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, “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 groups, 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: “It is that homosexuality is an aberration and that homosexual acts are an abomination” (20). Sullivan goes on to write: “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: “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.

Vaid's argument also does not fit Sullivan's Liberationist category. Liberationists, according to Sullivan, believe that homosexuality is merely a term constructed by society to label certain people. Dominant society uses the word ‘homosexual' to keep a level of power over this group of people. In an effort to weaken this power, Liberationists use a tactic called ‘outing.' Sullivan writes: “It is a pure form of the kind of politics the liberationists must pursue if they are to be true to their principles. I refer to the tactic of ‘outing,' the publication of someone's homosexuality against that person's will…to advance the cause of gay ‘visibility'” (77). By ‘outing' certain people, Liberationists attempt to show heterosexual society flaws in its construction, and that even important members of society can indeed be homosexuals. Like the Liberationists, Vaid would like to change the way society perceives homosexuality. However, the fact that she disagrees with the tactic of outing makes her argument different from that of the liberationists. Vaid writes: “I cannot ethically rationalize the coercive aspect of outing, which forcibly discloses another's sexuality and justifies the use of force as self-defense…As a woman, I fight for the principle that control of my sexual and reproductive life should rest with me” (32). Vaid personally feels that outing is morally wrong, and, because she values her own sexual privacy, she cannot condone interfering in the privacy of anyone else. For this reason, Sullivan would not categorize her argument as that of a Liberationist.

Vaid's argument doesn't fit Sullivan's Conservative category either. Sullivan writes: “Conservatives combine a private tolerance of homosexuals with public disapproval of homosexuality…they wish to guide public life in a way that clearly demarcates homosexual behavior as shameful and to be avoided” (97-8). Essentially, Conservatives believe that homosexuality should be accepted privately but denounced by the public. Vaid's argument is the exact opposite of this line of thinking. Vaid writes: “We fight for the option of gay people to live with, work in, be a part of, and affect the whole society, not just the gay and lesbian world” (34). Vaid doesn't want homosexuals to remain in private; she very much wants the distinction between public and private [standards] to be removed. She wants homosexuals to exist publicly in the same fashion as heterosexuals. For this reason, Sullivan would not categorize Vaid's argument as Conservative.

Finally, Vaid's argument does not fit into the category of Sullivan's ideal politics. In his idea of politics, Sullivan believes that people should have absolute freedom of expression and thought. Sullivan writes: “No cures or re-educations, no wrenching private litigation, no political imposition of tolerance; merely a political attempt to enshrine formal public equality, whatever happens in the culture and society at large” (171). Though both Vaid and Sullivan share the same fundamental belief that homosexuals should be treated equally in society, the fact that Vaid advocates government sanctions against discrimination shows that her argument would not fit into Sullivan's politics. Vaid writes: “People oppose gay rights for different reasons. A broad-based cultural strategy aimed at straight America's sites of opposition could address these differences” (25). Vaid wants homosexuals to have equality, but she would do so by creating laws as well as educating the public. Where Sullivan believes that people have the right to discriminate, Vaid believes that these people need to be enlightened.

Now that we have considered counterexamples, we can explore the Liberal category, where Sullivan would place Vaid. The line of thinking that eliminates Vaid from Sullivan's ideal politics actually suggests that Vaid is a Liberal. Liberals attempt to further the equality of homosexuals by educating society. Sullivan writes: “Their primary concern is not to preserve liberty, but to create a society which holds certain values dear, to transform the culture to make it more open and inclusive, and to use the laws to educate people in this fashion” (137). Liberals believe that people denounce homosexuality partly because of ignorance. Many people are against homosexuality because they simply don't know much about the issue. To further homosexual equality, Liberals attempt to alter society's thinking through education. Vaid writes: “The importance of educating the public, young heterosexuals, and all segments of the population in the truth about homosexual lives and our aspirations for equality cannot be overstated. Straight people believe dangerous and mistaken myths about homosexuals” (25). Vaid believes that if the public is given enough information about homosexuals, then popular misconceptions about homosexuals can be cleared up, and discrimination can be lessened. Vaid, like the Liberals, believes that, by changing the way people think, she can further homosexual equality.

Another way in which Liberals would like to improve the unfair treatment of homosexuals is through anti-discrimination laws. According to Sullivan, Liberals believe that society should extend to homosexuals all the rights that it extends to heterosexuals. Sullivan writes: “So the liberal's response is to create laws which protect this minority class from such infringements on its freedoms: abolition of anti-sodomy laws, enforcement of anti-discrimination statutes in employment and housing, discouragement of anti-homosexual public expression in the form of hate crime laws, and the like” (136). Liberals see several ways in which society has been treating homosexuals unfairly. Sullivan's category of Liberal politics attempts to essentially right the wrongs that dominant society has committed against minorities. Liberals have seen the unfair treatment of homosexuals and attempt to correct it. Vaid writes: “Discrimination in employment, housing…and many other aspects of life is the norm for people who are openly lesbian or gay. In most parts of the country, such discrimination remains legal. No federal law yet exists to render antigay discrimination illegal” (7). In accordance with Liberal politics, Vaid would like to enact laws to protect homosexuals. Though Vaid believes the government can protect homosexuals by enacting laws, these very laws would, in fact, discriminate against the majority of American citizens and ultimately curtail their freedom.

This notion of curtailing freedom is the underlying factor that would cause Sullivan to categorize Vaid as a Liberal. Sullivan believes that undermining freedom has become a Liberal trademark. Sullivan writes: “They wish after all, to deny others the right to complete freedom of contract and to complete freedom of expression, in order to protect a specific minority” (137). The anti-discrimination laws that Liberals advocate actually undermine the freedom of other people. To ensure freedom for the homosexual minority, Liberals would essentially take freedoms away from the heterosexual majority. This concept runs rampant in Vaid's argument. Vaid writes: “None of the laws mandate special treatment or unusual rights. They merely declare that discriminatory practices based on a person's sexual orientation are illegal” (9). In accordance with Liberal politics, Vaid only has the best intentions in advocating anti-discrimination laws in that she is trying to provide homosexuals with more freedom. However, Vaid, as well as the Liberals, are in effect impeding the freedom of heterosexuals. For example Vaid would view private businesses that refrain from hiring homosexuals as discriminatory. But, by passing laws against this hiring practice, Vaid would be undermining the freedom of the business owners. The owners have the freedom to hire whomever they wish. Liberals want to pass laws that would require the government to outlaw hiring practices that discriminate against gay people, as does Vaid. Both parties wish to restrict the freedom of other groups in order to further the freedom of homosexuals. For this reason, Sullivan would classify Vaid's argument as Liberal.

Both Andrew Sullivan and Urvashi Vaid yearn for a society in which homosexuals and heterosexuals can exist equally. Sullivan explores five different categories of politics in Virtually Normal. Through a careful process of elimination, it becomes evident that Vaid is neither a Prohibitionist, Liberationist, Conservative, nor an advocate of Sullivan’s ideal politics; because Vaid advocates societal education and government control in terms of anti-discrimination laws, Sullivan would categorize her argument into his category of Liberal politics. Though she wants to change society for the better, the fact remains that Vaid wants to extend freedoms to homosexuals while, at the same time, limiting the freedoms of heterosexuals. For this reason, more than any other, Sullivan would consider her argument Liberal.

Works Cited

Sullivan, Andrew. Virtually Normal. New York: Random House Inc., 1995. Vaid, Urvashi. Virtual Equality. New York: Anchor Books, ¹995.