To ask the original question another way, what is it about being a zookeeper, a senator or a musician that exempts them from moral scrutiny? Rather than ask that BGLT (bisexual, gay, lesbian or transgendered) persons answer to the moral "prescreening" detailed in the column, it seems apropos to consider the nature of and right to demand this scrutiny. Sachs cites the issue of scriptural texts on the subject, and notes that regardless of perceived validity these arguments deserve to be engaged. However, the nature of this argument may, if not preclude a meaningful response, at least silence an appropriate one. To some individuals, the lexicography of Paul is not a moral concern that demands reply, just as to some individuals religious prescriptions against wearing polyester-cotton blend clothing or revealing one's face in public do not merit a moral defense.

The same feeling of Sachs' being "unnerved" by the idea of homosexuality might be mirrored by a BGLT individual feeling "unnerved" that their sexual orientation is considered an issue involving other people's morality at all. To seek moral evaluation of another person's sexual preference is, in some sense, to presume that the person in question has not made their own stringent moral evaluation already. As a "straight" male, I have never had much cause to decide whether the entire body of my sexual desire was moral or not, and I hold in high regard those of us who are strong enough to undergo the moral and emotional self-examination that this entails. It seems to me that the "morality debate" is being fought out daily in the hearts and lives of BGLT individuals, and any claim of another person's right to externally arbitrate this struggle should be carefully evaluated.

Matthew E. Kutcher '02

March 13, 2001