Happiness and Homosexuality

I was recently reminded of a story in which a husband and father of three chooses to lose his job in order to stay true to his Christian convictions. As he and his wife struggle over the consequences of his decision, the wife says, “I don’t know how we’re going to make it.” He responds, “I don’t either, but some things are more important than making it.” 

But if “making it” is defined as individual happiness, and happiness is defined by pleasing circumstances, then the husband’s response is opposite the view of a great many people. A lot of people believe happiness to be the greatest good, which sounds reasonable because it is something we should all want. But happiness is not the greatest good. Doing what’s right, in other words, virtuousness, is a greater good than happiness, and there are times when doing what’s right leads to unhappiness--that is it leads to difficult circumstances. The right thing sometimes requires us either to subject ourselves to pain or forgo some pleasure, such as the pain and forgone pleasure experienced by a man in a difficult marriage when he chooses not to get involved with another woman, even though she offers all the affection that’s absent in his wife. 

One perpetually controversial issue I think shows this tension between virtue and happiness is that of homosexual behavior. The tidal wave of gay rights activism that has swept over the western world in the last few decades has largely been driven by the idea that happiness is the greatest good. The argument usually goes something like this: If a same sex marriage would bring two people great happiness without taking away from anyone else’s happiness then why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry? The answer is that people shouldn’t engage in homosexuality for the same reason they shouldn’t engage in adultery. Both bring a certain level of circumstantial happiness, but both are morally wrong. 

The reason the proposition that homosexual behavior is morally wrong comes across like a banner at a Klan rally to a lot of people is because their moral compass is of their own making. For many, what’s right means only “what seems right to me.” There is nothing (or no One) outside one’s self by which we judge right and wrong. 

Although this is a totally subjective, individualized way of thinking, one thing people with this mindset do appeal to as a universal standard of rightness is the question of whether or not a person’s actions infringe on another against his will. If this is the ultimate moral question then nothing that takes place among “consenting adults” could ever be wrong. The golden rule is to never impede anyone’s pursuit of happiness. 

But that golden rule is like a movie-set building. It looks real on the outside, but when you go through the door there’s nothing there. If there really is no objective standard--no Moral Law and Lawgiver--to whom we are accountable, then there is nothing to bind anyone to the idea that my happiness at the expense of others’ pain is wrong. There have been many who have had no qualms pursuing happiness through others’ pain because it seemed right to them. To those who hold a what-seems-right-to-me view of morality, there is a resounding “says who?” that goes on forever in response to any argument about what’s right and wrong. 

If it is true that we will not cease to exist after our last breath, but will rather face moral accountability in the highest degree, then there is a right and a wrong way to conduct ourselves sexually, and the difference is not determined by what brings us the most immediate happiness.  

MM