Questioning the unquestionable: Homosexuality and Princeton's gay movement

There is perhaps no issue, from abortion to race relations, where we forget the virtues of free and open discussion more quickly than when it comes to the question of homosexuality. The orthodox view on campus holds that homosexuality is natural and that acting on homosexual inclinations is morally permissible. This was the assumption in much of The Daily Princetonian's five-part series on the subject and the unreflective mantra of last week's "Pride Week" sponsored by the Pride Alliance.

There are powerful arguments, however, that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, and that, irrespective of homosexuality's psychological status, a gay lifestyle is immoral and destructive of both individuals and families. But in many cases, anyone who publicly makes either of these arguments is labeled as a "homophobe" or a bigot.

When he responded to the uproar following the appointment of Peter Singer, President Harold Shapiro wrote that the purpose of a university is "to ask the most difficult and fundamental questions about human existence, however uncomfortable this may be." We do this "by assuring a forum for the free and open consideration of ideas, even when some of these ideas make some — or even most — of us uncomfortable. We insist upon civility in debate and respect both for evidence and for the rights of others, but within this context we regard debate and controversy as healthy and invigorating." I suspect that most would agree in principle with President Shapiro's defense of free intellectual inquiry, but in practice, when it comes to homosexuality, it gets selective application.

The Princeton Office for Religious Life provides a good example. For instance, a priest or minister's understanding of homosexuality serves as a tacit litmus test for being appointed to the position of dean, despite the fact that non-revisionist Christian, Jewish and Islamic moral theology has always viewed homosexual acts as intrinsically immoral. Only after the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s have some mainline Protestant denominations and reform Judaism begun to change their teachings on homosexuality. The University effectively excludes any faithful Roman Catholic, Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Christian or Evangelical Christian from ever being a dean of religious life.

The same goes for student positions. In the Sexuality Education Counseling and Health Services (SECH) and Residential Advising programs, I doubt that any student from one of these religious traditions (as well as from Orthodox Judaism) who was forthright about his beliefs would be accepted as an advisor.

Theological views of homosexuality are not the only ones stifled. In scientific psychology the story is similar. I do not know of any classes offered by the psychology department that seriously consider, for example, the questionable history of homosexuality's "normalization" by the American Psychological Association (APA). Until 1973 the APA classified homosexuality as a treatable psychiatric disorder. Against the advice of experts in the treatment of homosexuals, the APA board sent a letter to members asking them to vote to remove homosexuality from the catalogue of disorders. It was only after a majority followed the board's advice on reclassification that the origins of the board's letter came to light. The letter was not based on any new medical or scientific information, but in fact was written and funded by a lobbying group called the National Gay Task Force.

In addition to psychological arguments, and independent of any appeals to religion, the natural law tradition of philosophy argues that homosexual acts are irrational and harmful to the human person. With the notable exception of Robert George of the Politics Department, Princeton has scant discussion in this area as well. George and others, such as John Finnis of Oxford, hold that homosexual acts instrumentalize those involved and damage their integrity as unified human persons. Genuine marital sex recognizes the biological, intellectual, and spiritual unity of the person, while homosexual acts disintegrate the person by treating the body as an instrument to be used by the consciously experiencing self.

These arguments about the nature of homosexuality and homosexual acts — religious, psychological and philosophical — are subtle and complex. The point here is merely to demonstrate that there are reasonable arguments not founded on knee-jerk repugnance or misunderstanding. The difficulty of this issue and the intensely personal commitments of those involved only reinforce the need for an honest, fair and sustained conversation with all sides represented. This means that homosexuals should be treated with the profound respect and compassion that should characterize the treatment of any person, no matter who he is. Also, it means that those who argue that homosexuality is a disorder or that the gay lifestyle is immoral should be taken seriously, without name-calling or intolerance. Reasonable people can disagree over whether these arguments are persuasive, but reasonable people cannot refuse to consider them in the first place. Matt O'Brien is a philosophy major from Swarthmore, PA. He can be reached at mobrien@princeton.edu.