Conclusions

The history of changing concepts among Christian leaders and intellectuals about the nature of human sexuality and about the kinds and varieties of sexual practices that are consistent with Christian belief suggests that dogmatic asser­tions about the unity, consistency, and invariability of Christian sexual morality must be treated with skepticism.

The history of medieval attempts to modify patterns of sexual activity through law suggests that past efforts in this direction have been successful only when society as a whole has perceived that the hoped-for modifications will meet needs other than purely moral and spiritual ones. The early medieval Church succeeded, for example, in imposing monogamy upon the Germanic invaders whose previous marriage practices had favored polygyny, at least among the rich, the strong, and the well born. Monogamy ultimately prevailed, but it did so only after a long struggle. In the final analysis its victory probably owed as much to material considerations relating to the conservation of heritable prop­erty, succession to political power, the disappearance of slavery, and the emer­gence of peasant agriculture as it did to moral and ethical concerns. The tri­umph of monogamy has been reasonably complete and permanent. It was also the most complete victory that Christian beliefs about sexual morality and fam­ily structure ever won. The history of the struggles to win acceptance of the principle of matrimonial indissolubility or the contest over the rules limiting endogamy, for example, show far more limited successes, and in the long run even those proved transitory. The history of efforts to legislate bans on prostitu­tion demonstrated that the capacity of religious leaders to implement their moral beliefs through legal regulation was severely limited; it also underscored the wisdom of those Church leaders who opted for a policy of practical tolera­tion for behavior that they disapproved of but that they perceived might meet some wider social needs.

The Christian Church and Western governments in the past have accommo­dated their sexual teachings and their sex laws to the social needs and intellec­tual perceptions of successive eras. Attempts to enunciate permanent and un­changing prescriptions for sexual behavior are not likely, on the past record, to rise above the level of vain and transient fads. Even basic institutions, such as marriage and the family, change over time, as they respond to changes in so­ciety, the economy, and intellectual perceptions. No system of law and regula­tion can adequately prescribe the bounds and limits of human sexual conduct, for there is no single right and proper way for humans to respond sexually to each other. Human sexuality remains, at the end, a mystery suffused with won­der and with terror, the foundation of our existence as individuals and as a spe­cies, but also an explosive force that can tear us apart and pit us one against the other as readily as it can join us together in cozy and rapturous intimacy.

Law is a tool that societies legitimately use to set boundaries, to protect some forms of sexual expression while discouraging others. Law can legiti­mately penalize sexual behaviors that endanger life, health, and public safety. It can in some measure protect the disadvantaged from the cruder kinds of sex­ual exploitation. What law cannot do effectively is to impose a uniform sexual morality, to compel the public to conform to a single ideal of sexual ethics, how­ever noble that ideal may be.

Law is a crude, if indispensable, tool of social policy; but it is also a fragile one. To force it beyond its limits is not only to invite failure to achieve the in­tended goal, but also to inspire disrespect for the legitimate social functions of law and ultimately for society itself. Sex law presents powerful temptations to force law beyond its limits. Societies do well to resist those temptations.