Vaid’s Liberal Argument :: Research Papers

Vaid’s Liberal Argument Andrew Sullivan and Urvashi Vaid are two of the most prolific advocates of homosexual equality. Urvashi Vaid's book, Virtual Equality, argues that homosexuals are living as if they are equal to heterosexuals when in fact homosexuals are still treated unfairly and need to seek true liberation. Sullivan's book, Virtually Normal, examines several different political groups and their differing beliefs concerning how society should deal with homosexuality. The arguments expressed in Vaid's book suggest that Sullivan would categorize her into chapter four of Virtually Normal, entitled, â€Å"The Liberals.† It becomes evident that Vaid is neither a Prohibitionist, Liberationist, Conservative, nor an advocate of Sullivan's ideal politics. Sullivan would categorize Vaid into the Liberal category because her ideals concerning societal education, anti-discrimination laws, and individual freedom match those of Liberal politics. Though Vaid may share the same goals as other political group s, her methods of achieving these goals are definitely Liberal. Vaid's argument does not fit Sullivan's Prohibitionist category. Prohibitionists, according to Sullivan, believe that homosexuality goes against the grain of both Christianity and natural law. Homosexuality, the Prohibitionists believe, is deemed morally wrong in the bible, and should be denounced as well as punished. Sullivan writes: â€Å"It is that homosexuality is an aberration and that homosexual acts are an abomination† (20). Sullivan goes on to write: â€Å"Drawing on Aristotle's conception of normative nature, Aquinas theorized that all human beings had a single fundamental nature†¦According to Aquinas, all human beings' sexuality is linked to procreation†¦This is what sexual activity is for† (32). The above thinking is what Prohibitionists call natural law. Each being has a natural function, and, for humans, that function is to reproduce. Here, it would be wrong for people to have sex without the intention to reproduce. Since there is no reproduction involved in homosexual sex, Prohibitionists denounce homosexuality. Though Vaid herself may be a homosexual, it is her argument and not her identity that suggests that she could not be placed into the category of Prohibitionist. Vaid writes: â€Å"At its core, this right-wing movement rejects the two-hundred-year-old experiment of American pluralism and, in its place, proposes a Christian state, a theocracy. Right-wing leaders and organizations explicitly reject democratic values like tolerance, dissent, individual freedom, and compromise† (307). Vaid believes that the religious right, a proponent of Prohibitionist politics, is against diversity, democracy, and equality. For this reason, Sullivan would not categorize Vaid's argument in the Prohibitionist category.