Stanley Kurtz has a generally sensible discussion at NRO of the practical function of sexual taboos, that by defining what is fitting within sexual relations they make it possible to rely on such relations to be something definite and so make family life possible as a social institution. He then says:
I would rather accept some disruption in family stability than go back to the days when homosexuality itself was deeply tabooed. The increase in freedom and fairness is worth it.
On its face, the comment makes no sense. After all, if homosexuality isn’t destructive, there’s no objection to it, and if it is, social acceptance would be unfair to those forced to live with the resulting destruction. Nor does the language express a balancing of the interest in doing what one wants with the general interest in family stability. Rather, it seems to express an opposition between rational standards of fairness on the one hand and socially necessary taboos on the other.
What Kurtz’s comment and discussion as a whole seem to express, in fact, is what might be called the conservative liberal position. They also provide a good demonstration of the uselessness of that position. In effect, the conservative liberal position accepts the liberal view that values are essentially man-made, and what’s rational is satisfying human goals “fairly”—that is, giving everyone’s goals equal weight. That is why accepting homosexuality is thought to advance freedom and fairness, and to that extent to be a good thing. The view then notes, however, that society can’t be fully rationalized on such a basis, so some standards understood as transcending human goals (“taboos”) are going to have to be accepted so that liberal goals of freedom, fairness and well-being can, within the limits of what’s possible, actually be achieved. Such taboos might include, for example, conventions that burden homosexual relations in secondary ways, for example by denying “gay marriage.”
The problem, of course, is how it can be decided what violations of utilitarian liberal equality are going to be allowed in the society’s morality, and once the decision is made how the allowable taboos can be put forward with a straight face as binding transcendent standards. After all, everyone with a brain will know that to the extent the standards or taboos deviate from equality they are allowed to continue only for the sake of liberal utilitarian goals, and that in fact they aren’t “transcendent” at all but rather concessions to human irrationality that should be restricted as much as possible for the sake of “freedom and fairness.” If that’s so, though, how much force will they have and why should anyone burdened by them accept them?