A recent issue of the magazine Flare entitled its cover story "Moving Beyond the Morality Debate." Unfortunately, the series of unconnected vignettes that followed failed to provide any clear idea of what the controversy is, let alone say what lies beyond it. On Harvard's campus, the "morality debate" over homosexuality has disappeared in favor of questions of community. Is this campus a welcoming place? Can an athlete come out and still be accepted? Or--to cite FM--"Where are all the lesbians?"

These questions may be important ones, but they will always skirt the surface. The real debate over homosexuality--whether or not it is morally acceptable--has been by and large suppressed, its undercurrents occasionally bubbling over into the pages of the Salient or letters to the editor. Though homosexuality is still a lightning rod in national politics, the morality debate is regarded on this campus as if it had been settled decades ago and needs no further examination. This reluctance to engage the question gives the liberal position a reputation for weakness, and it does Harvard's gay students, and their supporters, a grave disservice.

The problem is that it's not just a question of biology. Those who consider homosexuality (a term under which I include every shade of the BGLT rainbow) as biological, or at the very least unchosen and unchangeable, might see no need to investigate further. But actions always entail choices, and those opposed to these choices can easily proclaim a doctrine of "hate the sin, love the sinner." Those suffering from kleptomania also have strong desires for immoral acts; their situation is monstrously unfair, but that doesn't make theft morally acceptable. Using biology as an excuse promotes an image of homosexuals as sick, diseased unfortunates, as lepers to be ministered unto and "cured" through therapy and divine grace. Many gays find these portrayals highly insulting, but they will not go away so long as biology is the only defense.

To ward off such a view, some have simply declared homosexuality out of bounds for moral discussion. David B. Orr '01, in a guest column for the Salient, said he was "past" the morality debate and "appalled" by the Salient's indecision on the issue; former BGLTSA co-chair Michael K.T. Tan '01 has written that, "Queerness is a way of being; it's about whom and how you love and not debatable because of ethical, rather than anatomical, reasons." But what is it about an identity, especially one connected with a set of actions instead of anatomy or skin color, that shields it from moral scrutiny? Who gets to make that decision, and why must it be respected? If "rapist" is not a protected identity, the reason must have something to do with ethics--and this pre-screening is exactly what homosexuality needs.

Refusing to engage in this debate casts those who take an opposing position as unfit to join the discussion. Indeed, Orr's column descended into ad hominem attacks on conservatives as frightened, oppressive tyrants, ignoring the possible justifications for their position and focusing on the contingencies, confusions and perhaps baser instincts that might have led them to hold it. These arguments don't convince anyone; all they do is give conservatives a free pass. Attacking those who begin the debate as homophobes, or saying that one is "appalled" by the very investigation of the question, creates an impression that anyone who does consider the question seriously would conclude the wrong way--that the position is so feeble as to require insulation from attack. It lets conservatives style themselves as victims and romantic dissenters; it lets the worst arguments win by default.

And make no mistake: the arguments against homosexuality, on this campus at least, have been woefully poor. Most have been religious and absolute; it may be almost as impolite to challenge someone's religion on this campus as it is to challenge their sexuality, but gays and their supporters have to engage this position seriously. Either Paul doesn't condemn homosexuality (a hard argument to win), or what Paul says isn't morally binding; you have to pick one if you want to convince the other side and not just shut them up.

The non-religious arguments on campus have been somewhat easier to address, having been generally free of distinct premises or clear chains of reasoning. Homosexuality has been described as "unnatural," with procreation the natural purpose of sex. How exactly one determines the "purpose" of an act, or how one assigns that purpose moral weight (outside of the naturalistic fallacy that whatever is, is good) is difficult to discern. Even harder is how to justify in this context the rhythm method or sex with an infertile spouse; to do so, conservatives have fallen back on ennobling heterosexuality per se, calling it a "unique two-in-one flesh communion" or invoking, as did Salient publisher Bronwen C. McShea '02, the union of Christ and His Church. Looking for good metaphors is a silly way to go about moral reasoning, and with legions of gender theorists and lit-crit folks in the wings, it seems inevitable that equally good metaphors will eventually crop up on the other side. Absent some new arguments on campus--and I'd be delighted to read them--the only real attack seems to be that homosexuality is unnerving. I'll admit it: homosexual acts do unnerve me. But so do a lot of things other straight people do, and so would the acts of highly unattractive people of either persuasion. If this is the best that the conservatives can come up with, liberals should restart the morality debate immediately, because they would win hands down.

It's understandable that many gays might find such inquiry upsetting--just as members of a religious minority might be upset by proselytizing or repeated requests to justify their faith. In part because of certain widely held moral beliefs, gays face possible rejection by family, friends, teachers and society at large, the fear of discrimination in school or in the workplace--even the danger of brutal physical attack. But how can far more complicated issues, like same-sex marriage or non-discrimination laws, be addressed without first reaching consensus on the foundations? Statements that we are "past" these issues ring hollow when so many Americans--whose opinions and votes matter--vocally disagree. The only way to change their minds is to join, not move beyond, the morality debate.