The necessary conditions of a decent family life are the acknowledgment by its members that a man will not sleep with his daughter or a woman with her son and that neither will openly choose sex outside marriage.Now, some of these conditions are violated, but there is a penalty in each case that is supported by the moral convictions of almost all who witness the violation.
In Prager’s opinion and mine, people at the time of Moses, and for centuries before him, understood that there was a fundamental difference between whom you killed and what you ate, and in all likelihood people then and for centuries earlier linked whom you could marry closer to the principles that defined life than they did to the rules that defined diets.
The New Testament contains an equally vigorous attack on homosexuality by St. Sullivan partially deflects it by noting Paul’s conviction that the earth was about to end and the Second Coming was near; under these conditions, all forms of sex were suspect.
If so, since the United States Constitution has a clause requiring that “full faith and credit shall be given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state,” a homosexual couple in a state like Texas, where the population is overwhelmingly opposed to such unions, may soon be able to fly to Hawaii, get married, and then return to live in Texas as lawfully wedded.
A few scholars believe that states may be able to impose public-policy objections to such out-of-state marriages—Utah has already voted one in, and other states may follow—but only at the price of endless litigation.
He labels them prohibitionist, conservative, and liberal.
(A fourth camp, the “liberationist,” which advocates abolishing all distinctions between heterosexuals and homosexuals, is also described—and scorched for its “strange confluence of political abdication and psychological violence.”) I think it easier to grasp the origins of the three main arguments by referring to the principles on which they are based.That litigation may be powerfully affected by the second case. If its decision upholds the Colorado supreme court and thus allows homosexuals to acquire a constitutionally protected status, the chances will decline of successful objections to homosexual marriage based on considerations of public policy.It concerns a Colorado statute, already struck down by that state’s supreme court, that would prohibit giving to homosexuals “any claim of minority status, quota preferences, protected status, or claim of discrimination.” The U. Contemporaneous with these events, an important book has appeared under the title .” The two key areas where this change is necessary are the military and marriage law._____________ The second argument against homosexual marriage—Sullivan’s conservative category—is based on natural law as originally set forth by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and more recently restated by Hadley Arkes, John Finnis, Robert George, Harry V. How it is phrased varies a bit, but in general its advocates support a position like the following: man cannot live without the care and support of other people; natural law is the distillation of what thoughtful people have learned about the conditions of that care.The first thing they have learned is the supreme importance of marriage, for without it the newborn infant is unlikely to survive or, if he survives, to prosper.To this assault, natural-law theorists respond much as would the average citizen—never mind “utility,” what counts is what is right.In particular, homosexual uses of the reproductive organs violate the condition that sex serve solely as the basis of heterosexual marriage.But apart from this, Sullivan—an English Catholic, a homosexual, and someone who has on occasion referred to himself as a conservative—has given us the most sensible and coherent view of a program to put homosexuals and heterosexuals on the same public footing.His analysis is based on a careful reading of serious opinions and his book is written quietly, clearly, and thoughtfully.In many cultures—not only in Egypt or among the Canaanite tribes surrounding ancient Israel but later in Greece, Rome, and the Arab world, to say nothing of large parts of China, Japan, and elsewhere—homosexual practices were common and widely tolerated or even exalted. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.The Torah reversed this, making the family the central unit of life, the obligation to marry one of the first responsibilities of man, and the linkage of sex to procreation the highest standard by which to judge sexual relations. Sullivan acknowledges the power of Leviticus but deals with it by placing it in a relative context. Is it like killing your mother or stealing a neighbor’s bread, or is it more like refusing to eat shellfish or having sex during menstruation?