Letters

From the February 1999 issue

(Page 4 of 4)

While conveniently neglecting to mention Sullivan's HIV status, Postrel takes pains to equate ex-gay living with pain. She asserts without basis that "homosexual attraction almost never changes; only behavior does--and then only rarely." Not true. Thousands have successfully changed their behavior. The notion of a "homosexual" person is new to history. How sad to see REASON has joined the ranks of those promoting this harmful ideology.

Peter LaBarbera
President
Americans for Truth
About Homosexuality
Washington, DC

Note: Americans for Truth is one of 15 pro-family groups that sponsored the Truth in Love ads featuring former homosexuals.

Virginia Postrel replies: Will Cooper's letter implicitly sheds light on Peter LaBarbera's. To argue for restricting personal freedom in the name of public health requires a high threshold for what is considered public health. Otherwise, as my colleague Jacob Sullum has argued so well in For Your Own Good and elsewhere, there is no stopping point for tyranny. Any risk becomes subject to legal sanctions. Mr. Cooper's hypothetical of incurable tuberculosis, which presumably would be contagious to anyone, is the conservative extreme. Mr. LaBarbera's suggestion that the risk of sexually transmitted diseases somehow justifies criminal sanctions against consensual gay sex--the issue that Sullivan was addressing--is at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Mr. LaBarbera claims more detailed knowledge of Andrew Sullivan's sex life than I can. But assuming Sullivan has in fact strayed from his ideals, that says nothing about the worth of those principles. Encouraging men, regardless of sexual orientation, to settle down and live committed, bourgeois lives seems to me a worthy crusade.

I did not "equate ex-gay living with pain." I merely pointed out that such life choices involve tradeoffs and that religious individuals have, throughout history, been willing to suffer for their beliefs to a much greater degree than is at issue here. It is therefore ridiculous for gay groups to suggest that no one with homosexual desires might ever willingly choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle--sacrificing sexual pleasure and some degree of intimacy in favor of faith and family. It is equally dishonest, however, to suggest that this choice says anything about the lives of individuals who do not share the conviction that gay sexual relationships are wrong. As for Mr. LaBarbera's claim that my statement that "only behavior [changes]" is "not true" because "thousands have successfully changed their behavior," I would suggest a course in reading comprehension--and a review of the math in my original article.

Finally, it's worth noting that lesbians exist, that they are at less risk of sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexual women, and that they are notably unpromiscuous. To showcase "ex-lesbians" while making generalizations about homosexuality that do not apply to female gays is disingenuous at best.