Sodom and Begorrah: the St. Patrick's day flap in New York was a clash between 'gay rights' and Catholic values; 'hate the sin but love the sinner' is now deemed insensitive; but what rights should homosexuals have?

NOTWITHSTANDING the old joke that an Irish homosexual is a man who prefers women to drink, a group of Irish gays and lesbians applied this year for an official presence in the St. Patrick's Day parade in New York. Resistance was interpreted by liberal politicians like Mayor David Dinkins as bigotry. It is better understood as instinctive resentment at being asked to bestow moral approval on the practice of homosexuality.

The St. Patrick's Day parade celebrates not only Irishness but Catholicism, which frowns on homoesexuality. No doubt many of the marchers privately do things incompatible with Catholicism, or merely irrelevant to it. But they do not seek to march behind banners such as "Irish Adulterers" or "Irish Stamp Collectors." Does homosexuality have any more to do with being Irish than stamp collecting or adultery?

The St. Patrick's Day controversy indicates that the demand for "gay rights" is essentially a demand for respect and approval rather than for rights. And it begins with numbers.

By some current estimates about 10 per cent of the male population in the Western world is homosexual. Homosexual groups tend to cite the higher figure, presumably because that makes homosexuality seem more acceptable. Other estimates go as low as 5 or 3 per cent. However, these are no more than guesses; and they refer to an average: the proportion in San Francisco may be higher; elsewhere it may be lower. About female homosexuality not enough is known even for a guess. Little is known as well about homosexuality in the non-Western world, or in the past. Further, homosexuality is vaguely defined: do we include only persons who have sexual activity with others of the same sex exclusively, or also those who do so preponderantly or just occasionally? (Perhaps the label "bisexual" better suits the last category.)

Has the proportion of homosexuals in the U.S. population increased recently? They certainly have become more visible. It is not possible, however, to determine whether the same number of homosexuals has become more visible, owing to recently lessened legal and social pressures, or whether the number has actually increased. Less pressure might lead some to activate homosexual inclinations which previously they did not avow even to themselves. There may be more homosexual activity, then, or just more open homosexual activity, or both.

Whatever its size, a homosexual minority is known to have existed in all societies throughout history. At times that minority was fully accepted; at other times merely tolerated, or even ferociously suppressed. Suppression reduces visibility; it also leads some to give up homosexual activity. Still, the most ferocious suppression, including the death penalty, has never stamped out homosexuality altogether.

Causes and Effects

WHAT causes homosexuality? And what causes the hostility of many heterosexuals? The simplest and, amongs homosexuals, the most popular theory explains that homosexuality is just as genetic as heterosexuality. There is indeed some evidence for genetic inheritance: identical twins separated at birth tend both to be either homosexual or heterosexual; babies with a homosexual natural father, adopted by heterosexual families, tend to become homosexual. This suggests a degree of genetic disposition, which, in some cases, seems to be sufficient to produce homosexuality. But the genetic disposition does not seem to be necessary or sufficient. Homosexuality occurs in families that have not known it before, and heterosexuality occurs in children of homosexuals.

If homosexuality were altogether genetic, its frequency would diminish over time. Homosexuals have fewer children than heterosexuals. Thus, the proportion of homosexuals in the population would diminish, if homosexuality were produced solely, or even mainly, by genetic factors. However, there is no indication of a smaller proportion of homosexuals. One must conclude that homosexual behavior depends partly on environmental influences, even if genetic dispositions play an as yet unquantified role.

We know very little about the early intrafamilial and later extrafamilial factors that may contribute to homosexual behavior. Theories abound, some quite plausible, but none fully demonstrated. A goodly proportion of homosexuality may be caused by very early imprinting in babies. But this is a possibility rather than a certainty. The most widely accepted theories postulate an unacceptable paternal figure, who is either too weak, or too punitive dominating, or too distant, combined with an overly possessive maternal figure on whom the infant comes to depend excessively for emotional support. There are many such constellations, but they are not found in all cases. Nor are narcissism or unconscious castration fears.

The American Psychiatric Association used to list homosexuality as a disease, although homosexuality does not shorten life, is not painful, and does not impair desired functions--which is what diseases do, by definition. The listing was a thinly disguised moral judgment. The recent delisting expressed a change in moral judgment. But it is justified also because there never was any clinical evidence for the disease listing. Psychiatrists should not make moral judgments disguised as medical ones.

Similarly, what is now called homophobia--namely, the dislike of homosexuals--is scarcely a phobia, i.e., a pathological fear. A phobia person suffers great anxiety in the presence of the object of his phobia, which he will try to avoid. Now, people who dislike homosexuals may be unsure of their own sexual identity, or may have made an adverse moral judgment on homosexuality, or may have an irrational prejudice against it. None of this phobic. "Homophobia" is also an illiterate coinage, which literally means fear of one's own kind, e.g., fear of homosexuals by homosexuals or of heterosexuals by heterosexuals, but not fear of the former by the latter.

Is homosexuality associated specifically with promiscuity? Some homosexuals have stable relations with each other just as married heterosexuals do. Others are moderately or extremely promiscuous. The most promiscuous homosexuals are the most highly visible, but seem also to constitute a higher proportion of homosexuals than of heterosexuals.

Higher promiscuous behavior is usually a symptom of a personality disturbance, most often compulsiveness. Some promiscuous persons hate their own behavior. Others make it the center of their life. Since homosexuality is not disease, it need not and cannot be "cured." However, when homosexual behavior is symptomatic of an underlying personality disturbance, treatment of that disturbance may lead to a change, including a change of the sexual object. In other cases, treatment may lead to the patient's fuller acceptance, with less conflict, of some homosexual pattern.

God's Will 

JUDAIC AND Christian Scriptural tradition condemsn homosexuality as contrary to God's will (there are some, rather strained, dissenting interpretations). Thus, the view of traditional believers is preordained: homosexual acts are sinful. Other traditions (including most legal ones) condemn homosexuality as contrary to nature. However, nature makes homosexuality possible (else there would be no problem) and can acquire the prescriptive authority ascribed to it only if it is believed to reveal the divine will. Thus "contrary to nature" is not essentially different from "contrary to God's will." This won't do for unbelievers; nor for a society legislating according to non-revealed secular principles.

Our Constitution is mute on homosexuality. The idea that we can read into it whatever is reasonable or fashionable, by interpreting "emanations," is unconvincing. Thus, if states prohibit sodomy they may be silly, but the Constitution does not prohibit silliness. We should vote against such prohibitions, however. Prohibition is unlikely to be effective, and consensual sodomy by adults at worst harms the participants, who ought to be free to harm themselves.

Admittedly, anal intercourse brings a high risk of infection with the AIDS virus. But this sexual practice is not always, nor exclusively, engaged in by homosexuals. Nor is it the only way in which the virus is transmitted. Homosexuals do, however, take the risk of anal intercourse more often than heterosexuals, and thus are more vulnerable to the disease. Nonetheless, AIDS is not a specific homosexual disease.

In short, society has no compelling interest that justifies prohibiting or even legislating about homosexuality. But this is only a partial answer to the question: How should we deal with homosexuals?

Homosexual groups demand "gay rights." To be sure, homosexuals should have the same civil rights as heterosexuals, which currently they do not in some instances. The military won't accept known homosexuals, contending that they would be disruptive, and that sexual liaisons would undermine discipline. Yet history suggests that homosexuals can make excellent soldiers. And the admission of women soldiers undermines the sexual rationale for excluding them. Hence there are no longer solid grounds for the exclusionary policy and it should be changed--not by the courts (constitutional grounds are doubtful) but by the executive or Congress.

Should there be, however, legal intervention to prohibit private discrimination? What about discrimination in employment or housing? Here, the question is one of need. There was good reason in the past for protecting blacks from discrimination. They often had to live in segreated areas, with little access to education and to desirable jobs. Their average income was low. But none of this applies to homosexuals. They do well in education, in the professions, in business and the arts. They do not have to live in segregated areas. Their income is not below average. To protect them by law against discrimination--as we currently do in New York--is not just unnecessary, but harmful. Legislation makes it harder to fire homosexuals for whatever reason, because they can claim illegal discrimination. Employers, therefore, will hesitate to hire them. Similarly, landlords will hesitate to rent to them. Most anti-discrimination legislation has such unintended effects. If is more advantageous to lawyers and politicians than to those it supposedly benefits.

The exclusion of homosexuals from some institutions is justifiable. If a church regards homosexuality as sinful, one should not demand that it hire practicing homosexuals. However, in non-religious institutions of higher learning, the sexual disposition of teachers and students is irrelevant to the educational tasks involved. College students should be adult enough not to be affected by the sexual inclinations of their teachers. Hence the exclusion of homosexuals is not justified, unless the college belongs to an exclusionary denomination.

Many colleges currently subsidize homosexual clubs and organizations. Instead, colleges should make sure that homosexuals can join the organizations for which they would ordinarily qualify. Subsidies should be available exclusively to organizations which cultivate the interests colleges exist to foster, such as science, literature, philosophy, etc. Sexual interests should be a private matter. It seems silly to make them one's main interest in life, even while in college, and even more silly for colleges to subsidize such distortions. However, purely social organizations ought to be allowed to be as selective as they wish. Freedom of association implies freedom of dissociation.

In primary and secondary education the situation is different. There is no evidence that homosexual teachers seduce minors more often than heterosexuals do. But teachers not only teach, but also serve as models for children. Therefore, parents should be able to exclude teachers whose conduct they regard as immoral. Consider a competent mathematics teacher who, in her free time, is known to work as a prostitute, in a state in which prostitution is legal. Parents will object, because they do not want their children to be taught by someone whose known sexual activities would make her unwelcome in their homes and who, they fear, may somehow influence their children by giving respectability to activities they regard as wrong. The case of the homosexual teacher does not seem to be all that different.

Courts have held, however, that a teacher is entitled to his job regardless of his sexual behavior outside the school. I think the courts are wrong. The right of parents not to have their children taught by persons whose conduct they abhor, and who they think will set a bad example for their children, ought to take precedence over anyone's right to be employed in a school. Reasonable parents may not always want to exercise their right. But they should retain it.

Activists occasionally complain that heterosexuals can marry each other, while homosexuals cannot. They see this as a disadvantage particularly with respect to inheritance and pensions of survivors. But marriage is a heterosexual institution, which exists largely to provide for the upbringing of the couple's children. Homosexual "marriage" would be an entirely different institution. Society simply does not have as great an interest in keeping homosexual couples together as it does in maintaining a stable family life for children.

Pensions for survivors exist to protect widows unaccustomed to gainful employment and their minor children. None of this applies to homosexual couples. As for inheritance, homosexual partners can make wills and leave whatever they wish to one another. ("Ah," the activist may object, "but not the apartment." However, homosexuals can bequeath their shared apartment to the surviving partner--if they own it--just as heterosexuals can. What if they just rent the apartment? A rented apartment belongs to the landlord. The tenant cannot leave it to anyone, because it is not his. To be sure, rent-control legislation often treats rented apartments as the property of the tenant and allows tenants to leave them to surviving spouses. That unwarranted discrimination against landlords should not be available to homosexual or heterosexual tenants.)

No-So-Hidden Agenda

BUT THE campaign for "gay rights" aims at more than rectification of specific forms of discrimination. The attempt to increase legal protection for homosexuals reflects a not-so-hidden agenda: to compel everybody to regard homosexuals as morally equal to heterosexuals, homosexuality as no less legitimate than heterosexuality. Can any laws accomplish this? Should they?

Homosexuality is not a disease (nor can it be labeled a preference; preferences are voluntary and homosexuality rarely is). Yet homosexuality is perceived by the majority of people as a defect. There is no way of showing that perception to be wrong. Compare homosexuality to a limp, acquired or inborn. The limping person may be a brilliant mathematician, philospher, artist, polician, businessman, or physician. He may be charming as well. Still, he will not do for baseball games and some other sports; nor will he be a good companion on long walks. For those to whom these things matter, his defect matters. Even for others it will matter at times, particularly when they are young.

Homosexuality is certainly not a physical defect. But in the eyes of most heterosexuals, it is a physchological one. Most if not all males, at the beginning of their sexuakl careers, are intimidated by, even fearful of, women. In time they overcome much of that fear. Heterosexuals feel that somehow homosexuals do not; and that they take the easy way out by turning to their own sex. There may be some truth to this vague and half-conscious theory, though it may explain more about heterosexual attitudes than about homosexual behavior.

At any rate, the belief does not mean that homosexuals are less good than heterosexuals. Despite his limp, a man may be a much better person than another who does not limp. However, the heterosexual belief means that, in the eyes of most heterosexuals, homosexuality is a physchological defect. Nothing will persuade heterosexuals to believe that homosexuality is physchologically or morally as legitimate as their own heterosexuality. They cannot be shown to be wrong, and they should not be compelled by law to act as if they were.

Mr. van den Haag is a Distinguised Scholar at the Heritage Foundation and a retired physchoanalyst.