When certain behaviors precipitate illness, all of of us are directly affected. Medicare costs are ultimately funded by tax dollars... The more that specific behaviors are linked to medical consequences, as in the case of smoking, the more society has both a right and an obligation to make judgments and express collective disapproval. Sometimes behavior goes to the very heart of our national character, such as drug use, and society not only make judgements, but takes proactive steps to prevent it...
...If you feel that it is "none of your business," because it is done in private (not always) and between consenting adults ...you are entitled to your view. I would say that if such does happen, you will feel its consequences in more ways than you can imagine, like it or not.
Ok, so you think we should make it our business. What do you propose to do about it? Ban sex? Not likely to be very effective. Ban unprotected sex? How do you do that, put an enforcer in every bedroom?
The classic example of this quandary - the public consequences of private behaviour - is the abuse of alcohol, the social cost of which dwarfs that of high-risk sex. Legal restrictions have been tried. They failed. Ultimately we fell back on the only practical solution: a combination of age restriction, social disapproval (for alcoholism, not for drinking) and education. Has it worked? Not completely: alcohol abuse still racks up an enormous toll. Is there a better way? So far, no.
The inutile and expensive "war on drugs" is another example in the making. Is it working? No, it's not.
It seems odd to focus any debate on the social consequences of private behaviour on homosexuality. It makes more sense to look at high-risk sexual behaviour as a whole: when you consider unwanted pregnancies, the social costs of high-risk heterosexual sex probably exceed those of any homosexual behaviour. Even then, if you follow the mathematics you would have to say that sexual issues are far less a problem than, say, diet: the social costs of poor eating habits and associated illness are staggering. If we are going to debate over how the social costs of private behaviour should be managed, why get all hot about gay sex, a subset of a relatively minor part of the overall problem?
In any event, what do you propose that we do about it? I expect to be told that you do not want to see legal restrictions, but would prefer to use the force of "collective disapproval". I have nothing against that, as long as the disapproval is focused where it belongs: on the practice of high-risk sex of any orientation. This is not a homosexual or a heterosexual problem, it cuts across both orientations.
There are two problems with directing "collective disapproval" at homosexuals, rather than at high-risk sexual practices. First, it does not accurately address the problem: high-risk heterosexual behaviour is as much a problem as high-risk homosexual behaviour. The second problem, a very large one, is that when social disapproval is directed at a group of individuals, rather than a set of practices, it is often expressed in ways that violate individual rights.
We have to accept that ultimately we have no way of controlling private behaviour without compromising our most basic principles. That means that we will end up swallowing, publicly, a certain amount of the cost of high-risk sex, just as we swallow a certain amount of the cost imposed by alcohol and tobacco use, lousy dietary habits, lack of exercise, etc. The only alternative is to bury ourselves in a mass of intrusive, unconstitutional, and almost certainly ineffective legislation.
There has to be a distinct limit to the degree to which society or Government can attempt to control private behaviour. It is our business to do what we can to influence individual decision making through the provision of education and information that allow individuals to accurately assess risk (since you are so concerned about the social cost of high-risk sex, I do hope that you favor universal access to sex education and protective devices). Ultimately, though, we must accept that the choice belongs to the individual. If they choose to take the risk, it really is none of our business. The costs of trying to make it our business far outweigh those imposed on us by the behaviour in question. |
