Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality

I just finished reading “Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality” and have to say it’s one of the most intelligent, articulate and well written critiques of the modern debate on homosexuality I have ever read. Andrew Sullivan, a gay man himself and former editor of The New Republic has crafted and argument so reasoned and compelling, while also being profoundly personal and moving, that no reader, whether conservative or liberal, could walk away without having some sort of new understanding of homosexuality and how the homosexual population has operated in todays society, and how it should operate in a liberal society.

The book begins with an epilogue that eloquently speaks to the ‘homosexual experience’ through the author’s own experiences and understanding. Andrew Sullivan’s writing and style shine an incredible light on what it is to be homosexual. To any heterosexual who wants to at least attempt to grasp what it’s like to grow up homosexual in America I would suggest at least read the first and last chapters of this book, you will undoubtedly come away with a greater understanding of what it is to be homosexual, and why certain stereotypes exist, and often do present themselves in the homosexual community.

The meat however of Sullivan’s book lies in the first five chapters, which focus on the four prevailing political arguments about homosexuality, and in the fifth chapter, Sullivan’s own suggestions. The four arguments that Sullivan examines are prohibition, liberation, conservative and liberal.

The prohibitionist being along the lines of those in the Catholic church who, while admitting that homosexuality is an immutable condition not brought on by choice but by a mixture of nurture and nature, still cling to the idea that the centrality of sexual acts should be on procreation, and because homosexual sex cannot achieve this, it should be discouraged, and the homosexual should be lead to a life of celibacy. The problem here obviously occurring with the admittance of the fact that homosexuality occurs naturally, thus confusing the natural law argument that supports a centrality on procreation in the first place.

Those under the banner of liberation of the other hand are those in the gay community (particularly in the 1980’s) who, following many of the ideas of Michael Foucault, shunned the idea of normalizing homosexuality, and loathed any public discourse on the topic because discourse, according to their interpretation of Foucault’s work, is simply another form of power and control. The problem here of course being that liberation quickly became a politics of non-politics and began to die out. I think it important to mention that he was right, 12 years after the release of the book the liberation movement has all but died out, leaving only a few marginalized ‘followers’ left.

The conservative politics is one that is more concerned with regulating society as a whole in order to achieve a better, more ethical and moral society as a whole. The question then is whether homosexuality is good or bad for society. Beyond that though Sullivan looks at the history of conservative thought an makes an interesting point that much of the conservative opinion on homosexuality has been private tolerance coupled with public disapproval. In essence, as long as the homosexual never became a public entity (via coming out or otherwise) then homosexuality could be tolerated in private, and the discussion of the issues it raises kept taboo. The problem here of course being that this politics requires the stifling of the homosexuals very being, something that was doomed from the start, as it could simply never last.

Finally the liberal perspective is analyzed in chapter four, which is probably one of the most interesting. Sullivan points out that classical liberalism was about creating a distinction between private and public, and ensuring that the state treated all public citizens equally, while still allowing the private lives of citizens to remain private. This has clearly changed in the last decade, largely due to the civil rights movement and the new emphasis on ‘minority rights’ and protecting minorities. Sullivan claims that the problem with this view is simple, it’s not truly liberal, and actually undermines liberalism by forcing private entities to behave in a way they would prefer not too, something that is the antithesis of a liberal government.

The solution that Sullivan comes up with is one genius in both it’s simplicity and ability to allow for compromise. End the ban on homosexuals in the military, and legalize same sex marriage, while dropping anti discrimination laws. Sullivan posits that because there is no reason the believe that homosexuality is changeable or a detriment to society the state should treat homosexuals as equal citizens under the law. He argues for the dropping of anti discrimination laws because they have nothing to do with the state, and in a liberal society the state has no right to dictate to private individuals or organizations what they can or cannot do.

What makes Sullivan’s arguments so persuasive is his amazing ability to rationally look at another persons point of view and understand, even sympathize with it, while still seeing the logical and ethical problems therein. The book never comes off as preachy; avoids the common pitfall of simply dismissing any anti-gay arguments as bigotry; respects the views of those the author disagrees with and even has the courage to attack, or at least question, many views commonly held among the gay community itself. The book is a must read for anyone who wants to be able to debate the topic of homosexuality in politics with intelligence and civility.