Gay Marriage: Theologil and Moral Arguments - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Contents:

• GAY MARRIAGE: THEOLOGIL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS
• GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY MARRIAGE: DISPUT AND THE ETHIL DILEMMA
• GAY MARRIAGE AND ETHIL THEORI
• THE ETHICS OF… GAY MARRIAGE
• ETHIL ISSU SURROUNDG GAY MARRIAGE
• IS GAY MARRIAGE A MORAL ISSUE OR A CIVIL LIBERTI ISSUE? - PT. 1

GAY MARRIAGE: THEOLOGIL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS

Statistics suggt, however, that gays and lbians are not creasg number, if we accept the bt rearch data of Edward Lmann, who puts the number at about 5% of the populatn1. What has grown is a much greater acceptance of gays and lbians our culture, as well as the social and enomic eedom for gays and lbians to emerge om the closet that has nfed them for so many generatns.

The recent addn of same sex mment ceremoni the Sunday New York Tim weddg and engagement announcements and the populary of shows as "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye…" dite a shift our culture's attu toward gays and lbians. My tent was two-fold: first to ve stunts to dialogue wh people different om themselv; send, to work to elimate, whatever small way I uld, homophobic attus on our mp and our muny. My purpose today is not to support or fend gay and lbian marriag—ed, many gays and lbians do not want to marry—but simply suggt a theologil approach that might open up the possibily for greater Christian acceptance of, and eccliastil approval for, same sex unns.

"Consiratns Regardg Proposals to Give Legal Regnn to Unns Between Homosexual Persons" (CDF): nnot promote any form of civil regnn of same-sex unns, formally or materially. Catholic sistence: one n uphold the digny of homosexual people while not upholdg their right-to-marry; no unjt discrimatn towards homosexuals is acceptable; they mt be treated wh rpect, and their rights fend. Although don’t get much airtime beyond queer unterpublics, there is an adamantly left-wg, progrsive and pro-gay perspective that suggts same-sex marriage is not a necsary good.

GAY MARRIAGE

Lbian and gay muni, and the femist muni wh which they have historilly overlapped, have long celebrated the valu of sexual diversy over the sexual nformy reprented by marriage and the ethil importance of sexual straight-talkg rather than the double-standards so equently observed marriage’s vicy. There’s a tenncy among s proponents to reprent same-sex marriage as the fal chapter the story of gay acceptance, “the last civil right” as has sometim exaggeratedly been lled. It is large part bee of femist and gay novatns livg that marriage today is creasgly unrstood not as a relig but a social relatn; characterised not by male domatn but equaly and mutualy between the sex; valued not terms of s ntractual basis but terms of s ongog ntributn to a person’s sense of well-beg; and mataed not until ath-do--part but for as long as both parti fd satisfactn .

GAY MARRIAGE: DISPUT AND THE ETHIL DILEMMA

Rather than adm lbians and gay men to marriage as currently nceived, we should avow more fully the range of optns that characterise a lot of our liv and livg arrangements.

In regnisg some gay and lbian relatnships as marriag, same-sex marriage emphasis the ntued illegimacy of other sexual arrangements and the ntued excln of other social actors. Now this ragtag bunch might not seem as worthy of social protectn and prtige as the lovg, rg, long-term gay and lbian upl that are the shy new poster boys and girls for same-sex marriage.

The fai and iends of lbian and gay upl who are nied marriage rights may also experience negative physil and mental health nsequenc siar to those experienced by their loved on. The vast majory of scientific studi that have directly pared lbian and gay parents wh heterosexual parents have nsistently shown that the same-sex upl are as f and pable parents as heterosexual upl, and that their children are jt as psychologilly healthy and well adjted. The paper at hand is gog to analyze gay marriage om the perspectiv of different theori and juxtapose the opponents’ arguments, g elements of thought and tellectual standards.

GAY MARRIAGE AND ETHIL THEORI

The problem is that current same-sex marriage laws are not universal, which means that, om the philosophil pot of view, such unns obey one set of laws while vlatg all the others ( many untri gay marriage is still forbidn). I am nvced that is ethil to allow gay marriag sce sexual orientatn is largely termed by blogil factors, which impli that people are not to blame for havg and should not be prived of their rights.

Table of Contents Utilarianism and Gay Marriage Deontology and Gay Marriage Ethil Effects of Gay Marriag on the Society Gay Marriag Would Harm the Society Relativism and Gay Marriage Emotivism and Gay Marriag Introductn Profsor Michael Boylan stated his book “A Jt Society” that ethics is a science that als wh the right and wrong of human behavr (Boylan, 2004). Many untri cludg the followg untri have recently allowed gay marriag: Argenta, Canada, Denmark, Spa, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Ai, Swen and parts of Mexi and the Uned Stat of Ameri.

Deontology and Gay Marriage A ontologist’s view of gay marriage is almost siar to Utilarianism view sce they both base their iologi on the cisns of an dividual over those of the society.

THE ETHICS OF… GAY MARRIAGE

Deontology, as earlier mentned the paper, relat to moral obligatn and need, ontologists believe that a gay uple seeks to get married bee they believe is the rrect thg to do. To ntrast the two theori (utilarianism and ontology), we n say that utilarianism view on gay marriage is that the upl make their cisns believg the rults will be beneficial for larger proportn of people. A ontologist view is that gay people make their cisns wh the knowledge that whatever they are dog rpects life, equaly, and honty whout nsirg nsequenc of their actns, pecially the effects on the society.

Relativism and Gay Marriage If marriage is relative, any uple, whether gay or not, n be uned acrdg to the laws of marriage and get divorced for whatever reason they have or even wh no reason totally. Emotivism and Gay Marriag Acrdg to emotivism school of thought, sayg gay marriag are wrong or right exprs an dividual persons own attu or opn towards homosexualy, not the societi.

Scholars and the general public beme creasgly terted the issue durg the late 20th century, a perd when attus toward homosexualy and laws regulatg homosexual behavur were liberalized, particularly wtern Europe and the Uned issue of same-sex marriage equently sparked emotnal and polil clash between supporters and opponents.

ETHIL ISSU SURROUNDG GAY MARRIAGE

Cultur that openly accepted homosexualy, of which there were many, generally had nonmaral tegori of partnership through which such bonds uld be exprsed and socially regulated. Relig and secular expectatns of marriage and sexualy Over time the historil and tradnal cultur origally rerd by the lik of Bachofen and Man slowly succumbed to the homogenizatn imposed by lonialism. In other s, the cultural homogeney supported by the domant relign did not rult the applitn of doctre to the civic realm but may nohels have fostered a smoother seri of discsns among the cizenry: Belgium and Spa had legalized same-sex marriage, for stance, spe official opposn om their predomant relig stutn, the Roman Catholic Church.

Most of the world religns have at some pots their histori opposed same-sex marriage for one or more of the followg stated reasons: homosexual acts vlate natural law or dive tentns and are therefore immoral; passag sacred texts nmn homosexual acts; and relig tradn regniz only the marriage of one man and one woman as valid. The Natnal Relig Learship Roundtable, which supported the multi-fah event on the steps of the San Francis Cy Hall scribed above, is nvened by the Natnal Gay and Lbian Task Force.

IS GAY MARRIAGE A MORAL ISSUE OR A CIVIL LIBERTI ISSUE? - PT. 1

Equal Employment Opportuny Commissn, se the movement for same-sex marriage an opportuny “to make the se for” the “normative moral equivalence” of “gay and heterosexual sex”—an argument, Profsor Feldblum observ, “that is hardly ever heard polil circl.

Rutgers Law Profsor Carlos Ball believ that the stggle for “societal acceptance” of same-sex relatnships entails a “ontal attack” on the “eply held views of many Amerins regardg the (im)moraly of homosexualy.