Jim Andris, Facebook

Homosexuality and morality

By Jim Andris, For The Alestle

People typically think of morality as the most commonly held values of a culture, or as a set of beliefs about a Supreme Being, and what He deems is right. Philosophers and psychologists have a different definition of morality, however. R.M. Hare, in his book Freedom and Reason defines the moral point of view as involving the principle of universalizability. This principle is very slmllar to the Golden Rule. It says that people
should behave toward others as they would expect people to behave if they were in oher person's shoes. On this principle, people who condemn homosexuality should do so only if they would want to be condemned if they were homosexual. Due to their upbringing,.many non-homosexuals have never tried to put themselves in that position.

A developmental psychologist by the name of Lawrence Kohlberg calls this kind of reasoning post-conventional. He finds that most adults, however, reason at the conventionaI level. A characteristic of conventional reasoning is to condemn any behavior that is not socially acceptable. Another kind of reasoning characteristic of conventional thinking is the Domino theory. That is the belief "you give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile." One frequently hears this kind of argument against homosexualityor any discriminated group.

Kohlberg has studies to show that people do tend to reason at higher and higher moral levels as they develop. But in order for people to attain post-conventional reasoning, they must discuss controversial issues with other people. Otherwise they remain at an authority maintaining level of reasoning. Many of the defenses of Rich- ard Nixon before he resigned were conventional defenses. "We can't impeach him, be- cause he's the President."

People who use religious arguments against homosexuality sometimes come from a conventional level. Now that homosexuals have organized their own churches, however, it can be viewed as immoral to deny them that right. That is, this country has a history of religions toleration. We have never permitted the beliefs in one religion to dictate what another religious denomination can or cannot do. The First Amendment of the Constitution has consistently been inter-preted from a post-conventional position—no matter how unpopular a religious group was, they have been permitted their freedom.

It is likely, however, that homosexuals can expect resistance from the conventional segment of the population, just as blacks and women have experienced resistance. The 1954 Supreme Court decision banning school segregation as inherently unequal was made from a post-conventional viewpoint, as have many of the greal moral decisions of the courts in this country, including the one against slavery. It takes a longtime, however for such post-conventional decisions at the level of law to become accepted by the more conventional society. Homosexuals have a Iong way to go in their fight for rights, because the courts lag behind in this matter.