Philippa Downes won the November competition with this clear explanation of how, among other things, the idea of gay marriage changes the definition of marriage.  It should be stressed that the competition required an argument to be constructed, and does not imply that Philippa necessarily agrees with this view.  Philosophy is about exploring arguments.

In a pluralistic society where each person holds a slightly different view from the next, it is inevitable that a subject which affects so many people is going to be highly charged and highly controversial. The Church of England is eager to both avoid and condemn all discrimination, including homophobia. In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury strongly supports the rights of same-sex couples to engage in civil partnerships, a right that was voted for by the vast majority of bishops in 2004. However the Church rejects the legalisation of same-sex marriage, a rejection justified by the three following reasons.

The first argument relies on the definition of marriage and the legalities behind the concept. In the Church of England, marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman. The Church argues that changing this definition would have a dramatic impact on current marriages and on the way that society views the sacred institution itself, and would go as far as to change the intrinsic nature of marriage with the possibility of lowering its significance and importance were it considered ‘changeable’. The existence of civil partnerships make this complex change unnecessary, due to the fact that doing so would have little to no impact on the rights of those affected. The legal rights of those in a civil partnership would not be improved were the couple married. Furthermore, the religious aspects of marriage are simply not applicable to same-sex couples due to the Bible teaching on the sin of practising homosexuality. As Leviticus 18 states, “You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination”. Though the church does not condemn homosexual nature, it labels practising homosexuality as a sin, and thus cannot condone such things occurring within a religious institution such as marriage. 

A key purpose of marriage is to ensure that the children borne of said marriage have a strong and stable family environment in which to grow up. The idea of ‘family life’ is God-given, and in ‘Common Worship: Pastoral Services’, the Church speaks of the children of such a partnership being “nurtured in accordance with God’s will”. Genesis 9:7 commands “And you, be you fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein”. Biology dictates that same-sex couples cannot procreate, and thus have no need for the institution which is built to protect and aid the children of marriage. 

The final primary argument is that of the ‘slippery slope’. By disregarding a part of Church teaching which has been intrinsic to the Church of England faith for centuries, the rest of Church teaching may be thrown into a shadow of doubt. The Church cannot override the Bible’s clear teaching on the sin of homosexuality without boasting the power of God, which is of course blasphemy. The absolutist nature of Church teaching cannot change based on contemporary social opinion, else the Church, and the word of God, becomes relativist. 
There is also the opinion and faith of not just the Church hierarchy, but the members of the Church, to consider. The Church making a decision to accept same-sex marriage may confuse and anger many of its followers, for whom marriage as an institution is clearly defined. For society as a whole, both inside and outside the Church, marriage reaps many benefits. Not only fidelity and unity (which the Church recognises is possible in same-sex couples), but the biological compatibility of men and women and the potential for procreation. To remove this aspect sees negative consequences on the social gains from the marriage institution.

The changing of the definition of marriage is complex and unnecessary. Marriage is an institution created to aid procreation, which same-sex couples have no need for. By accepting same-sex marriage, the Church risks negative reaction from its followers and could be seen to be changing Bible teaching without the true power to do so, as that power belongs to God alone. The intrinsic nature of marriage is unalterable, and thus the Church must remain faithful to its conviction that the consequences of a change such as the legalisation of same-sex marriage would have negative consequences for both the Church, and society as a whole.