J. Jordan on Homosexuality & Discrimination

Two views to consider:

• THE PARITY THESIS: Heterosexuality and homosexuality are morally equivalent, and it is wrong to discriminate against a homosexual simply for being homosexual.

• THE DIFFERENCE THESIS: Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not morally equivalent, and there are some circumstances where it is not wrong to discriminate against a homosexual simply for being homosexual.

Definition of "discrimination" is important here: it doe not assume that all discrimination is wrong! It means to treat someone unfavorably compared to others.

WHY should we adopt the parity thesis? Are there RIGHTS involved that would support this? No clear way to appeal to any specific rights that would settle things.

HOWEVER, the following argument is plausible: Private behavior that harms no one should be respected in order to maximize individual freedom; discrimination based on private sexual behavior reduces individual freedom, therefore the parity thesis is correct (at least concerning consenting behavior in private).

THE MORAL IMPASSE PROBLEM

Is there a PUBLIC dimension to private behavior? Yes, sometimes, particularly when one group morally differs from another group and wants government to prohibit a behavior. Example: Prohibition of alcohol.

JORDAN'S ASSUMPTION: Government should "take sides" only if there is some "overriding reason," that is, a government purpose besides the mere need to settle a controversy. (Example: where rights are being violated, the government SHOULD take sides. Eliminating slavery was the right thing to do.) On the other hand, government intervention is not appropriate in every case of "immorality." There had better be a serious moral impasses that is having negative consequences by its lack of resolution.

THE SITUATION WITH RESPECT TO HOMOSEXUALITY: Many people regard it as immoral on religious grounds, and this is not going to change. Against this, many people endorse moral "parity," and THEIR view is unlikely to change. So we have moral impasse.

To prohibit discrimination would be to side with the second group, leaving the impasse unresolved in any real way.

This is particularly true where a PUBLIC GOOD is attached to private behavior, such as marriage. TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WOULD BE TO ENDORSE ONE GROUP (those who see no basis for discrimination here). But why should we endorse the view of the minority by linking a public policy to their private lives? SINCE THE DIFFERENCE THESIS IS ALREADY IN PLACE, GOV'T SHOULD LEAVE IT ALONE. Homosexuality is "accommodated" sufficiently by allowing it to take place in private life.

KEY TO THE ARGUMENT: There is no overriding reason to reject the status quo.

THEREFORE we should reject the parity thesis: WE SHOULD DISCRIMINATE WHEN IT COMES TO MARRIAGE.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PARITY: Homosexuality is "inborn" (it's not a personal choice) and it's wrong to discriminate against what's inborn. (This is why racism is wrong)

RESPONSE: The objection is not to inborn status; it is an objection to a behavior that people can, in fact, refrain from. There is no reason to legally protect and sanction PREDISPOSITIONS.

 SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST PARITY

Religious freedom is more important than equal access to marriage, and to allow same-sex marriage would be to interfere with religion by requiring large numbers of people to violate their religious convictions.

EXAMPLE: To require an employer to pay for health benefits of gay marriage partners will for them to subsidize and thus support a gay relationship. (And there's no obvious way to give objectors an "exit right" here)

UNLESS the state can provide an "exit right," state support of same-sex marriage is a reduction of religious freedom. Discrimination against gays who want to marry is less troubling than the alternative.