Is Homosexual Conduct Wrong? A Philosophical Exchange.
Ediltns' mtle: Ihe folloxi'itig (irgiiuii'iiLs air oigans (ilbusband and wile [fally
laltt'ii from iwo le^al deposilioiis in Ihi'
recently cotichid/'d tvial in Dt'iii'ri: Colorado,
on lhe constiliitionfdily of Amendment 2,
which Ixirs locid ordinances prutcrling Iwmo-
sexnfds and Usbians from disaiminalion.
John Flnnis is a profexsor of law ul Oxffjrd
llniversiiy. Martha Nnsshaum, a frei/umi
T\'R contiilmtor. i.\ a profe.ssor af philo.softhy
at lirimni [•niversily.
Disintegrity
T hciiiidcriyingtiiought i.s on the fol-
lowing lines. Ill 111asiLii haling, as in
being nuistui bated or sodomized,
one's body is treated iis insirunuiual for
Llie seeming (tf lhe experieiiliiil satisl'ac-
lioii ofihe cou.sciotisseir. Thti.s one dis-
integiatesoiicscii'iii two ways. (/) by
Heating one's body as a mere insti itnieni
ol' ihc consciously operating sell', and
(2) by making one's choosing .sell' tJie
quasi-siave of the experiencing self
which is demanding gratification. The
worthlessness oi the giatificaiioii. and
the disintegration ofoneseU. are hoth
the result ol'the laci lhat, in these sorts
olbchavior. one's conciuci is not ihc
acluali/ing and experiencingi)ra real
common good. Marriage, witli its double
blessing—procri'alion and IVifiitlship—
is a real common good. Moreover, it is a
common good thai can be boili actual-
ized and experienced in lhe orgasmic
union ofihe reproductive organs nf a
man and a womnn united in commit-
mcnl to Lliatgood. tlonjugal scxLiiil activ-
ity, and—as Plato iind ,-\i islotle and
Plularch and Kant all argue—rt»/vconju-
gal activiiy is free fVom lhe shamcfiilness
ol'inslrumeniali/alion dial is [oiind in
masuirbaling and in being masliirbated
01 sodomized.
At the very hearl ofihe reflections of
Plaio. Xenophon. .\risioile. Musonius
Rufus and Plutarch on tlic homoeiotic
ciilitire around ilicin is the very deliber-
ate and careful jndgmeni that homosex-
ual continci (and indeed all extiaiiiiiriial
sexual gialiilcalion) is ladicaliy inca-
pable ol' parlieipaling in, or actualizing,
ibe common good (.jl'tVieiidsliip.
Friends who engage in sucb conduct
are i'oilowing a naiurai impuise and
douhiicss often wish lheir geuital con-
duct to he an intimate expression of
lheir miilual ai'fection. Bui tbev are
deceiving ibemscivt-s. The ^ucmpt lo
express affeciion i)\' orgasmic nonman-
tal sex is the pursuit ofan illusion. The
union of the reproductive
12 THE Ntiw REPUHUC NOVEMBER is. 1993
ity, an instantiation oracuializatioti ol
unilt's tbem biologically (and their bio-
logical reality is part oi. not merely an
instrument o(*, their///'nHJ/f//reality);
lhat orgasmic union therdore can actu-
alize and allow ihem to experience
tlieir real common good—lheir mar-
riage with tbe Iwo goods. (bildren and
friendship, which are the pajt-sofits
wholeness as an intelligihle common
good. But the common good orfriends
who are uot and aiiinol be mai ried
(man and man. man and IKA, woman
and woman) has nothing to do witli
their having children by each oLher.
and llieir reproductive organs cannot
makf them a biological {aiul tberefoi'c
a personal) unit. So their genilal acts
together canuot do what they may hope
and imagine.
In giving lheir citusideicd judgment
llial bomosexual conduci ciLimol actual-
ize tlie good oi'lViendsbip. Plato and the
many philosophers who followed him
intimate an answer to the questions why
it should hcconsiderfdslianifful louse,
oriillowanothei to use.one sbody to
give pleasure, and why this use oi'onc's
bo<iy difters ('rom one s hodiiy piu ticipa-
lion in countless other acliviiie.s (e.g.,
games) in which t)ne takes and/orgets
pleasure. Tlieir respon.sc is thai pleasure
isindfedagood, when it is lhe experi-
enced aspect of one's participali(jn in
some inlelligiblc good, such asaiask
going well, or a ganif or a dance or a
meal oi a reunion. Ol'course, llif actiVti-
tion ol'sexual orgaiiswith a\iew to the
pleasures oi'orgasni is sometimes spoken
of a.s if it were a game. But it diHiers from
real games in tliat its point is not lhe
exercise ofskiil: raibfr. this aciivatioii of
reproductive oi gaus is Incused tipon ihf
i:)O(ly precisely as a source oi' pleasure Ibr
one's consciousness. So ihis is a "use ol
the body" in a strongly diiicrent sense oi
"use."The body now is I'unctioningnot
in tbewayone, as a bodily person, acis to
instantiate some other intelligible good,
bill precisely as providing a ser\ice to
one's consciousness, lo satish' one's
desire for satisfaction.
Tbis disintegriLy is much nioreoljvi-
ouswben masturbation issoliuu).
Fiiends arc tempted to think that plea-
sm'ingeach other by some forms of
mutual masturbation cotild be an instan-
liation or actualization oi'promotion of
their IVien(isbi[). lim ibat line of ibougbi
ovcrlot)ks tlic lai t tbal if tlieir friendship
is nol marital... activation of their
reproductive organs caiinoi be. in real-
their friendsbi|)"sf;ommon good. In ri'al-
ily, whatever the generous bopes and
dreams wilh which lhe loving paiiners
surround their use oi their genitais, that
use cannot express more than is ex-
pressed if two .suangcTS engage in geni-
tal activity to give each other orgasm, or
a prostitute pleasures a client, or a man
pleasures himself. Hence. Plato's judg-
ment, al tlie decisive moment of the (iiir-
^ns. that llierc isn()ini[)oilaul distinc-
tion in essential moral woriblessness
between soliiary maslurhatioii, being
sodomized as a pi ostituttr and beiug
sodomi/ed for the pleasure ofil
Societies sucb as classical Athens and
contenipoiiiry Kngland {and virtually
every olher) draw a distinction between
behavior i'ound ineielv (perhaps
extremely) oiTensive (sticli as eating
excrement) and beliavior Ui be repudi-
ated as desiructive oi human character
and relationships. Copulation of
humans with animals is repudiated
because il ireals human sexual activity
andsalisfaclion itssomclbingappropi'i-
alelysouglu iu a manner' ibal. like the
coupling (if auinials, is divorced iVom ibe
expressing oi'an inielligible common
good—and so treats liunian hodiiy life,
in one ofiis most intense aciixities, as
merely animal. The deliberale genital
cotipling of persons of the same sex is
repudiated tbra very similar reason. It is
not simply thai it is sterile and disposes
lbe participants Loan abdication of
rcsponsiliiliLy Ibr the I'titure of
htimaiikind. Nor is it simply lhat it can-
not rm//)'actualize the miilual devotion
thai some liomosexual persons hope lo
iTianifest and experience by it; nor
merely ibal il harms ibc personalities oi
its partic ipanis by ils disintegrative
nianipulaticinofclifierent parts of lheir
one personal reality. It is al.so that it treats
human sexual capacities in away tliat is
deeply hostile to theself-understimding
of those members of the community wbo
are willing locomniil themselves to r<'al
marriage [even <ine that happens to be
sterile] in ihe undetsianding tbat ils sex-
ual joys are not mere insti unientsor
accompanimenis to. or mere compensa-
tion ibr, the accomplishmonis oiinar-
riage's responsibilities, liut ralher are lhe
aclufdizing and fixpmeticinfrof lhe iiuelli-
gent conunilnient to share in tbose
responsibililies ...
This pattern ol judgment, boib
widespread and sound. c<)ncludes as fol-
lows. Homosexual orientation—the
deliix-rafe wiiiiiigness to promote and drus points to the militarv advantages acter. Like Pausanias in Plato's S\mp{h
engage in homosexual acts—is a stand- deri\ed In including homosexual tou- siiim, .\iistotle is critical of relationships
ing denial oi liie intrinsic aptness oi |)les in a lighting tone: het ause of their that arc superficial and concerned only
sexual inlertoiu'se lo actuali/e luid give intense lo\f, each will fight better, wish- wilb hodiiy pleasure; I>ut he Inids in
expression io tb<- exchisiveness and ing to sliow himself in lhe besi light nmlc-nialc relalionships—including
opeti-ended commiuiient o( marriage before his lover. Tlie speech ol Patisa- many iliat l>egin in this way—the poien-
as something good in iiseli'. .-^11 wbo nias criticizes males who seek physical tiiil for much richer developments.
accepl that liomosexual arts can l>e a pleasure alone in iheir homijsexual

T
humanly appropriate tis<- of sexual iclationsliips, ;uid praises those who he ideal city of ihc Greek Stoics was
capacities nitisi. if consisU'ni, regard seek in sex deeper spii-iuial fommuiiica- biiili around lhe idea of pairs ol"
sexual capacities, organs and acts as lion. Pausanias menlions ihat niants male lovers whose- bonds gave the
iiisirument.s to be put to whatever suils will sometimes promulgate the view that cit\ rich sourcesoiniotivation iorviitue.
lhe purposes ofihe iiuiividiial "seli" same-sex relations are shameiul in .Although the Sioics wished lheir "wise
wiio has thciii. Such an acceptance is order to discourage the kind of tommu- man" to eliminate most passions from his
(ommonly (and in my opinion rightly) nity of dedication to political liberty life, they encouraged bim lo Ibsier a type
judged to be an active threat to the sta- thai such relations foster. The speech of oi'erotic love ihal they defined as "the
bilitv of existing and future marriages; Aristophanes holds that all human attempt to ibrni a friendship inspired hv
it makes nonsense, ibr example, of the l>eings are disided hahes oi" iornierlv the pcrceivc'd hcaiitv (tf young men in
view thai aduiier\ is per se (and not whole lu-ings, and thai sexual <lesire is ihfir piime."Tliev held that tins love,
merely betause ii mav involve decep- the pursuit of one's losi oiher hall; he unlike olher passions, was supportive of
tion), and in an imporiani way, incoii- poinls out that tbe superior [x-ople in \ii llie and philosophical activitv.
slsteiit with conjugal love. A political ;ui\ society are those whose lost "otliei Ftulliermore. Finniss argument, in
communiiv thai judges that lhe stability hail" is of lhe same sex—especially the his article against homosexuality, is a
and edutative generosilv oi'family lii'e is niaic-male pairs—siiue these are likel\ bad moral argumeni hy any .standard,
ori'undaiiu'utal imporiance lo the com- tt> be tbe sirongest and most warlike secular of theological. First of all. il
munitv's [jresenl aiid luluie can rigbllv and civieally minded people. Finally. assumes that tbe purpose of a bomosex-
judge llial il has a compelling interest Socrates"s speech recounts a pio( ess oi' ual act is always c)r usuallv casual bodilv
in dcn\ing ibai homosexual conduct is religious-nnslical education in wbi( h pleasure and the instrumental use of
a valid, humanly acceptable choice and male-male loxe plays a central guiding another person ior one's owii gratiilca-
form of liie, and in doing whatever it role and is a primary source of insight tion. ]M\\ ibis is a I'alse premise, easily
properly can, as a communiiy with and inspiraiion into tlie nature ol tbe disproved bv lhe long bistorical tradi-
uniqueiv wide inu siill suhsidiaiy func- good and heautifui. tion I have described and by the con-
tions, lo discourage such conduct. Plato's Phaedrus contains a doselv temponu^ lives of real men and
related praise of the intelltctual. politi- women. Fiiinis oiVers uo e\idence for
lOHN FiNNIS cal and spiriiual benelils oi'a Hie ccii- ibis pr'-niise, or for (he equally false
ifred aiound male-nialc love. Plalo savs idc-a lhat [jrocreative relations cannot
Integrity ihai the highesi Ibrin oi himian liie is be selilsh aud manipuiative. Second,
one in which a male pursues "the love iiaving argued that a relatioiisiiij) is bel-
iniiis s argtimenis againsi homt)se\- ofa young man along with philfisophy." ler if il seeks not casual pleasure bin the

F uality sci themselves in a tradition

derives irom ancient tireek traditions.
and is transported hy passionate desire. creation of a community, he then
of "naiiiral law" argumentation tbal Me dcs( ribes ibe experience of falling assumes without argument lhat the only
in love wilh anothe r male in mo\ing
The lerm "law < >f nature" was (irsi used terms, and tlei'ends relationships ihat
son of conimiiuiiy a sexual relationship
can create is a "procieative coinnuuiiiy."
b\ i'lato in his f^^^r^VjA. The approach is are nuUiial and leciprtical o\er relation- Tliis is. oi'coui"se. plainly false. .A sexual
furtlierde\elopedby.\iisiotle, and, ships thai are one-sided, He depicts bis relaiit>nsbi() may create, qtiite apart
above all, hv the Greek and Roman Sto- pairs of lo\frs as spending their liie from tbe possibility oi'procreation, a
ics, who are tisuallv considered to he the together in the pursuit oi intellec tual communitv oi'love and frientlship.
foimdersof natural law argumcntiUioii and spiritual activities, combined with which no religious iracliiion would deny
in lhe modern l<-gal tradilion. through political participation, (.\lthough no lo be important human goods, hideed,
ibcir inlluend'on Roman law. This mai liages for ibese lovers are men- in many moral tradiiions, including
being so, it isworib looking to see lioned. il was LIU" view oi'ihe time tbat lliose of Plato aud Aiisiotle, ihc procre-
whether those traditions did in fact use this form oi'life does not prevent iis ative communiiy is ranked beneaih
"natural law" arguments to rule homo- participants iVoni having a wile ai other communiiies created bv sex. since
sexual conduct morally or legally sub- iioiiie. whom they saw onh rareiy and it is thought tliat the procreative com-
standai'd. for procreative purposes.) mtmity will piobabh noi be based on
Plalo's dialogues contain several Aristotle speaks iar less ahout sexual the besi sort of liieudship and lhe
exiiemely moving celel)rations of male- love than dtjes Plato, hut it is evident deepc;si spiritual concerns. Thai may
male love, and judge this form of h»e tliai he too linds in mal<--male relation- not be true in a culture that values
lo I>e, on the whole. Mi|><-rioi" to male- ships llic potential ioi the highesi form women more highly ihan ancieni Greek
female love bctiuise ol ils potential for of fiicndship. a iriciulshi]) based on culture did; but ihc' possibilily of love
spirituality and triendsbip. The Sympo- mutual wc-ll-wisbing and muiiial aware- and (Vic nclsbip helwc-en individuals of
sinrii contains a series oi speeches, each ness oi'good (baraciei and good aims. lhe same sex has not i)een removed by
expressing ronveniionai views about He does not iind this poicniial in male- iliesc historical changes.
this subject that Plato depicts in an ibni;ile relationships, since he holds
appealing light, fhe speech by Phae- that iemales are incapable of good char M.ARrHA Nl SSHAtM

NOVEMBER 15, 1993 THE N K W RhPLBLIC 13