This letter sent by a Christian fundamentalist to Andrew Sullivan raises an issue which has plagued me for years.

I really enjoyed listening to you on Boston's NPR tonight. After listening to the Christian Coalition spokesman tonight, I write in what I suppose is a defense of Evangelicals -- we're not all like that. I'm 20 years old, a senior at a large (liberal) public university, straight, female, an evangelical christian, a conservative, and a vehement supporter of civil gay marriage. I've been involved in theatre and the arts for most of my life, and have known and loved a number of gays, and seen the war waged on them by the religious right, which is what brings me to this fight anyway...
I was once walking across campus and found myself trying to navigate between a group of LGBT folks and the Fred Phelps psychos, and I thought "If I have to pick sides here, whose side do I stand on?" and it was without question with the LGBT folks. I'm willing to cede gay marriage because it's practical, and because I dream of the day that gay people don't automatically assume that Christians are out to get them. What Jesus has to offer is for everyone, not just heteros, and in any case, he never sought to change the laws of his culture, he set out to change people. And he hung out with the beautiful people that made the Pharisees uncomfortable. I still have issues with gay marriage in the church (if I thought I could rationalize it with the Bible, I'd support it in a heartbeat, but as much as it kills me, I can't) but as far as I'm concerned, if you want to marry the man you love at the courthouse (or wherever, really), that's fine by me. The amazing thing is that most of my conservative Christian friends agree with me on civil marriage for various reasons. We're not all the Christian Coalition.

This question is easy enough to pose, but it causes great confusion. If people think that opinions about conduct are worse than the conduct itself, little wonder these arguments go in circles.

This sounds crazy, and it may even sound frivolous, but I think it goes to the heart of the debate over gay marriage.

Father John McNeill is a good starting point. A Catholic (Jesuit) priest, he stated publicly that his sexual practices would be homosexual were he to violate his vows. Because he obeyed his vow of celibacy, he was doing nothing wrong except stating an opinion. Yet that opinion brought the man far more trouble than he would have had if he had simply engaged in homosexual acts. Finally, the Vatican ordered him to be silent, and he obeyed, thus ending the problem for the time being. (Eventually, he quit the priesthood.)

Let us assume for the sake of this discussion that homosexual acts are morally wrong. Even if you believe that to be the case, in logic, how does that make the discussion of whether they are immoral more immoral than the commission of the acts?

It should not, but in the minds of many of the moralists, it does. In their minds, whether individual homosexuals are celibate is largely irrelevant to the debate. What matters most is whether they believe that homosexuality is immoral. Following out this logic, a heterosexual (or celibate homosexual) who believes that homosexuality is not immoral is morally worse than a practicing homosexual who believes that his homosexuality is immoral.

The illogic of this can be demonstrated by substituting for homosexuality, something most people can agree is immoral.

Murder, for instance.

A non-murderer who believes that murder is not immoral is morally worse than a practicing murderer who believes that murder is immoral.

Is the churchgoing thug who confesses his murders and feels awful about them really a better person than the law-abiding guy who nonetheless thinks there's nothing wrong with murder?

Of course not! The murderer is far worse. Society must lock him up or execute him, lest he kill again and again! The murder-tolerant citizen is merely someone holding an opinion with which we disagree. I don't know anyone who would imprison people for the belief that murder is OK.

If both murder and homosexuality are immoral, then why this difference? Can anyone explain it to me?

Let's try the same sentence with booze:

A teetotaler who believes that drinking is not immoral is morally worse than a drinker (let us assume he is not an alcoholic) who believes that drinking is immoral.

Here we get a mixed result. And why? Because it is not self apparent that the drinker is doing anything wrong. Some people think drinking is immoral, and some don't. But I would be willing to bet that even those who do believe alcohol is immoral would not spend much time worrying about such distinctions. Why? Because drinking is seen as not threatening "society" and certainly opinions about whether it is moral or immoral are not cause for any particular concern.

With drugs, on the other hand, I am sure there are people who believe that advocates of legalization are worse than drug addicts who want to quit.

Similar thinking may explain the particular hatred of the recreational drug user -- who is believed to be more immoral than the addict. Again, their logic fails me completely, but I think it has to do with the view that "worse is better" from a (negative) PR perspective. Public opinion is thus more important than individual sin or vice.

If my theory is correct, then the people who think that opinion is worse than conduct would prefer that homosexuals live "evil" (non-monogamous) lifestyles rather than join the ranks of the boring middle class. (Something promoted by gay marriage as well as civil unions.)

Thus, in an amazing twist, "niceness" has become worse than "evil"!

Yet, even if we assume that homosexuality is as evil as murder (er, some people think it's worse) isn't a mass murderer worse than a serial killer? And isn't a serial killer worse than a single-victim murderer?

To me, it is self apparent in logic that opinion about conduct can never be worse than the conduct itself. (Unless, of course, you're prepared to say that American Communist Party members were worse than Stalin himself, or that members of A.N.S.W.E.R. are worse than Saddam Hussein!)

But then, I guess I am a hopeless moral relativist!

MORE: (on opinions versus conduct)

It occurred to me since I wrote this post that some helpful insight might be gained with reference to the phrase, "the love that dare not spek its name." Oscar Wilde himself denied that the phrase meant homosexuality, but then, he was on trial at the time. Plus, I think his denying the meaning of the phrase might have been a form of irony.

The point is, no one uses language of unspeakability to describe murder, robbery or rape. In the past, people were convicted and sentenced for the serious felony using ill-defined phrases like "crime against nature." Not that there might not be such a thing as a crime against nature. But pouring mercury into a pristine river would still require a specific statute spelling out the elements of the offense for such conduct to be indictable.

Might that be why "sodomy" was kept out of the Ten Commandments?

I am still trying to fathom how it is that opinion can matter more to some people than conduct.

This post expresses similar sentiments.

MORE: Eugene Volokh quotes Irving Kristol for the remarkable proposition that mere advocacy (opinion in favor of homosexuality) is not protected by the First Amendment.

Anyone wishing to read more about homosexuality and the "natural law" (something I touched upon earlier) should read Eugene Volokh's post here, and the opposing position here.

There seem to be two completely irreconcilable schools of thought, unable even to agree on terminology.