In “Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality?” Jeff Jordan defends a ban on two main arguments that aim to justify discrimination against homosexuals, in the case of same-sex marriage. In his first argument, Jordan asserts his argument from conflicting claims in an attempt to resolve the ongoing public dilemma about same-sex marriage by accommodation. In the second argument, Jordan introduces the “no-exit” argument. This utilizes the principle that citizens must support a practice that they find morally or religiously acceptable. Jordan never addresses the claim about the moral status of homosexuality in and of itself, but argues that, "The moral impasse generated by conflicting views concerning homosexuality, and the public policy ramifications of those conflicting views justify the claim that it is morally permissible, in certain circumstances, to discriminate against homosexuals." (237) The issue stems from the question Jordan asks saying, “Does homosexuality have the same moral status as heterosexuality?” (237) According to “Is It Wrong to Discriminate on the Basis of Homosexuality?”, “ The parity thesis contends that homosexuality has the same moral status as heterosexuality.” (237) Even though I am against same-sex marriage, I agree with the parity thesis that it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals solely based on sexual orientation. Jordan then proceeds to define the term “difference thesis”. “The difference thesis entails that there are situations in which it is normally permissible to discriminate against homosexuals.” (Jordan 237) I do not agree that there is ever a time when someone should be judged based on his or her sexuality. As a follower of Christ, we are instructed to “judge not” in Luke 6:37 in the Bible.
Premise one states, “Homosexual acts between consenting adults harm no one.” (Jordan 238) This would be true if the act was done in private. If two individuals want to participate in this behavior and it harms no one, then it should be respected because they are not harming your or me, but they are harming themselves. If God had intended for the human race to indulge in both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease. This is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error (Romans 1:27). I have also previously read of studies that indicate that homosexual behaviors make men and women more vulnerable to disease and also decrease one’s lifespan.
David Boonin in “Same-Sex Marriage and the Argument from Public Disagreement” states that Jordan’s premise two, the claim that there is a public dilemma about same sex marriage, “Might seem to be the clearest and least problematic of all the premises of Jordan’s argument.” (248) In my opinion, I find this completely false. I think the reason same-sex marriage has not been sanctioned is because of the fact it is a huge public dilemma.
Premise four states that, “Discrimination against homosexuals, because of their homosexuality, diminishes individual freedom since it ignores personal choice and privacy.” (Jordan 238) This can only be true as with P1 in regards to consenting homosexual behavior in private. I agree with this statement because as I said before, we have been instructed not to judge others. Because of the parity thesis, we have no reason to believe that there are any circumstances in which homosexuality and heterosexuality are on equal moral ground.
Jordan proceeds to discuss moral impasses and public dilemmas. “An impasse is likely to have public policy ramifications if large numbers of people hold conflicting views, and the conflict involves matters fundamental to a person’s moral identity (and, hence, from a practical point of view, are probably...