“A calm mind always wins” Novak Djokovic

Is gay marriage morally wrong?

The new Archbishop of Canterbury elect, Justin Welby, is opposed to gay marriage. The first question he will likely be asked at his news conference is this: “on what grounds do you oppose gay marriage?”

Philosophically we have to justify our views in a way that makes logical sense, so this month I'm awarding £50 to the best student blog on this subject (details and how to enter here). The debate about gay marriage is just that – a debate. So if you can think of a philosophical argument against gay marriage, could you do something for me? Send it to me so I can post the best (strongest) argument as a blog (to help our new Archbishop). Here are some possible arguments.

1.  Gay marriage is unnatural. This is really a version of the natural law argument which goes like this. Human beings have natural rational functions or tendencies. One of these tendencies is to reproduce. Reproduction is therefore a natural good or primary precept. Gay couples cannot naturally conceive. Therefore gay marriage is wrong according to natural law.

There is a suppressed premise here, it seems to me: that marriage is about reproduction. Do we accept this? Or is the primary purpose of marriage human bonding, mutual support, friendship and commitment? If couples can’t conceive, because they are infertile, too old or just choose not to, it doesn’t make them any less married. The same argument can be produced for sexual relations generally. The question is begged: what is the primary purpose of sex? Babies or mutual bonding?

2. Gay marriage will encourage a slippery slope that will end in approval for polygamy, incest, and all manner of sexual vices.

This argument has been introduced recently in France, which yesterday approved gay marriage. Cardinal Philippe Barbarin argued thus…

 “The next thing they will want is to have couples made up of three or four people. Afterwards, the ban on incest will perhaps fall”. The problem with slippery slope arguments like this is that philosophically they are generally unsound. There is no automatic slide from one change, legitimising gay marriage between two committed people and polygamous marriage or incest.

This argument could only be valid if there are no counteracting forces, legal or social or moral, that will stop the slide happening.

3. Gay marriage is unjust (unfair to heterosexuals). The argument (which I found on a net blog) goes like this:

Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).
The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.
What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.
Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.
To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.
Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

Is there anything wrong with this argument?

4. Gay marriage is against Scripture. It is true that Leviticus and Paul (see Romans 1) are very much against gay sex. But the Archbishop might have a problem defending Paul’s views here. Paul suggests that those who engage in such practices as gay sex “deserve death” and are subject to the wrath of God. And because Justin Welby supports civil unions (so I believe) but not marriage, you could argue that the Archbishop elect has already torn up that portion of Scripture where Paul gets really animated against gay sex.

Of course, theological arguments are not the same as philosophical arguments. And the Archbishop really needs a philosophical argument to support his case against gay marriage, if it isn’t to sound like bigotry and prejudice.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2012/05/the-top-six-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why-they-all-fail.html