PERSPECTIVES ON GAY RIGHTS : Biblical Roots of Right and Wrong : Even if homosexuality is inborn, society isn’t required to accept it as the moral equal of heterosexuality.

Advocates of religious acceptance of homosexuality say that while the Bible is morally advanced in some areas, it is morally regressive in others. Its condemnation of homosexuality is cited as one example, and the Torah’s acceptance of slavery as another. Far from being immoral, however, the Torah’s prohibition of homosexuality was a major part of its liberation of humans from the bonds of unrestrained sexuality--by channeling their sexuality exclusively into heterosexuality and marriage--and of women from being peripheral to men’s lives. As for slavery, while the Bible declares homosexuality “an abomination,” it never declares slavery good. If it did, I would have to reject the Bible as a document with moral relevance to our times.

Another argument advanced by gays is that the Bible prescribes the death penalty for a multitude of sins, including such seemingly inconsequential acts as gathering wood on the Sabbath. The answer is that we do not derive our approach toward homosexuality only from the fact that the Torah made it a capital offense. We learn it from the fact that the Bible makes a moral statement about homosexuality. It makes no such statement about gathering wood on the Sabbath.

The most frequent argument, though, is that homosexuals have no choice. To many people this claim is so emotionally powerful that no further reflection seems necessary. But even if we hold that homosexuals have no choice, we will have to conclude that nature or early nurture has foisted upon some people a tragic burden. How to deal with a tragic burden, however, is a very different question from whether Judaism, Christianity and Western civilization should drop their heterosexual marital ideal.

We could conceivably hold that while heterosexual sex ought to be society’s ideal, society should not discriminate against homosexuals. This solution, while tempting, is not as tidy as it sounds. More than other issues, homosexuality seems to force one into an extreme position. Either you accept homosexuality completely or you end up supporting some form of discrimination. The moment you hesitate to sanction homosexual marriage or homosexual men as Big Brothers to young boys or the ordaining of avowed homosexuals, you have agreed to discrimination against homosexuals. And then the ACLU, gay activists and others will lump you with the religious right wing.

This is why many liberals find it difficult not to side with all the demands of gay activists. They fear being lumped with right-wingers. And they loathe the thought of discriminating against minorities. Gay activists have depicted themselves as a persecuted minority, and this label tugs at the conscience of moral individuals, both liberal and conservative. But gays are not a persecuted minority in the same way that, say, blacks have been. Sexual lifestyle is qualitatively different from skin color.

Blacks have been discriminated against for what they are and homosexuals have been discriminated against for what they do. This in no way exonerates gay-bashing or gay-baiting, let alone such evils as the Nazi or communist incarcerations of gays. But it does mean that a moral distinction between discrimination against behavior and discrimination against color is possible. For example, there is no moral basis to objecting to blacks marrying whites, but there is a moral basis for objecting to homosexual marriage.

Gay activists and some liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union argue for the right of homosexuals to marry. They say that society should not deny anyone the right to marry, and that if homosexuals were given the right to marry, they would be considerably less likely to cruise.

The first argument is specious because there is no “right to marry.” Society does not allow marriage to more than one partner at a time or to a member of one’s immediate family. The second argument may have some merit, and insofar as homosexual marriages would decrease promiscuity among gay men, it would be a positive development for both gays and society. But such an effect would be unlikely. The male propensity to promiscuity would simply overwhelm most homosexual males’ marriage vows. It is women who keep most heterosexual men monogamous, or at least far less likely to cruise, but gay men have no such brake on their cruising natures. This is proved by the behavior of lesbians, who, though also prevented from marrying each other, are not promiscuous.

Just as we owe homosexuals humane, decent and respectful conduct, they owe the same to the rest of us. Homosexuals’ use of the term “homophobic,” however, violates this rule as much as heterosexuals’ use of the term “faggot” does. When the term “homophobic” is used to describe anyone who believes that heterosexuality should remain Western society’s ideal, it is a contemporary form of McCarthyism. In fact, it is more insidious. “Homophobia” masquerades as a scientific description but does not exist in any medical list of phobias.

Finally, those who throw around the term “homophobic” ought to recognize the principle of what goes around comes around. Shall we label male homosexuals “women-phobic” and “vagina-phobic” and lesbians “men-phobic” and “penis-phobic”? It makes as much sense, and it is just as filthy a tactic. There are many good people who care for homosexuals, and yet fear the chiseling away of the West’s family-centered sex-in-marriage ideal. They merit debate, not name-calling.