In the Salient, Flare and on this page, there has been a running debate concerning the morality of homosexuality. Both Flare and David B. Orr '01, who wrote as a guest columnist for the Salient, argued that it is time for our society to move past arguing whether or not homosexuality and homosexuals are moral. In his column last week, Stephen E. Sachs '02 argued that liberals should participate in this debate, because refraining makes liberals appear too timid to engage in the intellectual combat of these debates and because given the lack of logically consistent arguments against homosexuality, liberals would win hands down.

But there is another reason why liberals should engage in the debate with conservatives over homosexuality: conservative arguments opposing homosexuality are immoral. Just as some on the right have proclaimed a cultural war against homosexuals and other leftist groups, our society needs a concerted effort to discredit and expose as immoral the conservative views on and efforts opposing homosexuality.

Homosexual acts are acts of love. Sex is not necessarily a loving act, but that fact does not confine itself to one sexual orientation. A loving partnership between two people is something that is universally desirable and is certainly moral. Whether the two partners are the same sex or not is irrelevant to the fact that by joining in partnership they are bringing a fundamental good (love) into the world. Whether the partners in this union choose their sexual orientation or not is irrelevant to the fact that the two people love one another. (Though it should be noted that the scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that homosexuality is an inborn trait and not a choice.)

Conservative arguments against homosexuality usually take one of two related forms: either homosexuality goes against natural law, or it is forbidden by religious dictates. I am skeptical of anyone who argues that nature has a law concerning morality and, moreover, that he or she knows the content of that law. The religious arguments all boil down to one statement: it's wrong because my god told me so. Aside from the fact that all statements which purport to come from the divine have to pass through human editors, there is no compelling evidence whether or not a divine being exists.

Conservatives denigrate and marginalize people based on their distaste--lacking any rational explanation--for the acts of love in which homosexuals engage. This marginalization occurs both when the conservative arguments are targeted squarely at homosexuals themselves and when "hate the sin, love the sinner" arguments are used. I would be denounced, and rightly so, if I argued that Catholics should not be allowed to attend Mass on the grounds that I have a distaste for the ceremony while protesting that I have no issue with Catholics themselves. Of course, when I argue for barring the practice of holding Mass, I would deny Catholics the means of expressing their identity and in so doing devalue Catholic individuals as well as the rituals they practice. The comparison with homosexuality doesn't completely bring out the immorality of the conservative position. Love, partnership with a spouse and expression of one's love are more essential parts of one's identity than religion for most people. Denying love is even worse than denying religious expression.

Positions that are based on personal taste rather than reason, that marginalize and victimize people for loving other people, are immoral. Our debate should not focus on whether homosexuality is moral, but on whether those who attack homosexuals for expressing their love can morally hold that opinion.

--THOMAS M. DOUGHERTY