Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • I want to start with a thought experiment. Suppose I told you that I'm imagining an activity

  • that takes place between consenting adults, doesn't hurt anyone, and results in a great

  • deal of pleasure for the people involvedand that's all that you know about the activity

  • that I'm imagining. Given that information, it sounds pretty good. Suppose I fill in the

  • picture a bit more and tell you that not only does it result in pleasure for the people

  • involved, but it's an avenue of communication and a source of deep meaning in their lives.

  • And, again, that's all you know about the activity that I'm imagining. Given that information,

  • it sounds greatthe kind of thing we'd want to encourage. But, of course, when I fill

  • in the picture a bit more, and tell you that the adults in question are two men or two

  • women, and the activity is some kind of sexual activity, suddenly people are not so keen

  • on it anymore. In fact, not only would many people condemn it, some would call it a moral

  • abomination.

  • Consider the fact that right now there are thousands of people across the world having

  • sex. It's kind of disconcerting when you think about it. Especially when you realize you're

  • sitting here listening to me. Some of those people are with partners of the same race;

  • some of them are with partners of a different race. Some of them are with partners of the

  • same age; some of them are in what we call "May-December relationships." Some of them

  • have known each other a long time; some of them met last night on the Internet. Some

  • of them are in loving, nurturing relationships; some of them are in abusive relationships.

  • Now those facts all have varying moral significance. But when I tell you that some of these people

  • are with partners of the same sex and some of these people are with partners of the other

  • sex, that fact seems to take on a significance all its own. And the question I want to explore

  • tonight is "why?" What's morally wrong with homosexuality, if anything, and if nothing,

  • what's all the fuss about? And the way I'm going to do this is I am going to look at

  • some of the most common arguments against homosexuality and subject them to philosophical

  • scrutiny. It sounds fancier than it is; really, we're just going to look at these arguments,

  • see what they are, and see if they work.

  • Before I get to the arguments, there are a few preliminary things I want to get out of

  • the way. We're talking about homosexuality tonight. What is that? A lot of people like

  • to make a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual activityhomosexual orientation,

  • being attracted to people of the same sex; homosexual activity, engaging in some kind

  • of romantic activity with people of the same sex.

  • Like many such distinctions, this one is both useful and problematic. It's useful, in part,

  • because it reminds us that we all have feelings that we don't act upon, and maybe shouldn't

  • act upon. I'll give you an example. Sometimes I'm in line, and there's somebody in front

  • of me with one of those bluetooth earpieces on. They're chattering and chattering, completely

  • oblivious to the people behind them, and we're all waiting while they keep chattering. And

  • sometimes, when that happens, I fantasize for just a split second about pulling out

  • a sword and chopping of their ear. Whoosh!

  • I don't act on that feeling; don't act on that feeling. You may have had similar feelings.

  • We all have feelings we don't act upon, and that's part of being a grownup. That's part

  • of being a human being; you have self-restraint. Just because you have a feeling, doesn't mean

  • you ought to act on it, and this distinction reminds us of that.

  • It's a problematic distinction because it over-simplifies. For one thing, it draws a

  • very sharp contrast between feelings and activities, when the contrast between those things is

  • not always so sharp. Sometimes they're intimately connected. Sometimes who we are and what we

  • do are profoundly connected, and this distinction maybe makes us forget that a little bit. It's

  • also problematic because it over-simplifies each of the elements involved, both sexual

  • orientation and sexual activity. Let me say something about each of those elements. Let's

  • start with activity. What do I mean when I say, "homosexual activity?" Well, what do

  • I mean when I say, "heterosexual activity?" Intercourse? Sure. What about kissing? Sometimes.

  • What about holding hands? What about going for a romantic walk with someone? What about

  • making a nice dinner for someone? What about waiting outside someone's door because you

  • have a crush on that person? Yeah, you know who you are.

  • Think about all of the activities that make up our romantic lives, broadly understood.

  • When we talk about heterosexuality, we talk about that wide range of activities. When

  • we talk about homosexuality, we focus on the sex part of it. That gives us the kind of

  • picture like the bedroom is the only room in the homosexual person's house or the most

  • important part of our lives and relationships, and it's a false picture. This is not the

  • only time we get this sort of false contrast. We say things. With heterosexual people, we

  • talk about relationships. With homosexual people, we talk about sex. We say heterosexual

  • people have lives; homosexual people have "lifestyles." I teach at a state university.

  • I don't make enough money to have a "lifestyle." We say heterosexual people have a moral vision;

  • homosexual people have an agenda. The words we use to talk about these things really affect

  • our way of thinking about them. Now, I'm going to focus on homosexual sex tonight because

  • that's the part that bothers people, but I don't want you to get this kind of skewed

  • picture that's the only part of homosexual activity, homosexual relationships, or homosexual

  • people's lives.

  • What about the other side of this contrast? Sexual orientation. I have a certain sexual

  • orientation. What is that? I'm attracted to people of a particular gender. That's true.

  • I'm also attracted to people of a particular age range, body type, personality type, and

  • certain kinds of senses of humor. All of these things make up my sexual orientation, broadly

  • understood. But when we talk about sexual orientation, we focus very narrowly on the

  • gender of people that you're attracted to, and then we divide everyone into these nice,

  • neat categories. There are heterosexual people, and there are homosexual people. Then there

  • are bisexual people, and they mess up our neat categories!

  • Everywhere I go, people say to me, "I just don't understand bisexuality." Let me take

  • a little time to explain it; it's not a complicated concept, really. Some people are attracted

  • to both men and women. That's it! It doesn't mean they're attracted to everyone. That'd

  • be exhausting. It doesn't mean they're confused. It doesn't mean that gender is not important

  • to them. It doesn't mean any of those things. It just means it's not an overriding factor

  • in what makes people attractive to them. I mention this because many of the same problems

  • faced by gay and lesbian people in our society are faced by bisexual people. Bisexual people

  • are not half kicked out of the house or half fired from their jobs or half harassed for

  • being bisexual. I'm going to be focusing on homosexuality tonight, but much of what I

  • say can be applied with the appropriate changes to bisexuality.

  • Finally, in the years that I've been doing this, a number of people have made the comment,

  • at least in the early years (I started doing this in Texas in the early 90's), people said

  • to me, "You know, your approach seems so negative. You're always talking about the arguments

  • against homosexuality. Why don't you ever give an argument in favor of homosexuality?"

  • I say, "You know, that's a good idea." So, I want to start with a kind of preliminary

  • argument in favor of homosexuality. It's just a preliminary argument; there's a lot more

  • to be said, but, in a way, the preliminary argument is quite simple: Homosexual relationships

  • make some people happy. When I say it makes some people happy, I don't just mean that

  • they're pleasurable, although that's part of it. But, there's more to it than that.

  • A homosexual relationship, like a heterosexual relationship, can be an important avenue of

  • meaning and long-term fulfillment in people's lives. This is the kind of thing that we celebrate

  • when we talk about heterosexuality. We celebrate it everywhere from great literature to romance

  • novels to trashy shows on MTV. You know these shows? You can feel your brain cells dying

  • as you watch some of these shows; you know the ones. But they have this point in common

  • about finding a special someone, connecting with that person, expressing your feelings

  • for that person in a way for which mere words would be inadequate. This is a wonderful,

  • beautiful part of the human experience. If we're going to deny this to a whole group

  • of people by saying, "You can't have that. That's wrong," we better have a darn good

  • reason. So, let's look at what some of those reasons might be.

  • This first reason that I'm going to look at, the first argument is the argument that homosexuality

  • is wrong because the Bible condemns it. Now, when I say "the Bible," I could be talking

  • about a lot of different things. There are many different scriptural texts that different

  • groups of people recognize as authoritative. Even if we focus on the Judeo-Christian tradition,

  • which is actually a melding of different traditions, there are arguments about which books should

  • be included, which translations are authoritative, and so on. We could go through all of that,

  • but let's put that aside. Suppose you know what I'm talking about when I talk about the

  • Bible. When we look to that Judeo-Christian Bible, we find some things that actually sound

  • pretty negative with respect to same-sex relationships. The book of Leviticus says, "Man shall now

  • lie with man, as with woman. It is an abomination unto God." Of course, the book of Leviticus

  • calls a number of other things abominations that we don't tend to pay attention to quite

  • as often. The book of Leviticus says that eating shellfish is an abomination unto God.

  • Shrimp cocktail? Not if you follow Leviticus. The book of Leviticus says that wearing clothing

  • of mixed fiber is an abomination unto God. Cotton-polyester blends? Not if you follow

  • Leviticus. The book of Leviticus says that touching the carcass of a dead pig is an abomination

  • unto God. Football? Not if you follow Leviticus. They used to be made of pigskin. Stay with

  • me. It's not just the book of Leviticus, and it's not just the Old Testament.

  • As we look through the Bible, we find a number of things that seem, at best, morally problematic.

  • St. Paul says, "Women must remain silent in the churches." Doesn't seem to me like good

  • moral advice. The Bible suggests that those who divorce and remarry should be put to death.

  • Why? Well because the New Testament defines divorce as adultery; the Old Testament prescribes

  • death for adultery. Again, this doesn't sound very good. The Bible suggests that slavery

  • is morally acceptable. People don't believe me when I tell them this. I say, "Okay, I'll

  • read to you." This is from Leviticus 25:44-46:

  • You may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You

  • may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are

  • with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath

  • them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever.

  • Who says this, according to the Bible? God says that, according to the Bible. And yet,

  • we have a hard time imagining how an all-good, all-loving God could condone an institution

  • like slavery. And it's not just the Old Testament, either. St. Paul says in Ephesians, "Slaves

  • be obedient to your earthly masters, in fear and trembling, in singleness of heart as you

  • obey Christ."

  • Again, you look at this and say, "Well, what's a believer to do?" One thing I think you can

  • do is to say maybe the Bible is wrong about certain things. This does not mean that God

  • is wrong. Rather, maybe human beings have been wrong in discerning God's word. After

  • all, we should not confuse complete faith in God with complete faith in our ability

  • to discern God's voice. And, in fact, any honest look at history should tell us that

  • we should be wary of people who are too certain that they speak directly for God.

  • But, some people want to say, "No no no, the Bible is God's word. The Bible is infallible.

  • The Bible contains no error." And, I say, "The Bible contains no error? What are you

  • going to do with those slavery passages?" And you know what the people say to me? They

  • say to me, "John, you are pulling those passages out of context. You can't just take passages

  • out of the Bible and quote them as if they mean the same thing today as they did for

  • the people at the time. You can't just pull the passages out of context!" And I say, "Well,

  • wait a second! If it's not okay to do that with the slavery passages, then why is it

  • okay to do that with the homosexual passages?" Because, after all, the context surrounding

  • same-sex relations was very different in Biblical times than it is during our own day. And indeed,

  • in the handful of places that the Bible talks about homosexuality, it's almost always in

  • the context of a discussion of idolatry because homosexuality was very much associated with

  • certain pagan practices. If that's the kind of thing that Biblical authors had in mind,

  • if that's what they meant, then what they're talking about and I'm talking about are very

  • different things, and to use those passages that way would be to pull them out of context.

  • Now, a few caveats and clarifications. First of all, I want to make it clear what I'm not

  • saying here. I'm not saying , "Hey, the Bible is old, so forget about it. Ignore it. Just

  • pick the parts you like." A lot of people do that on different sides of the debate.

  • I don't think that's a very good way to proceed. Rather, I'm saying that if you're going to

  • understand what the Bible means for us today, we have to understand that the Biblical authors'

  • concerns and our concerns may be different, and that's relevant to our interpretation

  • of the text. And the alternative to that is to commit ourselves to very strange views

  • on women's roles, on slavery, and a host of other things.

  • Second, having said that, I'm not so convinced that any amount of context is going to help

  • the slavery passages. I think that when we look to those passages, we have to admit that

  • the prejudices and limitations of the Biblical authors crept into the text, and if they did

  • that with respect to slavery, then it could have happened with respect to homosexuality.

  • Finally, it seems to me in many cases, not all, but in many cases the Bible is not really

  • the root of the objection here. What often happens is people have an objection to homosexuality,

  • maybe for reasons they don't quite understand, and then they use the Bible and bring it in

  • to back that up. Why do I think this? Well, let me tell you a story. Many years ago, I

  • was briefly a graduate student at Notre Dame, which, as you know, is a major Catholic university.

  • At Notre Dame, we were told by the administration that we could not have a gay and lesbian organization

  • on campus because that would conflict with Catholic teaching. Over and over, the administration

  • would say, "You cannot have a gay and lesbian group. That conflicts with Catholic teaching."

  • We did have a Muslim student group on campus and a Jewish student group on campus. Muslims

  • and Jews both deny the Divinity of Christ, which, when I went to Catholic school, was

  • a very important part of Catholic teaching. This wasn't really about Catholic teaching,

  • I don't think... You know, they had this objection, and they pulled in Catholic teaching when

  • it was convenient.

  • So, what is it really about? We need to look to some of the non-religious, or secular,

  • arguments against homosexuality, and we especially need to do that if we are genuinely committed

  • to living in a society that embraces freedom of religion.

  • So, what are some of those non-religious arguments against homosexuality? Well, the second argument

  • I'm going to look at tonight (the first non-religious argument) is the argument that homosexuality

  • is wrong because it's not universalizable. That's not a word you get to use every day.

  • What does that mean? I first heard of this argument back in '92. I gave an early version

  • of this lecture at St. John's University in New York, where I had previously done my undergraduate

  • work. There was a priest, Father Prior, who wrote to the school paper. He was very upset

  • that I had been invited to give this lecture, and he wrote this long letter to the school

  • paper. In his letter to the school paper, on of the things he said was, "Of course homosexuality

  • is bad for society. If everyone were homosexual, there would be no society." And I call this

  • the "universalizability argument." If everyone were this way, if we universalize the activity,

  • that would be bad; therefore, the activity is bad. Now, I disagreed with a lot of what

  • Father Prior said in his letter, but I thought it was nice that he took the time to write

  • to the school paper. And I said, "You know what, I'm going to write to the school paper,

  • too." And, I did. I wrote an open letter to Father Prior. It said, "Dear Father Prior,

  • if everyone were a Roman Catholic Priest, there would be no society, either. Sincerely,

  • John Corvino."

  • What's the problem with this argument? There are a few problems. One, Father Prior seems

  • to assume that just because society needs some people to procreate that everyone is

  • obligated to procreate, but, of course, that doesn't follow. Society needs some people

  • to be doctors. That doesn't mean everyone is obligated to be a doctor. Society needs

  • some people to be sanitation workers, which doesn't mean that everyone is obligated. Yes,

  • we need some people to procreate, but it doesn't follow that everyone is obligated, as Father

  • Prior surely recognized. People have pointed out to me, "Yeah, well some Catholic priests

  • actually do have children." Fine. The point is the argument applies equally well to celibacy.

  • But, let's suppose that we were to grant this premise that everyone is obligated to procreate.

  • Even that would not be an argument against homosexuality. At best, it would be an argument

  • against exclusive homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't prevent a person from procreating,

  • anymore than you sitting here listening to this lecture prevents you from procreating.

  • I mean nobody is procreating right now, as far as I can tell. The lights are kind of

  • bright; I can't really see to the back. It's just a non-procreative activity. And, so,

  • Father Prior's argument would not apply to gay and lesbian people who had children through

  • prior relationships, artificial insemination, or, if we take procreating broadly, through

  • adoption. So, we need a better argument to cover those things.

  • I want to turn to the third argument that I'm going to look at: the argument that homosexuality

  • is wrong because it's harmful. And this is not just one argument, of course. This is

  • a whole host of arguments. Throughout history, gay and lesbian people have been blamed for

  • all kinds of disasters: earthquakes, plagues, famines... Liza Minnelli (We were party responsible

  • for that one, actually. You've got to accept blame where it's due).

  • Even today, we hear all kinds of crazy claims about homosexuality being associated with

  • disease, suicide rates, pedophilia, and all kinds of social ills. When you listen to these

  • claims, you've got to ask a couple of questions. One question is: are they true? Another question

  • is: and, how would we know this?

  • It seems one way we might know is by talking to gay and lesbian peoplebecause we know

  • something about our own lives. But, a lot of people say, "No, no, you can't trust them;

  • they're biased." Okay. So, how do we find out about gay and lesbian people's lives?

  • Well, we could look to statistics, but there's a problem with doing this. It's not just the

  • usual problem that, well, sometimes it seems like you can find a statistical study to back

  • up any claim you want. There are better and worse statistical studies to be sure. The

  • problem is that in order to make any kind of accurate comparison between gay and lesbian

  • people on the one hand, and straight people on the other, you need some way of separating

  • the two. How do we do this? We ask people! Are you gay or straight? You can't just check

  • behind people's ears. You've got to ask them! And in a society that stigmatizes homosexuality,

  • some people are not comfortable answering that question, which makes it very difficult

  • sometimes to get accurate samples for research on gay and lesbian people versus everyone

  • else.

  • Now, for many of these claims, we don't have to settle the statistical arguments in order

  • to address the arguments. Part of the reason for this is that correlation is not the same

  • thing as cause. How many of you have heard this before? Just because two things go together,

  • it doesn't mean that one causes the other. I usually illustrate this with the old story

  • of the scientific drunk. Scientific drunk wants to know why he gets hangovers, so he

  • starts keeping a journal. He writes in his journal, "Monday night, scotch and soda. Tuesday

  • morning, hangover. Tuesday night, gin and soda. Wednesday morning, hangover. Wednesday

  • night, vodka and soda. Thursday morning, hangover." And he looks back at the journal and says,

  • "Aha! Soda causes hangovers!" I think that when we say that homosexuality is responsible

  • for all these problems, we might be looking at the soda. So, what's the alcohol? Well,

  • at least part of the alcohol seems to be society's treatment of gay and lesbian people, which

  • might make it stand to reason that life is more difficult if you're a gay or lesbian

  • person, and you might be more likely to exhibit problems as a result of that.

  • In fact, there is something here that I call "the argument of the bully." A bully on the

  • playground knocks another kid, kid falls down and starts crying. Teacher says, "Why did

  • you hit the kid?" Bully says, "I hit him because he's crying and that bothers me." Teacher

  • says, "Well, he's crying because you hit him." Bully says, "Yeah, and if he keeps crying,

  • I'm going to hit him again!" Now, what's the problem with the bully's argument? The bully

  • tries to justify what he does on the grounds that he doesn't like the effect of what he

  • does. Now, imagine somebody like, oh I don't know, Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson says, "Homosexual

  • people lead miserable, unhappy lives!" And I want to say, "Why do you think that might

  • be?" Could it have anything to do with the kinds of things that you say about gay and

  • lesbian people? Could it have anything to do with the kinds of positions you take? I

  • mean that might stand to reason that gay and lesbian people's lives are a little more difficult.

  • Now you might say, "Okay, well that might work for some of the alleged problems, but

  • not all of them. What about AIDS? Doesn't homosexuality cause AIDS?" Um, no. A virus

  • causes AIDS, and that virus can be passed along by homosexual activity, by heterosexual

  • activity, by some activities that are not sexual at all. Consider the fact that from

  • the standpoint of AIDS risk, it is infinitely more risky for me to have sex with an HIV

  • positive woman than with an HIV negative man. Why? Because it's the virus that causes AIDS,

  • not the sex. And, if the virus isn't present, two men can have sex for days on end without

  • worrying about AIDS. Fatigue, yes. AIDS, no.

  • And furthermore, if AIDS risk was somehow supposed to be the barometer of morality,

  • lesbians would be the most moral people in the worldbecause, from the standpoint of

  • AIDS risk, lesbian sex is the way to go. (I see some of you are very risk-averse in this

  • audience.) I mean think about the headline: Surgeon General Recommends Lesbianism. Okay,

  • it's probably not going to happen...

  • I mean, there are just too many gaps in this argument. The argument seems to assume that:

  • all homosexual sex is risky, all risky activity is immoral, and therefore, all homosexual

  • sex is immoral. That argument falls apart in two places: the first premise and the second

  • premise. They're both false as written. Some homosexual sex is risky, some is not, some

  • heterosexual sex is risky, some activities that are not sexual at all are risky. Some

  • risky activities are immoral, some aren't. There are just too many gaps here.

  • Now, in the early days of my lecture, when I used to talk about risk, that is all I would

  • say. But people would sometimes try to ask me a question during the Q&A period. I say

  • "try to ask my a question" because it would often come out in a kind of garbled and uncomfortable

  • way, and it took me a while to figure out what was going on. It would go something like

  • this, they'd say, "Yeah, but isn't it risky because, you know, um, uh, when two men um,

  • it's risky because uh the parts don't fit and um uh the parts don't fit because uh when

  • two men um and the parts..." And they'd go on and on doing this for a while. Finally,

  • I would interrupt them and say, "Excuse me, are you trying to ask me about anal sex?"

  • "Oh my God, he said 'anal sex' in Texas! Arrest him!"

  • I mean, it was a bad scene. But, in fact, they were trying to ask my about anal sex,

  • and I recognized that there was an interesting phenomenon going on. When people think about

  • homosexuality, they think about male homosexuality. When they would think about male homosexuality,

  • they would think about anal sex. When they would think about anal sex, they had this

  • argument in their minds that the "parts don't fit," and I realized that if I was going to

  • address people's actual concerns, I would have to address this argument.

  • So, I actually have two responses to this argument. First response: yes, they do. How

  • do I know? Well, because if they didn't, people would try it, it wouldn't work, and then they'd

  • go do something else. I mean what's that scenario going to look like?

  • "Oh my God, the parts don't fit! What are we going to do? I don't know! Do you want

  • to go bowling? Sure, this isn't working!"

  • I would actually have people during the Q&A portion of my program (I'm not making this

  • up) say, "Well of course it's wrong because [pointing two fingers at each other]. And,

  • I want to say that if you're doing it this way, you're doing it wrong. What do you want

  • me to tell you? Gay people aren't stupid. We don't sit there saying, "Oh my God, the

  • parts don't fit! What are we going to do?" I began to understand why people always focus

  • on male homosexuality, right. What's lesbianism going to look like? [banging fists together]

  • At this point, we don't have an argument anymore. We have a panic.

  • This brings me to the second, somewhat more serious response to the "parts don't fit"

  • argument. Suppose you have an argument against a particular sexual practice, say anal sex.

  • What do you have? You've got an argument against that practicewhich is not tantamount to

  • an argument against homosexuality. Because not all homosexual people engage in anal sex

  • (as I've mentioned, there are many different experiences) and not only homosexual people

  • engage in anal sex. This point also surprises some of my audiences. There's this great story

  • about Strom Thurmond. People always laugh when I say Strom Thurmond. You remember Strom

  • Thurmond. Strom Thurmond was the senator from South Carolina. He had been a segregationist

  • many years ago, then he ended up being in the Senate, and he was there until he was

  • like 116 years old or something. They had to dust him off and wheel him out. It's kind

  • of like Weekend at Bernie's at the Capitol.

  • "Senator Thurmond, how do you feel about gay marriage?" [grabs back of head and shakes

  • it "no"]

  • You could actually see the wires on C-SPAN; I'm not kidding.

  • But, there's this great story about Strom Thurmond. They were talking about sodomy laws.

  • Now, many of you don't realize that before the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws

  • in 2003 (Lawrence vs. Texas), the dozen-odd states that had such laws generally applied

  • them to both anal sex and oral sex. People didn't realize they applied to oral sex. About

  • half of those states made the laws apply both to homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy.

  • So there are these laws on the books against heterosexual oral sex, as well as heterosexual

  • anal sex and things like this, and this got brought up in this congressional debate. It's

  • like "You know, heterosexual people do these things, too." And Strom Thurmond actually

  • stood up (which was no small feat), he stood up and said, "No, they don't!" Suddenly, I

  • understood why that man was so cranky.

  • I don't want you to lose the serious point embedded in all of this, which is the following:

  • When we're talking about homosexual activity, we are talking about a wide range of experiences,

  • often the same kind of experiences that heterosexual people have, sexually. And to try to define

  • people in terms of one particular sexual act is such a reductionistic picture of people's

  • experience, and it really gives us a false view.

  • I've been talking about arguments that suggest that homosexuality is wrong because it's harmful

  • to the people who engage in gay and lesbian relationships, but sometimes people say that

  • homosexuality is wrong not because of what it does to gay and lesbian people, but because

  • of what it does to the larger society. We hear lots of claims about this, "Homosexuality

  • is a threat to the moral fabric of our country. It's a threat to the nation's infrastructure."

  • I must admit I find some of these bizarre. How does what I do in bed "threaten the nation's

  • infrastructure?" I might think I'm powerful in bed, but whoa, that's a crazy claim. The

  • nation's infrastructure better watch out tonight, baby. But I just said to you it's not just

  • about what people do in bed, right? I'm being facetious there. In what way is this a threat

  • to society? And there are all different kinds of arguments around this. I want to focus

  • on two. I want to look at the argument that says it's a threat to children, and then I

  • want to look at the more general argument that says it's a threat to marriage and the

  • family.

  • The argument that says homosexuality is a threat to children could mean a number of

  • different things. One thing it might mean is that as homosexuality becomes more visible,

  • children will be more likely to grow up gay and lesbian. Now, first of all, there is absolutely

  • no evidence for this, but, even so, the argument is entirely circular. You can't argue that

  • something is bad because, if we allow it, other people will do it because that still

  • doesn't explain why that's bad. It's like saying well if we let people play golf, more

  • people will want to play golf. Okay, but why is that bad? The argument doesn't get us anywhere.

  • So, then there's the other version of the argument that says it's a threat to children

  • because homosexual people, particularly gay men, are more likely to be pedophiles. Now

  • again, the evidence does not bear this out. This claim is just false. But also, I want

  • you to think about this: whenever a heterosexual person does something terriblemolests a

  • child, rapes a woman, commits some horrible crimewe don't think of this as reflecting

  • on all heterosexual people. Why then, when we read in the paper about a man molesting

  • a boy, this somehow becomes a fact about all gay people. Look, if you want to fight child

  • abuse, I am right there with you. Child abuse is a horrible thing, but let's not confuse

  • that with consensual adult relationships because, to confuse those two things not only slanders

  • innocent people, it also directs our attention away from the real threats to children, and

  • that's a serious moral concern.

  • So, then people sometimes move away from the children argument a little bit and say, "Yes,

  • but this is a threat to the family." I go around the country debating same sex marriage.

  • I've heard this argument many times, and I must admit to you there's a part of it that

  • I just don't quite get. Do we think that if we support gay and lesbian people in their

  • relationships that heterosexual people will stop having relationships and all go gay?

  • This seems implausible. The usual response to a gay person is not, "Hey, no fair! How

  • come he gets to be gay and I don't?" Heterosexual people will continue to have relationships,

  • and that's a good thing. We can support that, while recognizing it's not for everyone. In

  • fact, I want to take this a step further. I want to say not only does this argument

  • scapegoat gay people and make that sort of mistake, it actually is a greater threat to

  • the family than what it's trying to fight.

  • Let me tell you another story. Many years ago when I lived in New York, there was a

  • guy, Joe. He had a wife and several small kids, and they went to my church. And, one

  • night, I saw Joe out at a gay bar. At first, I wasn't even sure if it was him because,

  • how could that be Joe? He has a wife and kids. But, every time I looked over, he'd cover

  • his face. It's kind of conspicuous in a gay bar. So, I went over to him and I tapped him

  • on the shoulder and said, "Joe, what are you doing here?" And Joe, who was about ten years

  • older than I am, explained to me that when he was growing up, being gay was just not

  • an option, and he felt a lot of pressure to "do the right thing," which, for him, meant

  • marrying and having children, but it wasn't really working for him. So, he was living

  • this double life. Now, I don't want to condone what he's doing there; I think that's a terrible

  • thing. On the other hand, I've never walked in his shoes. I don't know the kinds of struggles

  • he went through. I don't really know enough details of the situation to make any real

  • kind of informed commentary on the specific situation, but I do want to say that we would

  • have fewer such difficult cases if we would simple recognize that heterosexual marriage

  • is not necessarily right for everyone. We don't do anyone any favors by pressuring them

  • into situations that they're not suited for. We don't do gay people any favors. We don't

  • do their spouses any favors. We don't do their kids any favors.

  • Okay, I want to move to the fourth and final argument that I'm going to look at this eveningthe

  • argument that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. Now this could mean a lot

  • of different things. What is unnatural? Clothing is unnatural in some sense. Buildings are

  • unnatural in some sense, but we're not doing this naked and outside. Be thankful. So what

  • do we mean when we say that homosexuality is unnatural, and, also, why does that matter?

  • Unnatural? So what? So we need to specify some morally relevant sense of unnatural.

  • Let me look at a few different things that people might mean when they say this. One

  • thing they might mean is that most people don't do that; it's statistically abnormal.

  • Well, that's true. Most people don't engage in homosexual relationships. Then again, most

  • people don't play the mandolin, most people don't pilot planes, most people don't read

  • Sanskrit. The fact that most people don't do something doesn't make it wrong. So, that

  • doesn't seem to be morally relevant.

  • Well, what else might we mean? We might mean animals don't do that. There was a legislator

  • when I lived in Texas, Warren Chisum, who used to love this argument. He said, "Homosexuality

  • is unnatural! Animals don't do that!" Since when did animals start providing us with our

  • moral standards, particularly in the area of sex? I mean, think about this. Animals

  • don't become state legislators, either. Can we lock Warren Chisum up now? But, beyond

  • that, think about the premise behind this claim. I want to make you a promise. I've

  • made this promise to hundreds of audiences, so I've got to follow through on this if it

  • ever happens. If I ever encounter Warren Chisum in public, I'm going to get down on the ground

  • and start humping his leg, just to drive home the point that animals do not provide us with

  • our moral standards.

  • And even if they did, well then homosexuality wouldn't be a problem because not only do

  • animals engage in homosexual sex, some actually form homosexual pair bonds. People are always

  • sending me clips about this kind of thing. You read this stuff in the paper "Gay penguins

  • in Central Park." I'm not making this up. Lesbian seagulls. What? Do they have short

  • haircuts and Birkenstocks? What does that mean? I mean it's all very fascinating, scientifically,

  • but it's not going to answer the moral argument for us.

  • You know what other scientific debate is not going to answer the moral argument for usthat

  • whole nature v. nurture debate. You know what I'm talking about? Back when I started doing

  • this, there was a lot of research going on about the hypothalamus of the brain, and we

  • used to hear this argument. And, it seemed right away that there were two camps that formed.

  • One side says, "I was born this way, therefore it's natural, therefore it's okay," and the

  • other side says, "No, it's a choice, therefore it's unnatural, therefore it's wrong." I think

  • those are both really lousy arguments, both of them. Let's take each one. I was born this

  • way, therefore it's natural therefore it's okay. Well, first of all, I don't really remember

  • the way the world was when I was born and neither do you. I mean the best you can say

  • is that "I've had these feelings as long as I can remember." I mean you can't just by

  • some act of introspection see your own genetic makeup.

  • You've had these feelings for a long time, okay, but just because you've had these feelings

  • for a long time it doesn't mean that you ought to act on them. I might have had violent feelings

  • for as long as I can remember, but if I start hitting the people in the front row, you're

  • not going to say, "He was born that way; it's okay." We don't judge the moral status of

  • an activity by looking at the cause or origin of the disposition to that activity. On the

  • other hand, there's the side that says, "No, it's a choice, therefore it's unnatural therefore

  • it's wrong." What do they mean when they say that it's a choice? This is one of those places

  • where the orientation/activity distinction actually comes in handy. They might mean that

  • homosexual orientation is a choice, having those feelings. If that's what they mean,

  • that just seems false. How many of you choose your sexual feelings? Ask yourself whether

  • you've ever been attracted to somebody that you wish you were not attracted to. Maybe

  • the person was already involved with somebody else. Maybe you were already involved with

  • somebody else. Maybe the person just couldn't stand you. We've all had these kind of experiences

  • where we've had these feelings and wished we could get rid of them. We can't. Or, the

  • other side sometimes happens, where we don't really have the feelings and wish we could.

  • So-and-so is so nice, we had great conversations, but the spark is just not there. We don't

  • have that kind of direct control over our feelings. But if we don't have that kind of

  • direct control over our feelings for particular individuals, why would anyone think that we

  • would have that sort of control over our feelings towards men in general or women in general?

  • And, why would anyone choose to be gay in a society that stigmatizes homosexuality?

  • It just doesn't stand to reason.

  • So then, the other possibility when they say "it's a choice" is that they mean the activity

  • is chosen, and if that's what they mean, there's only one appropriate responseDuh! (It's

  • a technical philosophical term; you can write that down.) Yes, the activity is chosen. You

  • don't just sort of wake up and find yourself saying, "Oh, I'm living with this person.

  • How interesting." You make choices, but that doesn't say anything about whether it's a

  • good choice or a bad choice, a natural choice or an unnatural choice, in the relevant sense.

  • Think about this by way of analogy. I am probably naturally right-handed in the sense that I've

  • just been discussing. I've always written with my right hand. Everyone in my family

  • writes right-handed, but if I were to pick up a pen and start writing with my left hand,

  • you wouldn't say, "Unnatural! Sinner!" There was a time in history when people would have

  • said that. People were burned at the stake for writing with their left hands. We think

  • that's crazy, but it has nothing to do with whether left-handedness is something genetically

  • determined or something learned in early childhood or something that I just do for some reason

  • because I think it might be fulfilling to me. The scientific debates are not going to

  • settle the moral debates.

  • So what else might we mean when we talk about unnatural? Well maybe people are grasping

  • at this kind of natural law tradition that goes back to Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

  • The idea is something like the following: all of our organs have certain "natural" purposesour

  • eyes are for seeing, our ears are for hearing, our genitals are for procreating, and to use

  • your organ for some purpose other than its "natural" purpose is unnatural, and therefore,

  • wrong. Now, there are a number of problems with this argument. A lot of our organs have

  • multiple purposes. I can use my mouth for talking, for singing, for breathing, for licking

  • stamps, for blowing bubbles, for kissing a woman, or for kissing a man, and it seems

  • very arbitrary to say that all of those are natural, except the last one. And if you say,

  • "Well, okay, using it to lick stamps is not natural, but it's okay." Well, then we don't

  • have a morally relevant sense of unnatural.

  • What about the sexual organs? Obviously, one purpose of the sexual organs is procreation;

  • nobody denies basic biological facts here, but is that the only legitimate purpose? Heterosexual

  • people often have sex, even if they don't want children, don't want children yet, don't

  • want any more children, or can't have children. Why? Because there are other purposes for

  • sexbuilding and expressing a kind of intimacy and connection and relationship, showing affection

  • for a person. Even the Roman Catholic Church (which by no means is a permissive organization),

  • will allow sterile heterosexual couples to marry and have sex and will allow pregnant

  • women to have sex with their husbands, even though further procreation cannot result.

  • Why? Because they recognize these other dimensions of sex, this unitive dimension of sex. But,

  • if it's okay for heterosexual people to pursue that in the absence of procreation, why is

  • it not okay for homosexual people to do this?

  • I think one of the best ways to show this is by analogy to certain other organs of the

  • body. Take the digestive organs. What's the purpose of the digestive organs? Nutrition

  • and hydration. So, it seems that any time you eat or drink something, it should be to

  • bring nutrition or hydration to the body. You've been drinking something. Can I borrow

  • that? This is the audience participation portion of the program. Diet Coke. Diet Coke contains

  • less than 2% of the following. There's no nutrition in Diet Coke. Why would you drink

  • it? Just for the taste of it? Presumably, you would drink it for hydration because it

  • brings fluid into your body, yes? No, because Diet Coke contains caffeine. Caffeine actually

  • functions as a diuretic; it removes fluid from your body. This is why you're not supposed

  • to drunk caffeinated drinks while you're engaging in sports. It's why you pee a lot after you

  • drink caffeinated drinks. And yet, we all know that the purpose of eating and drinking

  • is nutrition and hydration. That's the purpose of the digestive organs. Get this away from

  • me, you pervert. Oh sure, you laugh now, but the next thing you know, Diet Coke drinkers

  • will want to teach in our schools and parade in our streets. You're laughing, and that's

  • good because it means that you follow me. This is what we commit ourselves to when we

  • insist that our organs have a "natural" purpose, and to use them for any other purpose is unnatural,

  • and therefore, wrong.

  • Frankly, when I hear people say that homosexuality is "unnatural," it's really kind of a fancy

  • dressed-up way of saying, "It's gross! It bothers me. It's icky." I have no doubt that

  • a lot of people feel that way about homosexuality. Maybe you're one of those people, and that's

  • okay. A lot of us have feelings. A lot of things might gross you out. You might think

  • that having reptiles as pets is gross. You might think that eating broccoli is gross.

  • You might think that cleaning the bathroom is gross. You know, here at Wayne State University,

  • where we're doing this lecture tonight, we have one of the largest mortuary science programs

  • in the Midwest. Many of my students are in the mortuary science program; they take Ethics

  • class. They touch dead people on a regular basis. I think that's disgusting. They hand

  • their papers in to me and I'm like, "Ew!" But, the fact that it grosses me out, the

  • fact that it would gross most of us out doesn't make it wrong. At best, it gives us grounds

  • for an aesthetic judgment, not a moral judgment.

  • Okay, where are we? I have looked at some of the most common arguments against homosexuality

  • and explained to you why I think they don't work. I want to conclude tonight by talking

  • about what the real problem is. And I should say, by talking about what part of the real

  • problem is because I don't think there's any simple problem or simple explanation here.

  • I think it's complex. I think part of it goes back to something that I said a moment ago

  • about it making people uncomfortable, grossing people out. You know, we are often uncomfortable

  • in the face of things that are unfamiliar, and that's especially true when we're talking

  • about sex. I want you to think back to the first time you ever heard about sex. I remember

  • when my parents gave me this book Where Do Babies Come From? (It was about two years

  • ago. I learned fast.)

  • Seriously, I was a child, and my parents gave me this book. I'm reading through it, "Two

  • people love each other very much (apparently that's the key to the whole process)." I thought

  • that if I loved my mother too much she might become pregnant. Then she became pregnant

  • with my sister and I was kind of freaked out by that. But I remember when I was going through

  • this book, coming to this page, going, "You're supposed to put what, where, and do what with

  • it?!" It wasn't just because I was a little gay kid. Sex is weird. I mean think about

  • it. Two people, they get naked, they rub up and down, they exchange bodily fluids, and

  • then you try and think, "Oh, I get it now." But, in the abstract, sex is kind of weird,

  • and I think that when it comes to homosexuality, a lot of people never get past that whole

  • "that's just weird" reaction. Then, they translate that "that's just weird" reaction to "that's

  • wrong!"

  • So, if that's the problem or at least part of the problem, what's the solution? Am I

  • going to suggest that you all should go out and try it? No. That would be interesting,

  • but no. I think a big part of the solution is for straight people to actually get to

  • know gay and lesbian people because only then do we come to realize that we have many of

  • the same hopes and dreams, fears and challenges as everyone else. That sounds very simple,

  • but it's not easy. It's not easy because it gives us all a responsibility—a kind of

  • homework assignment, if you will. It gives a responsibility to straight people because

  • it means you've got to get outside of your comfort zones a little bit, when talking to

  • gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Straight people say to me, "Oh no, I'm cool with the

  • gay thing. I used to watch Will and Grace." Yeah, great. That's not just what I'm talking

  • about. I'm talking about real life, flesh and blood people.

  • But that, of course, puts a responsibility on those of us who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual

  • because it means that in order to do that kind of education by example, we have to be

  • out of the closet. When I saw out of the closet I don't mean, "Well, I go to the bar on the

  • weekend." That's nice, but I just mean being honest about who we are. That's not easy to

  • do. Sometimes it's not safe to do. Maybe you're not at a point where you can do that, but

  • it's so important. It's important because it puts a face on the issue. Now, a lot of

  • people at this point will say to me, "You had me part of the way, but now here you go

  • being all open about it now, and that's what I don't get."

  • A couple days ago, I got an e-mail. It was actually a very nice e-mail. The title of

  • the e-mail was "looking to understand," and the person was, I think, genuinely trying

  • to understand something about homosexuality. The person wrote, "You know, I don't understand

  • that if you're okay with it, then why do you have to be open about it? Why does everyone

  • have to know? I don't understand why gay people have to be so open about it." I've heard this

  • question before. The first person I ever hear this question from was my mother. Back when

  • I came out to my parents, many years ago, we used to have long discussions, and I remember

  • during one of these discussions (or arguments, whatever you want to call them. We didn't

  • throw things, but they were lively) my mother said, "I just don't understand why you have

  • to be so open about your sexuality! Your father and I aren't open about our sexuality!" I

  • want you to think about that sentence. "Your father and I are not open about our sexuality."

  • Not only is the person who utters that sentence openly heterosexual, she's also open about

  • having sex at least once.

  • Heterosexual people do this all the time. They talk about their wives, their husbands,

  • their boyfriends, their girlfriends, people they have crushes onperfectly normal. We

  • do the exact same thing and were "flaunting it," were "making an issue out of it," and

  • that's a double standard. It's not fair.

  • I don't mean to pick on my mother here because, over the year, things have changed quite a

  • bit. She's grown; both of my parents have on this issue. They've been wonderful.

  • A few years ago, I was home for Christmas with my partner, and my parents took us to

  • this restaurant that they go to all the time. They know all of the waiters and waitresses

  • by name. At one point, we were sitting there eating, and my mother sees a waitress walk

  • by and says, "Oh, Jane, come over here. I want you to meet my son, John, and his partner,

  • Mark." I nearly spit my food clear across the table. Who are you, and what have you

  • done with my mother? It was such a powerful moment. It was a powerful moment, in part,

  • because of what it said to me, which was, "You know what? We're not going to treat this

  • like a dirty little secret anymore because there's no reason to." In the simple act of

  • saying "his partner, Mark," not "his friend," or not "his roommate." (I mean you could hear

  • the quote marks around the words. This is John's "roommate.")

  • His partner. In that simple act of calling things by their right names, it shattered

  • a taboo, and that was beautiful and important. But, it wasn't just important because of what

  • it did for us at the table. It's also important for those come after us. You know, one of

  • the interesting things about gay and lesbian people, as a minority group is that, in a

  • sense, our children are not born unto us. What I mean is this: black people generally

  • have black children, Jewish people generally have Jewish children, any kind of people can

  • have gay or lesbian children. Sometimes rabidly anti-gay people have gay and lesbian children.

  • We can't protect them from a hostile world the way other minority groups can. We can't

  • necessarily give them the benefit of our experiences the way other groups can. I feel for these

  • kids, partly because I was there and I know what it's like, and partly because they are,

  • in a sense, our kids. So, what do we do for them? Well, one thing we can do is we can

  • educate their parents. And you know, that day when my mother said, "My son John and

  • his partner, Mark," some day that waitress may have a lesbian daughter or a gay son,

  • and she may remember back and say, "Hey you know what? The Corvinos had a gay son, and

  • they went out to dinner with him and partner, and they seemed to be okay with that. That

  • may seem so simple, but it's powerful. Sometimes it can make all the difference, but we're

  • only going to have things like that if we have moral courage.

  • And I mean it when I say moral courage. This is a very important point. One of the biggest

  • misconceptions about the work that I do is that people think that I'm out to attack morality,

  • that I'm out to espouse some moral relativism where I just say do whatever you feel, it

  • doesn't matter, or that I'm telling people morality is a private matterkeep it to

  • yourself, don't judge other people, I'm not about the moral judgments. People think this

  • about me. Nothing could be further from the truth. So much of what I've said tonight is

  • based upon my moral convictions, convictions about fairness, convictions about justice.

  • I think the way gay and lesbian people are treated in our society is wrong, not just

  • irrational, but morally wrong. I think there's something perverted about the fact that we

  • hate people because of whom they love. We do violence against people because of the

  • affection that exists in their lives. The effects of that treatment are a far greater

  • moral tragedy than sex between consenting adults could ever be. And I'm not just talking

  • about the obvious casesgay bashing, the murder of Matthew Shepardyou don't need

  • me to tell you that that's wrong. I'm talking about all of the people living in silence

  • and in fear, all of the wasted talent and energy that goes to building up walls. Why?

  • Because somebody loves in a different way than other people do. That's terrible, and

  • I want it to stop. But, that takes moral conviction. You see, morality has a point. It's about

  • enabling us to flourish as human beings in a society where other people are trying to

  • do the same thing, and that's everybody's concernconservative, liberal, red state,

  • blue state. All of us have a responsibility to stand up for morality.

  • So, let me make myself very clear. I am not asking you to stop making moral judgments

  • or to keep your judgments to yourself. I'm all about the moral judgments. I'm asking

  • you to make sure you have reasons for the moral judgments that you make. I'm asking

  • you to put yourself in people's shoes before you judge them. And I'm asking you to judge

  • people not on whom they love but on whether they love. That's my moral vision. That's

  • my "agenda." And I thank you for listening to patiently to it tonight. You've been a

  • great audience. Thank you very much!

I want to start with a thought experiment. Suppose I told you that I'm imagining an activity

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it