Andrew Sullivan's recent posts on homosexuality and its opponents are really starting to bug me (no pun intended; well, maybe a little...).

He keeps asserting that those who are morally opposed to homosexuality refuse to see gays as real and full people. Take these quote from one of today's posts:

"They want the term gay relationship to be anathema to what it means to be an American - before the public dialogue shifts any further. So they will soon launch their nuke against gay men and women trying to form stable relationships: a constitutional amendment to keep gays permanently outside the possibility of equal citizenship."

And:

"O'Connor sees gay people as fully-fledged people, with lives and loves and needs like everyone else. Scalia sees them as people who for some bizarre reason do immoral things with their body parts. O'Connor sees that homosexuality is what people are. Scalia thinks that homosexuality is what some people do."

First of all, I don't understand the reasons for adding "citizenship" to the mix. It's nothing more than an empty rhetorical device. No one is proposing we take away gay people's right to vote or their right to due process away. Moving on.

Second, this is not a question of the fullness of personhood. One can disagree with another's views on morality and not question his humanity. My diasproval of homosexuality doesn't imply"gays aren't full people" any more than my disaproval of theft implies "thieves aren't full people." Moving on.

I hope we can all agree that there are some acts which people can engage in, and others people can't. I'm not talking about law right now, I'm talking about morality. It's the difference between shaking someone's hand and slugging them. There's a line that divides acceptable and unacceptable conduct. It's not cultural or social (getting slugged in the face is wrong everyone, not just in this or that community), it's a question of right and wrong.

Sex is no different. That's why we have a notion of sexual ethics. Certain sexual acts are acceptable and others are not, inasmuch as we are human beings and there are rules governing our behavior.

So where is the dividing line? Is it pleasure? Well, rapists get a bit of pleasure when they do what they do.

Is it consent? That may sound like a good line to draw for many people, but it's got some serious pitfalls. I don't see why a little boy can't consent to engaging in certain acts with a neighbor...or scoutmaster...or priest...or what have you. I can't see why a dog can't consent to...Well, you get the idea.

After all, people consent to do all sorts of bad things all the time. People consent to rob banks and steal cars. The exercise of one's rationality and will in directing one's actions does not legitimize those actions, in other words. Just because I choose to do something doesn't make it right.

Choice is a necessary part of morality, but choice does not make an action moral.

So back to sex and that dividing line. What sets sex apart and makes it such a unique and wonderful pursuit is that it produces life. When a man and a woman get together nine months later they've got a bouncing baby on their hands.

What do we think of when we imagine a loving relationship between two people? We think of two people living together as one. They share a home, they share their possessions, they share everything because of their union. There is a permanence, a unity that is meant to last, what we can describe as the ideal of growing old together.

This is what a baby fosters. Not only do a man and wife combine emotionally and spiritually to raise their child; they unite economically. Their new ontological status as husband and wife is reflected both in their child and in their physical state of economic union. The concept of a home is justified by children. A man and wife will be united through and for their child. They will stay together and see their child grow and marry and have his own children, and then they will assume their responsibilities as grandparents.

This is what homosexuality lacks. It is a lifestyle that bears no fruit. It provides no incentive for two men, or two women, to stay together through the bad times. It is a relationship that tries to turn itself into a promise (at least publicly, for the sake of gaining acceptance) but is doomed to fail.

The stereotype of gay excess and infidelity is a stereotype grounded in truth. It is true, some defy the rule, but every generalization will have its exception. My stomach turns every time I see the gay pride parade move down Fifth Avenue here in New York. It is a spectacle of hedonism and rebellion, a flaunting of anything and everything that can be called traditional and normal. From the way its participants dress to the way they behave (some sort of vulgar insult directed at St. Patrick's Cathedral, located along the parade route, is commonplace) the parade is a thumb in the eye of the rest of society.

Homosexuality boils down to pleasure, and in that sense men like Rick Santorum and Antonin Scalia are more than right when they lament that the Lawrence decision is the first step towards the legalization of other sexual practices long considered deviant and immoral. In denying procreation it denies the symbols and ties of a long-term and committed relationship. A gay couple can pledge to remain together, but what happens when times are tough? What's to stop one from leaving?

Homosexuals try to equate being gay with long-term and loving commitments no different than marriage properly understood, but I've heard way to many instances of men "discovering" they were gay and leaving their wives and infant children, of adult males abusing little boys, and of a plethora of sexual partners to believe it.