexual liaison with him. There should be no distinction' however, between homosexual and heterosexual relations of this type. Indeed, heterosexuals are guilty of far more acts of pedophilia than homosexuals.

  The critics claim that homosexuals are afflicted by such serious psychological problems as feelings of guilt, insecurity, and constant fear of disgrace and ruin, and that homosexuality itself is a psychological problem. There is some truth to this, but as homosexuals "come out of the closet," becoming more open about their sexual preferences, it is becoming less so. One who has openly exposed his or her sexual preferences need no longer fear exposure. One who proudly claims to be a homosexual has conquered much, if not all, of the guilt that he or she might once have felt. The fear of disgrace and ruin is predicated entirely upon the judgment that the critics make: that homosexuals are bad people and that their sexual orientation renders them unfit for a bank loan, for the jobs they hold, or for the homes in which they live. However, if society—or, more specifically, banks, employers, and landlords—abandons its negative judgment on homosexuals and bases individual judgments upon the record of an individual's performance, gays and lesbians would have no more reason to fear exposure or feel insecure than "straight" individuals.

  As for homosexual orientation being a psychological "problem," a condition is a problem only when the individual who has it feels that it is one, or when it objectively interferes with the achievement of that individual's goals in life. If homosexuals do not see their sexual preferences
 as problematic, but (as many evidently do) as liberating, then they are simply not problems, psychological or otherwise. And if those preferences do not interfere with the achievement of a homosexual's goals, except to the extent that society, its institutions, and the individuals who run them stand in the way because of an emotional need to condemn people who are different, then the "problem" is not a psychological one, but a social, political, and legal one that must be addressed as those problems are customarily addressed: through the political process.

  The charge that homosexuals are unreliable and are poor security risks is true only if society perceives homosexuality to be evil or imposes criminal or social sanctions on those who are homosexual. A person cannot be blackmailed if the threat is exposure of a trait or practice that is deemed by all concerned to be socially acceptable. The fear that a teacher or scoutmaster might sexually abuse his or her charges is no more and no less rational in the case of a homosexual than it is in the case of a "straight" person. Pedophilia, not homosexuality, is the issue.

  Homosexuals who engage in tasteless public displays of affection, cross-dressing, and solicitation or street walking for purposes of prostitution may appropriately be censured, reproached, or, where the offense is particularly egregious, punished. But the same is true of heterosexuals who engage in similarly crude and unseemly behavior in public.

 III. Homosexual Beharior and the Law of Nature

 By far the most interesting of the reasons offered by philosophers, theologians, and legal thinkers for declaring that homosexuality is wrong is the claim that it is contrary to the laws of nature. Homosexuals, it is said' violate natural law when they misuse their genital organs in ways that frustrate nature's intention that they be employed exclusively for purposes of reproduction. The critics claim that this violation of nature's laws and of God's design deserves the most severe reprobation. Indeed, many of the statutes that criminalize homosexual relations refer to them as the "infamous crime against nature."

  Whether they believe that homosexual behavior should be punishable by law or not, many people seem to feel that anal intercourse, for example, is "unnatural." It takes a bit of a jump to infer that because something is unnatural or contrary to the laws of nature, it is wicked or wrong. A careful analysis of these concepts will reveal that the inference is completely unwarranted....

  A simple example of a natural law is Boyle's Law, discovered over three hundred years ago by Robert Boyle. The law states simply that if a given quantity of a gas is kept under constant temperature, its volume will be inversely proportional to the pressure exerted upon it. Thus, an air bubble rising from deep in the ocean to the surface will expand as it rises because the pressure exerted upon it is constantly decreasing as it moves closer to the surface. A helium-filled balloon, lifting from the surface of the earth, will expand as it climbs to ever greater altitudes, because the pressure diminishes as it ascends toward the stratosphere. Eventually, the balloon will burst because the expansion of the gases within it will be greater than the thin skin of the balloon is able to withstand....

  Note that at the beginning of the last paragraph, I wrote that Robert Boyle "discovered" the law that was named after him. He did not create it, but through scientific methods of observation and experimentation, he formulated the general rule as to how gases behave under certain conditions.

  None of this is remotely like the sort of thing that critics of homosexuality have in mind when they say that it is wrong because it violates the laws of nature. It is simply not possible to violate a law of nature: A gas cannot help but expand when the pressure on it is relieved, and
 when support is pulled out from under a stone or a person, neither of them can avoid moving toward the center of the earth (what we call "falling"). Since the descriptive laws of nature cannot be violated, it is sheer nonsense to say that homosexual behavior is wrong because it violates such laws.

  All is not lost, however, since there are several other senses in which one might interpret the meaning of the claim that "homosexual behavior is wrong because it violates the laws of nature."

 What is artificial is unnatural

 When we speak of something as being unnatural or not natural, we sometimes mean that it is art)ficial or synthetic, that it is the product of human art)fice....

  Homosexual behavior simply cannot be considered unnatural in this sense. There is nothing artiftcial about it. On the contrary, to those who engage in it, it is the most natural thing in the world. Even if it were unnatural in this sense, it is difficult to see how that would justify calling it wrong.

 The uncommon or abnormal is unnatural

 It may be suggested that homosexuality should be condemned because it is "unnatural" in the sense of being uncommon or "abnormal" (i.e., not usual). But this proves no more to the point than the previous suggestions. Many of our most esteemed scientists, artists, musicians, and scholars do things that are quite out of the ordinary, but we don't scorn them for that. Of all the thousands of students who have attended my classes during the years I have been teaching, only one, so far as I can recall, played the harp, and one other played the oboe. Both of them engaged in uncommon or unusual behavior, but the fact that they did so simply set them apart as having unusual interests and uncommon talent. The geniuses like Thomas Alva Edison, Albert Einstein, and Jonas Salk, who gave the world the phonograph and the electric

 light bulb, the theory of relativity, and a vaccine that has saved millions of people from the ravages of polio, deserve praise rather than condemnation for their extraordinary (i.e., abnormal or uncommon) contributions. If homosexuality is wrong, it cannot be because it is "unnatural" in this sense of the word.

 The use of an organ or instrument in a way that is contrary to its principal purpose or function is unnatural

 Screwdrivers are admirably suited for their intended function: driving screws; hammers for pounding nails; the eyes for seeing; the teeth for chewing. Abuse of any of these instruments or organs can lead to trouble. One who uses a screwdriver to pound a nail may get hurt, and one who uses his teeth to pry the cap from a beer bottle is likely to end up with less than a full set of teeth. By the same token, it has been suggested that it is inconsistent with the proper function or purpose of one's sex organs to use them for anything but reproduction, that any such use (or abuse) is unnatural, and that it is therefore wrong and worthy of condemnation.

  In the absence of technology capable of cloning people from cells scraped from inside their cheeks, it appears that the only way for people to reproduce is via the more or less traditional methods associated with the genital organs. Even though it is now possible to fertilize an ovom in a test tube without either the mother or the father having sexual intercourse, the resulting embryo will die unless it is transplanted into the uterus of a woman who is willing to carry it and nurture it until it has reached a stage of development at which it can exist more or less on its own. The sperm cells and the ova must in any event be collected from men and women who are willing to donate them. Therefore, although medical technology has developed so far that human reproduction can take place without actual sexual intercourse, the human sexual apparatus is still essential for its successful achievement.
  Because the sex organs are obviously and uniquely designed for the purpose of procreation, it is argued, any use of them for any other purpose is abusive, abnormal, unnatural, and therefore wrong. Masturbation, homosexual relations, and heterosexual intercourse that deliberately frustrates the design of the sex organs are therefore deemed to be perversions that are or ought to be prohibited in any right-thinking society.

  But the matter is not so straightforward. Both tools and body organs can be used for a multitude of tasks which we ordinarily consider to be perfectly acceptable. Although a screwdriver's original purpose might have been to drive screws, it is not considered a misuse of such a tool, much less a perversion, to use it to pop the cap from a soda bottle or as a wedge or a lever, or for any number of other useful purposes. Teeth seem to be well designed for chewing, to be sure; but they can also be quite attractive, and add considerably to the beauty of a smile or the ferocity of a threatening glare. A person's ears are uniquely adapted for hearing. If a comedian wiggles his ears in order to draw a laugh from his audience, only an utterly humorless crank would accuse him of being perverse and wicked for using his ears to entertain his neighbors when they were designed for hearing.

  The sex organs seem to be well suited, not only for reproduction, but also for the production of intense pleasure in oneself and in others. Their being so well suited for that purpose would seem to be utterly inconsistent with calling anyone who uses them merely to produce pleasure, either in himself or in another, while ignoring or frustrating procreation, perverse or wicked simply on the ground that he or she has committed an "unnatural" act. Since sex organs furfill the function of producing pleasure so admirably, employing them for that purpose scarcely seems to be perverse or wicked on that account alone.

  Moreover, it is quite obvious that human sex organs are used to express, in the deepest and most intimate way, the love of one person for

 another. Even those who most ardently oppose "unfruitful" intercourse concede this point, in practice if not in words, when they permit older married people who are beyond the age of reproduction to have sexual intercourse with one another. Similarly, when a woman is pregnant and thus incapable of becoming pregnant, she and her husband are nevertheless permitted to engage in sexual relations with one another without the slightest thought that what they are doing is perverse or "unnatural" because it is sure to be unfruitful. Under these circumstances, no one thinks that it is perverse or unnatural to engage in sexual relations that one knows will not lead to pregnancy. Sex organs, like other things that we are capable of manipulating, can be put to many uses. In themselves, those uses do not seem to be wicked, perverse, or unnatural, though some may be more common than others, at least in some societies or among some groups within a given society.

  The fact that people are condemned for using their sex organs for their own pleasure or profit, or for that of others, reveals a great deal about the prejudices and irrational taboos of our society. The assumption that any organ has one and only one "proper" function is indefensible. The identification of such a "proper" or "natural" use when there are others is arbitrary and vvithout foundation in scientific fact. To say that any use of an organ that is contrary to its principal purpose or function is unnatural and therefore evil or depraved proves nothing, for it merely begs the question.

 That which is natural is good, and whatever is unnatural is bad

 We asked at the beginning what definition of "unnatural" might reasonably lead to the conclusion that homosexual behavior, being unnatural, was therefore evil or wrong. Perhaps this is the key to the solution of our problem. Other senses of the word "unnatural" do not work: some "unnatural" things, such as art)ficial or synthetic things, are quite good and highly desirable; others, such as the uncommon or
 "abnormal," may also be good and praisewor thy. In other senses of the word, the unnatura simply cannot exist: the descriptive laws of na ture admit of no exceptions. Therefore, nothin~ can be unnatural if that word is understood tc refer to what is contrary to or inconsistent witt the laws of nature.

  But perhaps there is a sense of the word "unnatural" which simply means that which i, wrong, perverse, depraved, or wicked. Then i' homosexuality is unnatural, it would logically follow that it is wrong, perverse, depraved, or wicked!

  But this is not very helpful, for it explains nothing at all. This is what it amounts to:

 Whatever is unnatural is, by definition, wicked,

 wrong, perverse, and depraved. Now, why is
 homosexuality wicked, wrong, perverse, and

 depraved? Because it is unnatural.

  Now let's substitute the definition of "unnatural" for the word "unnatural" in this sentence: Homosexuality is wicked, wrong, perverse, and depraved because it is unnatu?.al. And we come up with the result: Homosexuality is wicked, wrong, perverse, and depraved because it is wicked, wron~, per~e?se, and deprared.

  What is the end result? A tautology—a sentence that is true by definition, but is completely worthless since it communicates no information about anything whatever. In other words, if "unnatural" means wicked, wrong, perverse, and depraved, then it provides no support whatever for the argument that homosexuality is wicked, wrong, perverse, and depraved because it is unnatural. The argument is question-begging, and should be completely unconvincing to anyone who is at all familiar with elementary logic.

 IV Is Homosex?~ality Immoral'

 Upon careful analysis, we have seen that those arguments that are advanced most often with the intention of supporting the thesis that ho

 mosexuality is wrong simply do not hold up. We have not established that no valid argument exists to support that thesis. But a diligent search of the literature fails to discover one.

  For some people, the fact that the Bible expresses very strong disapproval of homosexuality is sufficient to establish the fact that it is wicked. For them, no further argument is needed. Others are so disgusted by what they consider to be gross practices, more or less on the same level as bestiality or the consumption of rats or insects, that no intellectual arguments are likely to overcome their powerful emotional reactions. But such reasons are not philosophical, and are not likely to persuade anyone who chooses to base her moral judgments on reason rather than on ancient authority or pure emotionalism.

  Despite the weight of tradition, the burden is on those who advocate the ostracism of homosexuals to demonstrate that there are cogent reasons for so punishing human beings whose only crime, if it is one, is to engage in the only form of love-making that they feel capable of. Nor is there any intellectually acceptable just)fication for the imposition of civil or criminal sanctions against gays and lesbians, or depriving them of the benefits of legal privileges that are available to people whose sexual inclinations are more in accordance with the views of most other people—such privileges as the right to inherit, to enjoy tax relief that is open to married couples, and perhaps to adopt children. (I say "perhaps" because further considerations may be relevant to that policy issue.) Some adult gays and lesbians have adopted their lovers, with their lovers' consent, in order to establish a kind of family relationship that would be recognized by the law. That they have had to resort to this rather strange use of adoption laws is an unfortunate consequence of the law's refusal to recognize long-term, stable relationships between them. Legislatures have generally refused to change the law to make it more favorable to homosexual relationships because many legislators and their constituents view homosexuality as immoral and are unwilling to confer Icgal recognition upon it.
 ~ Homosexuals: Ri~gh`J and Responsibilities

 The moral issues surrounding homosexuality are not exhausted, however, by this discussion, Even if our communities recognize the rights of gays and lesbians to pursue their way of life without legal interference, there remain exceedingly delicate questions of the relations of gays and lesbians with their families and associates, and the moral dimensions of some of those relationships. Since none of the philosophical arguments against homosexuality holds up under critical analysis, it would seem to be reasonable to conclude that there remains no cogent justification for discriminating against homosexuals, either legally or in social relations. At the same time, however, it is reasonable to expect homosexuals to behave responsibly toward others, including those who—for whatever reason—find their way of life unacceptable.

  Gays and lesbians who have demonstrated in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, for example, disrupting services by raucous chanting designed to draw attention to their displeasure with the Church's policies toward people with their orientation, seem to have overstepped the bounds of decency and propriety. The gay and lesbian organization "Act Up" has mounted numerous rowdy demonstrations and marches, protesting what its participants see as injustices perpetrated against homosexuals. Far from winning sympathy for their cause, such incidents are likely to drive potential supporters away. llut there is a larger question of the moral propriety of their behavior.

  The American legal tradition exempts religious institutions from governmental control. The public policy behind this tradition derives from the theory that private associations should be free to determine their own policies, so long as they do not seriously jeopardize the fundamental rights of others. That principle implies that religious institutions, and other private associations, should be free to change their an

 cient strictures against homosexuality if their leaders choose to do so; but that they ought also to be free to refuse to abandon those practices and restrictions, as they see fit. Neither the First Amendment nor liberal views on free speech sanction the disruption of religious services, however worthy the cause. Nor do they authorize gays and lesbians to appoint themselves as censors to delete Biblical passages that unequivocally condemn homosexuality, however hurtfill those passages might be....

  Many gays and lesbians, having been hurt by others, may have become callous toward persons who do not share their views on sexuality. Intent on pursuing their own inclinations—perhaps with just)fication—they may fail to realize how much hurt they cause to others in the process. No doubt it can be extremely painful for the traditional parents of a gay person to accept the strange (to them) way of life that their son or daughter has adopted. The natural desire of the gay son or daughter to be accepted by his or her parents should, one would think, be accompanied by an understanding of the difficulty the parents must have in accepting what must seem to them to be an outrageous, immoral way of life.

  On the other hand, it is difficult to think of anything more cruel and heartless than the utter abandonment of a dying AIDS victim by his or her family because of self-righteousness religious zealotry, or disapproval of homosexuality. Too many victims of that awful disease have withered, suffered, and died with no one to comfort them but their lovers, who are often weakened by the.same affliction. Those who should be closest to them—their fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters—may be so preoccupied with nursing their own anger, their hurts, and their grievances that they have lost the capacity to be understanding or compassionate toward those to whom they have the closest possible biological connections. In some ways, this is one of the most grievous moral afflictions of our time. If there were a law of na
 sure, one might wish that it would teach us, if not incline us, to care for our sons and daughters, despite our disagreements with them over matters that touch us deeply, particularly when they are suffering. Some have, indeed, responded to that call in heroic measure. But all too many have not.

  Like every real human problem, the issues surrounding homosexual relations are complex  and fraught with deep emotions. Philosophers may be able to shed some light on the arguments, but in the final analysis, only compassion and good will on all sides will lead to the kind of understanding and acceptance that may ultimately lead to a resolution of the most painful of them.

 Review and Discussion Questions

  1. Devlin argued that private acts between consenting adults may rightly be criminalized if they violate the ordinary person's sense of morality. Examine his reasoning from the perspective of Mill's liberty principle.

  2. Is there any sense in which homosexuality is unnatural? Explain why or why not. Does something's being abnormal or unusual ever have any ethical relevance?

  3. What explains our society's traditional disapproval of homosexuality? Why do so many people believe it to be wrong or disgusting?

  4. Are there moral arguments against homosexuality that Leiser has overlooked or failed to do justice to? What should be society's attitude and public policy toward homosexuality? Is discrimination against homosexuals always wrong?

  5. Leiser appears to suggest that gays and lesbians are wrong to demonstrate against religious groups that view homosexuality as immoral. Do you agree? Explain why or why not.

 6. Should homosexuals be permitted to marry?