Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality Paperback – September 17, 1996

While Mr. Sullivan is clearly a moderately intelligent man, his four critiques in this book leave much to be desired. While I am in no position to be challenging his political astuteness, it is his sophmoric analysis and woefully misguided attempt, aided by a lackluster familiarity with Church history, to give theological/religious affirmation to a lifestyle that every major religion, both East and West, recognizes as morally deficient, or wicked at worse, that I take issue with here. It quickly becomes apparent that Mr.Sullivan is no biblical scholar, but chooses to rely upon the liberal biblical scholarship of mainline Protestant scholars to justify an exegetical position that no conservative would ever seriously consider (and it has nothing to do with their bias, but just honest scholarship!). The irony is that Mr. Sullivan prides himself, otherwise, on being a social and cultural conservative (I mean what sort of liberal does his dissertation on Michael Oakeshott?!). More than that, there is something incredibly dishonest and fraudulent about a gay man priding himself on his "allegedlly" deep Roman Catholic faith, when his very lifestyle runs contrary to both the Church's teaching and its centuries old tradition of moral theology. The fact is plain: homosexuality is a sin! Both Scripture and Holy Tradition, backed by natural law, solidifies this. Mr. Sullivan needs to stop trying to democratize an institution that has as its head, not the US Constitution or the president of the United States, but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and must repent of his sin which is contrary to nature, a moral danger to the family and society, and an afront to God Almighty!!!

In this book, Sullivan divides and defines the political views on homosexuality into 4 views - the prohibitionists, the liberationists, the conservatives, and the liberals (the other reviewers have adequately summarized the 4 views, so I shall not add my own). He goes on to posit his view that all public (as opposed to private) discrimination against homosexuals be ended, particularly in the areas of marriage and the military.

Sullivan mercilessly dissects the 4 different views one by one, pointing out their flaws and weaknesses and internal inconsistensies, and why they are all essentially untenable. I found his essay on the liberationists (if they would allow you to label them so) is particularly poignant and even brilliant. He also has good discussions and arguments on the other views, but due to the sheer amount of arguments (and arguments based upon previous arguments), some flawed arguments have slipped in, rendering his conclusions not as convincing as it would seem to an uncritical reader.

I feel that the book would have been a great one despite the weaknesses pointed out above, if not for the completely dismal treament on the prohibitionists, which I am about to highlight.

Sullivan rightly notes that the prohibitionists are difficult to engage as they generally base their prohibitionistic views on the authority of the Bible. He goes on to show why the Bible does not really condemn homosexuality as much as it seems to.

For instance, in p.27 where he deals with the biblical passage in Leviticus 18, claiming that the "abomination" in v.22 is more clearly translated as "ritual impurity". This interpretation is from John Boswell, who is hardly recognized as an honest scholar, and happens to be gay (and Sullivan fails to mention that fact). Anyone familiar with the biblical languages or the passage in question will find this interpretation impossible.

Sullivan (from Boswell) goes on to claim that the context in Leviticus shows that there are "identical provisions against eating pork or engaging in sexual intercourse during menstruation." I looked up the passage(s) in question, and found that Sullivan forgot to mention that the immediate context is actually a command against offering one's children to Molech (in Lev. 18), and incest (Lev. 20), and bestiality (Lev. 18 & 20). Look it up for yourself.

This is not just intellectually biased. This is dishonest.

But he's not done -- there's still Romans 1 to deal with:
"26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

The book claims that the passage is not dealing with homosexuality per se, but heterosexuals who engage in homosexual behavior, against their own nature. Meaning that those who are "naturally" or born homosexuals are not condemned in this passage!

Simply ingenious, but completely warped. Are we to believe that Paul and his readers didn't know about the clear Levitical injunctions against homosexual acts? Any honest and unbiased reader without an agenda to justify homosexuality can never come to this interpretation.

Sullivan has good intentions in engaging the prohibitionist in argument, but doing so by misinterpreting their source of authority (the Bible) is poor argumentation and wishful thinking, and completely misses the point. Very disappointing.

Sullivan should have dealt with the real issue behind the prohibitionist ideal -- there is a fixed moral law set by God, and the Bible is God's revelation to man. Sullivan has failed to grasp this point, and thus completely misunderstands and misrepresents the core prohibitionist deal.

In as sense I am glad I did not give up on Virtually Normal after the dismal chapter on the prohibitionists (and rating it only 1 star), as the rest of the book was much better - thought-provoking and rather enjoyable (thus I give it a couple more stars).

My recommendation - read and enjoy the book by all means, but don't forget your pinch of salt.

I honestly believe this book is worth reading. I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning more about homosexuality, who they are, what they are all about aswell. Before I read this book I was totally, perse..."Homophobic". However, this book has caused me to change my view points towards homosexuals. Its a must to those who are in-need of getting a "realistic slap in the face."
"thou shall not judge", said God. So why not listen, and accept our brother/sisters for who they are and not on behalf of their sexual orientation. We all have virtues and failures in our life. And this "awakening" is defenitely a virute in mine (and can be yours aswell).