Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Gay marriage, legalising of
Section E. Social, moral and religious

A bill was passed through the House of Commons to legalise gay marriage in February 2013, but it remains a controversial topic in the UK and around the world. Many countries have now legalised it including the Netherlands, Spain and Canada, and it is legal in nine US states. Supporters of gay marriage see it as an important factor in equal rights, whereas its opponents see marriage as an inherently heterosexual union. A Proposition team may want to consider whether it would force religious institutions to marry gay couples, or whether it simply wants the union to be legally recognised where it is performed voluntarily by religious leaders or in civil ceremonies.

Pros

[1] To complete the worldwide movement towards equal rights for homosexuals in society, we should allow homosexual couples the right to a public legal and religious recognition of their lifelong loving commitment to one another. Homosexuals, as equal members of society, should have equal access to both civil and religious forms of marriage.

[2] Whatever its historical roots, marriage is clearly not just for the purpose of reproduction. Infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry; therefore, homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples, like heterosexual couples, may wish to marry as a prelude to adopting or fostering children, and this should be encouraged as part of a modern understanding of the family and of family values.

[3] Society has always been able to adapt religious teachings and develop interpretations of religious principles proper to each new era. Religions should respond positively to the role that homosexual couples can play in communities. Those sectors of religious communities that condemn homosexuality outright will simply find themselves increasingly marginalised as society progresses. Those homosexuals who wish to marry may choose, in any case, to reject the homophobic religious traditions and marry in a civil ceremony.

[4] Many societies give certain financial advantages to married couples — e.g. tax allowances. To deny these advantages to committed homosexual couples is an unjustifiable case of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

[5] It is circular to argue that homosexuals are not parents and so are not candidates for financial rewards open to parents. If homosexuals were routinely allowed to adopt and foster children, then it would be appropriate to reward and encourage stable homosexual family homes with financial incentives. What we want to see is a reinvention of ’family values’ in which homosexuals can marry, be parents, and receive the same rights and benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

Cons

[1] The equality of homosexuals with other members of society is achieved by decriminalising homosexual activity and allowing equal opportunities to homosexuals in terms of education and employment rights. Supporting gay rights does not mean ignoring the obvious differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Marriage is historically and logically a heterosexual institution, the extension of which to homosexual couples would be meaningless and perhaps even a misrepresentation of their distinct identity.

[2] Marriage is primarily an institution to allow for the creation of children in a stable family environment. Homosexual couples can never produce a family and to allow them to marry is to overlook the history and meaning of marriage. We can endorse their love for one another without pretending that they are just like a heterosexual couple. Furthermore, their relationships, not being child-producing, do not need the same permanence for the sake of children that a marriage provides.

[3] Marriage is primarily a religious institution and all the main religions condemn homosexuality. It would be hypocritical of the Jewish and Christian communities to endorse homosexual marriage when their sacred scriptures condemn homosexuality.

[4] The financial advantages offered to married couples are not to encourage marriage for its own sake, but to encourage the creation of traditional family units. Child-support payments and tax relief on mortgages serve the same purpose — to encourage the creation of stable family homes. It is this that society seeks to encourage, not sexual unions per se.

[5] Homosexuals, by definition, will not produce children, and so are not appropriate candidates for financial incentives to home-making and the maintenance of family values.

Possible motions

This House would legalise gay marriage,

This House celebrates homosexual homemakers.

This House demands new family values.

This House believes that marriage should only be a union between a man and a woman.

Related topics

God, existence of

Homosexuals, ordination of

Homosexuals, outing of

Marriage

Polygamy, legalisation of