Flada Blog

I’m sure that by now all of you have heard about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Peter Pace’s public soul-searching about homosexuals and their acts. In the unlikely event you haven’t, I’ll get you up to speed.

In a March 12, 2007, discussion with editors of the Chicago Tribune, Gen. Pace said, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts…I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way…As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy.” Pace believed such conduct should be subject to military discipline, as it was analogous to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member; “We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” Pace said. In the same discussion, however, Pace also said that he supports the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the Pentagon, in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private.

Now, with great difficulty, I’m going to refrain from commenting that the good General himself has the look of one who’s a bit “light in the loafers.” This blog isn’t about ad hominem attacks, after all. Besides, the General has a wife and two grown kids and throughout history gays have never tried to cover up their nature. Instead, this article is going to ask the question, “Are homosexual acts actually immoral?” To properly answer that, lets get some definitions of the word immoral.

From Encarta:

mor·al

adjective
Definition:

1. involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individual people should behave

2. derived from personal conscience: based on what somebody’s conscience suggests is right or wrong, rather than on what rules or the law says should be done

3. according to common standard of justice: regarded in terms of what is known to be right or just, as opposed to what is officially or outwardly declared to be right or just
a moral victory.

4. encouraging goodness and decency: giving guidance on how to behave decently and honorably

5. good by accepted standards: good or right, when judged by the standards of the average person or society at large

6. able to tell right from wrong: able to distinguish right from wrong and to make decisions based on that knowledge

7. based on personal conviction: based on an inner conviction, in the absence of physical proof
moral certainty

Seven whole definitions. Do you know what this means? It means you’d better brace yourself for a long article. Actually, I’ll focus on two definitions to make it a little easier to digest. Since definitions 1 and 5 deal with morality in a broad sense and the others tend to define it on a more personal level, I’ll focus on those. After all, personal opinions aren’t a good basis for laws (or military policy for that matter).

Relating to Issues of Right and Wrong

In order for homosexual acts to be immoral under this definition, we would all have to agree on what constitutes “right” and “wrong.” Some people believe that a mythological creature called God sat down with a few men a long time ago and dictated books to them. They believe that this mythological creature is the arbiter of good and evil and his definitions are plainly written in The Bible. And you pretty much have to give them this one, because the first half of their tome is pretty clear on God’s distaste for homosexual acts. On the other hand, the first half of the ancient scripts also has a lot of talk about ritual human and animal sacrifices, rapes, slavery, and other atrocities that it considers good. So, to me, it clearly isn’t a good place to look when trying to decide what is good and evil.

A more naturalistic approach to good and evil would be something along the lines of “good are acts that lead to the most general happiness, well-being, and peace among individuals and, since society is composed of individuals, mankind; whereas evil are those things that lead to the most suffering and despair.” Freedom, liberty, and minding-your-own-damned-business are therefore good, but those are mostly topics for another time.

Anyway, since homosexual acts don’t really concern anyone other than the homosexuals who participate, they have virtually no impact on general happiness, well-being, and peace. On the contrary, those busybodies who hope to control individual liberty and tell homosexuals that they are evil and their method of love is unacceptable are responsible for increased suffering and despair.

By definition #1, it would seem that homosexual acts are not immoral.

Accepted Standards of Society

I actually like this definition a lot more than the first one because the root of the word moral is mores. Encarta defines mores as “established customs: the customs and habitual practices that a group of people accept and follow, especially as they reflect moral standards.” It’s easy to see why this is a much better definition.

On the other hand, it’s a harder one to defend against because throughout Western history since the division of the Roman Empire we have been dominated by the Christian and equally oppressive religions. Societies prior to that often accepted homosexuality–Classic Greece is among the examples.

This definition necessarily leads to a moral relativism. That is to say, morals change based on the beliefs of a majority (or a vocal minority). This is one good reason why laws should be designed to protect individuals rather than to enforce morality. Things that are good for individuals don’t change, but opinions of people can swing with the winds.

It also becomes clear when looking at this definition of morality, that it has nothing to do with right and wrong. Right and wrong doesn’t change.

So how do we figure out if homosexual acts are immoral when using this definition? Simple, look around, stick your wet finger in the air and see whether they are accepted. I’d venture that such acts are much more widely accepted than just a few short years ago. So, that means homosexual acts are becoming moral if you accept moral-relativism.

Either way I look at it, homosexuality appears to be moral. What do you think?