A new prohibitionism?

Just finished Andrew Sullivan's book, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality. I found it, like all of Sullivan's work, clear, insightful, and thought-provoking. Therein, he outlines four basic political positions on homosexuality, incisively critiquing the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Sullivan shows that prohibitionism, the category into which most conservative Christians fall, is seriously flawed--at least as it's usually stated. Prohibitionists agree on one fundamental point: homosexual behavior is morally wrong and socially unacceptable. From this, they reason that it should be proscribed both in the public square and the private sphere. There are two distinct positions within the prohibitionist camp, however.
The first holds that homosexual action is simpy a behavioral aberration, a voluntary perversion of the natural order. All humans, they believe, are by nature heterosexual, and so homosexual behavior is morally wrong at least because it's a betrayal of nature. This sort of prohibitionist does not believe that anyone is fundamentally or naturally a homosexual--whether because of genetics or their emotional-mental structure. Homosexual behavior is at some level voluntary, and condemnable.

The second position--notably the stance of the Catholic Church--holds that a fundamental homosexual orientation is a reality for some. They can be naturally and involuntarily attracted, both emotionally and sexually, to members of the same sex. Because this orientation is involuntary, it's not sinful and should not be condemned. Homosexual behavior, however, is sinful, because it is voluntary.

Each of these positions has serious flaws. The first fails to account for the personal experience of most homosexuals. For some, homosexual attraction and behavior may actually be a choice. For most, however, the attraction to members of the same sex is as deeply emotional and sexual as is the inclination of straight folk to members of the opposite sex. It is an integral part of their personhood.

The second position also has a host of associated problems. It takes no genius to realize the extraordinary tensions caused by telling people their orientation is all right, but the normal, inevitable output of that orientation is wrong. It dooms homosexuals to a life of miserable, conflicted celibacy, without the opportunity to emotionally and spiritually bond with another person as spouses do (or should).

There is a third prohibitionist position, however, which avoids these pitfalls and maintains Scripture's position of the sinfulness of homosexuality. It recognizes the possibility that many people, perhaps most homosexuals, are deeply and fundamentally oriented toward their own sex. It also says, though, that even this orientation, though unchosen, is sinful. The Catholic Church, and many evangelicals, have a theologically distorted view of the nature of sin. Sin is the natural, unchosen human condition, but this doesn't negate man's free agency or his moral responsibility for sin. This orientation manifests itself differently for different people--an inclination to materialism, to pride, to idolatry, or to homosexuality. There is thus no moral distinction between the homosexual act and the homosexual condition. They're both sinful, even though they are both somewhat natural.

There are two definitions of "normal," when it comes to human thought and action The first is what men, free of controlling external influences, naturally are inclined to. The second is what man in his unfallen state would be inclined to, perfectly displaying the way God created humans. This second sense is what mainline prohibitionists mean when they talk about the normalcy of heterosexuality--God created men to be emotionally and sexually drawn to women, and vice versa. God also created humans to be perfectly loving towards Himself and their fellow men, but that orientation is perverted as well.

In conjunction with a clear explanation of the Gospel, this new understanding of homosexuality, and the prohibitionist politics to which it gives rise, are capable of being clear, Biblically accurate, and even compassionate. Christians must make clear to homosexuals that though their behavior and homosexual orientation are sinful, they're no more sinful than our own particular sins. All are a manifestation of the deeper problem of our sinful nature. All, in turn, can be redeemed and changed by the power of the Gospel. Prohibitionists must get a handle on this message, for homosexuality is a tremendous force in modern culture. The message must be publicized, but compassionately. It must be communicated, but without patronizing homosexuals and in a way that honors their humanity and the richness of their experience.