I feel compelled to respond to the arguments proffered in Professor Katz’s “In Defense of Homophobia,” which he recently reiterated in his Sept. 28 letter to the editor. In that letter, Katz states that Jeff Stepp’s original editorial espouses a dislike for Katz’s essay, but doesn’t state any specific grounds for disagreement. Apparently, Katz is so sure of himself that he can neither imagine contrary viewpoints nor recognize the logical fallacies that pepper his essay. Perhaps we should start a list of the many things wrong with Katz’s essay.
First, Katz begins his argument by defining homophobia as “a moral judgment that homosexual behavior [most of the arguments in this essay refer specifically to male homosexual behavior] is wrong.” From the outset, I have to wonder why Katz includes this qualification in his definition. Katz cites religious prohibitions of homosexual behavior to support his argument, but those same religious authorities do not discriminate on the basis of gender as Katz does in his essay. All same-sex partnerships are condemned in the eyes of the church whether they are between lesbians or gay men. Yet, one wonders why gay males are the focus of Professor Katz’s attack. Perhaps, like most homophobes, gay male sexuality repulses Katz, but he doesn’t mind the occasional bout of hot girl-on-girl action. If Katz is going to espouse such hateful rhetoric, perhaps he should at least explain the apparent inconsistencies in his bigotry.
Another problem arises in Katz’s implicit treatment of gay sex acts as forms of behavior specific to a particular sexual orientation. Katz doesn’t specify the acts that he has in mind, but surely he understands that there is nothing about fellatio or anal intercourse that identifies it necessarily as homosexual behavior. Plenty of heterosexual couples engage in these behaviors, often without the use of condoms.
From a health perspective, unprotected fellatio or anal sex entails roughly the same risks for transmission of HIV regardless of whether the couple engaged in these activities is heterosexual or homosexual. Professor Katz might counter that homosexual behaviors are merely members of a larger class of sexual acts that he deems morally wrong. Fine, but if that is the case, why entitle your essay “In Defense of Homophobia”? Why not “A Moral Critique of Sodomy”? Or “In Defense of Vanilla Sex”? Or “In Praise of the Missionary Position”?
Most troubling is Katz’s claim that the human body was not designed to engage in homosexual acts, and that consequently, “engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet.” In making this argument, Katz has disingenuously shifted the terrain from a causal argument to one involving analogy. In essence, Katz draws a comparison between the aforementioned forms of behavior. But this simply begs a larger question about his reasoning: are they really the same?
One important difference between the two involves the issue of foreknowledge and moral culpability. Put simply, the problem is this: can one be held morally accountable for negative consequences if one is unable to foresee the likelihood that a deleterious outcome will occur? Almost every moral system in the world requires such knowledge of potential harm for a person to be held morally or criminally culpable for his actions.
In Katz’s account of a motorcyclist on an icy road, I presume that he is thinking of someone endowed with rational agency and fully aware of the potential risks of his actions. In this instance, the person’s action is morally repugnant because he engages in a risky, thrill-seeking act knowing that he endangers the lives of himself and others.
But for his analogy to work, Katz must believe that the AIDS epidemic was caused by gay men knowingly engaging in risky, unprotected sex in order to knowingly infect one another and knowingly taint the nation’s blood supply. Does Katz really believe that this was how the AIDS epidemic was caused? A careful reading of his essay suggests that he doesn’t. Katz characterizes gay men as self-indulgently hedonistic; he doesn’t indicate a belief that they are suicidal.
That’s just for starters. Katz’s “defense” of homophobia is nothing but a skein of strained analogies, impossible causal links and unproven axioms. In the end, Katz offers only the same old prejudices disguised by a patina of science and rationality. Katz’s “principled” defense of homophobia ultimately isn’t very principled at all. Frankly, Dr. Katz, I liked you better as a cartoon character.
Jeff is an associate professor of performing arts.
The biggest lapse of logic, and just one of dozens, in his letter is that he asserts religious prejudice to “deny the intrinsic moral rights and value of other people” while homophobia to be simply “a moral judgement upon acts engaged in by choice” … when in reality sexual orientation is far more intrinsic. Also, religious observence, not to mention homophobia, is not only a choice … but opposition to it (and those like Katz) can certainly be seen as a legitimate moral judgement.
He may know something but Gamma Ray bursts, but it’s a far stretch to claim him as a competent social commentator. He not only lacks knowledge on these other subjects, but too many of his basic human faculties aseem so lost or perverted as to make his comments on others as irrelivant as the barking of a dog.
The largest lapse of logic, just one of dozens, in his letter comes when he asserts religious prejudice to “deny the intrinsic moral rights and value of other people” while homophobia to be simply “a moral judgement upon acts engaged in by choice” … when in reality sexual orientation is far more intrinsic. Also, religious observence, not to mention homophobia, is not only a choice … but opposition to it (and those like Katz) can certainly be seen as a legitimate moral judgement.
He may know something but Gamma Ray bursts, but it’s a far stretch to claim him as a competent social commentator. He not only lacks knowledge on these other subjects, but too many of his basic human faculties aseem so lost or perverted as to make his comments on others as irrelivant as the barking of a dog.