DEBATING THE GAY ISSUE : Religion Has No Corner on Morality : There is no non-religious reason to treat homosexuality differently.

Religion has always presented varying and sometimes conflicting recommendations about right and wrong. Within the context of each religion, these are commands to believers about moral action.

But morality is not necessarily a religious inquiry. Morality is essentially an agreement about how it is best to act, something that civilized society requires and formalizes in its law. We charge our government to make decisions about what behavior we can accept in our pluralistic society and what should be punished. A society may legitimately disagree with a religion about some acts without being immoral, just as religions may disagree among themselves.

The First Amendment guarantees that, while religion is assured a place in our nation, no religion can foreclose a civic debate about morality. The end result of our secular moral debate--the law and other public-policy decisions that government makes--is the product of as much controversy and discussion as possible, including, but by no means limited to, religious input. The rules governing our actions have to be debated by all citizens, believers and non-believers alike, since the rules will apply to all. When the law becomes necessary to guide behavior, it must be justified by articulated secular reasoning.

That is not what is happening with regard to homosexuality. Seldom, if ever, does anyone object to equal legal treatment of lesbians and gay men on non-biblical grounds. When concerned religious bodies assert that homosexuality is immoral, they mean that in their particular theology it is wrong. That may be arguably correct in a religious context, but it is not enough in a civil society.

In fact, there is no non-religious reason to treat homosexuality differently than heterosexuality under civil law. The primary secular arguments about sexual conduct are related to two ideas: procreation and promiscuity. But when examined, they don’t support treating lesbians and gay men any differently than heterosexuals.

The first argument usually relies on biblical teachings: Because sex between members of the same gender is not procreative, it is wrong. Where a society is in danger of becoming extinct, this is simply common sense, and applies to all forms of non-procreative sex equally, including the many forms of non-procreative heterosexual intercourse, which we do not find wrong in the law. In the face of extinction, it does not take reference to any theological teaching to see the value of procreation.

Modern society, though, is not faced with any likelihood of having too few people. It is partly for this reason that we do not place an obligation on heterosexuals to reproduce. In fact, the U.S. Constitution has long prohibited the states from making contraceptives unavailable. Yet we hold same-sex couples in contempt for not being procreative. Aside from the religious proscription, no reason is offered for this different treatment.

The second argument for societal interest, promiscuity, is equally without a base in the civil law for singling out homosexuals. Whatever concerns promiscuity gives rise to, they are not exclusive to any sexual orientation. If there is public anxiety, for example, that sexually transmitted disease will become uncontrollable if people are allowed to be promiscuous, that concern applies to heterosexuals as well.

A third rationale opposing homosexuality, often argued in the context of family values, is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. That bare statement is justifiable on secular grounds, since breaking a vow involves genuine moral questions about such core values as trust, loyalty, honesty and honor.

But as applied to same-sex couples, this argument is nothing more than circular reasoning linked to a self-fulfilling prophecy. If marriage is defined, as it is in California, as being restricted to opposite-sex couples, than the law has foreclosed any possibility that same-sex couples will be able to meet the only available test of morality. Again, the moral question becomes homosexuality’s lack of procreative potential. But, as lesbians and gay men are more frequently asking, if heterosexuals may decide to marry and not have children, why should same-sex marriage be prohibited, except as a reason to discriminate against homosexuals?

By uncritically accepting religious arguments opposing homosexuality, it is easy to obstruct the secular debate that we are required to conduct on behalf of all our citizens, heterosexual and homosexual, religious, irreligious or indifferent. Our law reflects a democratic morality. Religions are free to debate their own positions on this subject, but their views should not be used to limit the arguments that will justify the laws we have all agreed to live by.