The modern era has brought about a wave of liberal idealism that brought with it the need for re-evaluation of previously assumed “morals” by the general populus. Homosexuality has always been a lifestyle outside of the norm and more often than not an “unfamiliar” that was inevitably looked down upon. Today’s outlook does not differ greatly, but modern ethicists have proposed the possibility of not only a place for homosexuality, but a value. Using logical reasoning and his own personal experience, Andrew Sullivan will effectively dodge the classic attacks on homosexuality and ultimately present a possible value for homosexuality within a moral, natural, modern society.
Before Sullivan could present any type of value in homosexuality existing in the modern world, he had to prove its very existence and prove his task was born out of moral intent. His first audience or “opponent” was the greatest in number: the Prohibitionists. Using “holy text”, these people would utilize certain passages and would attempt to “cure or punish people who practice homosexual acts” (22). This particular strain of opponents, as Sullivan points out, strays closest to bigotry, not using reason, experience or any type of knowledge on homosexuality, but instead they judge via text written millennia ago. His reply to the prohibitionists lies within their very argument. Sullivan will point out that the prohibitionists utilize text designed to support the procreation of a people in great number. The Jewish people in Biblical time would have logically developed a policy against homosexuality because every man and woman within the tribe had a duty to procreate and make “vast” their numbers. At that period in time, it was a duty to procreate for survival, therefore logically, a law against homosexuality would have been developed because it did not “contribute” to the population. Today, however, we are not in need of procreation anywhere. We as a species populate all corners of the world and most “tribes” or races have great numbers and a firm grip on a location on the planet. This originally ethical law designed in Biblical times is no longer necessary. Sullivan then had to address the “New Testament” prohibitionists. Paul’s condemnation of the homosexuals as heterosexuals “spurning the ‘natural use’ of their bodies in order to ‘burn in their lust’ for members of the same gender” disregards the very existence of homosexuality (29). Paul views these people engaging in homosexual acts as heterosexuals who turn from their natural state of being. Sullivan will point out that Paul does not include where actual homosexuals fit in this equation. Does Paul deny their existence or does Paul merely not include them in his condemnation? Indeed, one of Sullivan’s recurring themes in his book is the project of honesty and heterosexuals actually turning from their natural, inner self would be dishonesty and in fact a crime worthy of punishment. However, if someone is naturally a homosexual, are they still to be condemned? By Paul’s standard, if a homosexual remain true to his or herself, are they guilty of a crime or are they living morally? Paul, ultimately, does not answer this, quite possibly because Paul does not feel homosexuality naturally exists.
The recurring and most powerful argument against homosexuality today is that of Natural Law. Born out of logic and human reason, it remains a difficult hurdle to jump for any advocate for the existence of homosexuality. Today, many people require more logical arguments regarding morality or ethics, so Natural Law Theorists were the next evolution of Prohibitionists. Instead of using text, however, they would utilize the natural order of things within the world or nature. Many homosexual rights groups will argue against the existence of Natural Law, claiming that there is no “natural” orientation; everyone is an individual with individual wants and needs. However, Sullivan interestingly takes head on the Natural Law Theory and uses it within his own argument. Sullivan begins the book with a very “up close and personal” presentation of his own homosexuality. Throughout the book, he continuously reinforces the idea that he did not choose his orientation, and recognized it as wrong within society. He could not, however, change the fact that he sought girls for personal friendships. He could not help that odd dynamic of the bond of a heterosexual male-male relationship and his own homosexual yearning for the same person, both of which conflicted with each other creating what he called the “strains of homosexual hurt” (5). Essentially, Sullivan claims throughout the book that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon. He even goes as far as to denounce the gay-rights groups who disregard Natural Law. Natural Law not only exists but also is a commanding force in the universe, but as a naturally occurring phenomenon, which Sullivan argues for out of experience, then does it not fit naturally in the world? Why in this Darwinian- based world, where irrelevant or weak flaws in species are eventually wiped out over time, would homosexuality exist then? Sullivan will go on to claim that homosexuality has not only a place in society and the natural order of our species, but a value as well.
Sullivan will advocate the value and position of homosexuality in society through his project of living honest to oneself and society and through the contrast of the heterosexual’s duties in life to the homosexual’s. Throughout Sullivan’s project, he continuously pushes for living honest to one’s self and to one’s society. His platform is born like any moral project: out of authenticity or honesty. He reiterates the crime of living dishonestly. As a Roman Catholic homosexual, he stays firm in Natural Law and authentic living and as a naturally existing phenomenon, he as a homosexual advocates living true to his own nature. His moral stance, arguing from his own personal experience and the accounts from other homosexuals, reinforces, time and time again, the existence of homosexuality, which furthermore implies its existence as a natural phenomenon. Continuing from that, Sullivan will pose the question of who indeed is the morally guilty party: the one who shuns the homosexual for being open and honest about his orientation, or the one who advocates living honestly within his or her community. He does not ever regard homosexuality as a norm nor does he claim homosexuality is in fact better than heterosexuality. He merely remains adamant that it is naturally occurring and therefore it is only right to acknowledge, if one is in fact a homosexual, that nature within one’s self. Ultimately, Sullivan is then left with the final project of finding a role for homosexuality in our society. He proposes that the homosexual, “unencumbered by children… may be able to press the limits of the culture or business infrastructure, or the boundaries of intellectual life, in a way that heterosexuals, by dint of a different type of calling, cannot” (204). Essentially, Sullivan proposes that because homosexuals do not have children, they are not burdened with the great responsibilities children create. Logically, if an adult is not financially, emotionally, mentally, physically held back by children, they are obviously capable of accomplishing more. If a man is not required to donate his time, money and effort into children, his focus can go, as Sullivan points out, into developing himself as a “limit-pressing” individual in the cultural or business world. His next proposal is in fact one of wisdom. Sullivan points out that if one “[sees] one’s life as the end of a biological chain or seeing one’s own emotions as the object of detestation” this can provide insight to human nature and society itself (205). Perhaps, as Sullivan says, homosexuals have learned about life in a way most heterosexuals never will. “Life is fickle… there are parts of it that cannot be understood, let alone solved; that some things lead nowhere and mean nothing; that the ultimate exercise of freedom is not a programmatic journey but a spontaneous one” (204).
