Whatsapp There is a bill before the Australian Parliament to change the current definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry. The debate over same-sex marriage is about the function and purpose of the law in relation to marriage and not a discussion that goes to personal motivation and attitudes. We ought to deal fairly with every member of the human family and their needs, including people of homosexual orientation.
I find it entirely illogical why, in this country, we still do not recognise a marriage between two people if those people are both of the same sex.
With this in mind I would like to ask a very simple question: First, I am talking about marriage equality. The position I want to argue for here is that marriage can, and should be, a loving and legal union between two people.
Recent reports indicate that even federal Ethical dilemma on gay marriage MPs are changing their tune. Second, I am talking about a legal union.
Last time I checked, our government is not aligned to any particular religion. Australia is all about freedom of belief, right? So arguments against changing our construction of marriage based on religious doctrine should have no weight. Ethical considerations can be discussed using one of several ethical frameworks that have been developed over the last 2, years.
Without going into the nitty-gritty of each theory, I would like to present a quick analysis of marriage equality from three major ethical positions: Utilitarianism Virtue Theory Utilitarianism A wildly gross generalisation of utilitarianism is that the ends justify the means.
An action is deemed good if it leads to good consequences. The good is a measurement utilitarians use to decide if a some consequence is good or not. The good is generally something like the attainment of pleasure and avoidance of harm, happiness, well being; whatever you might think of as being part of the good life.
So for a utilitarian to decide if something is good or not, a simple equation is used to see what the consequences of an action might be: Marriage equality presents us with many factors to consider but we could condense them into one generalised equation.
If our marriage act were to be extended, some people would be harmed in that their idea of what marriage is would change. It does, however, harm their beliefs in some way. On the other side of the equation we would have a group of people who would directly benefit.
Same-sex couples gain a direct benefit from this in that they would now be eligible for an act that our community deems a good; the ability to marry their chosen partner. The group who are directly benefitting from is appear to outweigh those who are indirectly harmed.
Utilitarians would surely approve of marriage equality. Enrique Mendez Deontology Deontology is almost the exact opposite of utilitarianism. The wildly gross generalisation here is that the means justify the ends, or it is not the result of the action but the action itself that we ought to judge as to its goodness or badness.
Deontology is a rule-bound ethics. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not eat a pizza with a knife and fork, thou shalt try thy dinner before putting salt on it. The key with deontological ethics is its universalisability yes, a real word.
Rules need to be applicable to everyone, or everyone in a given situation.
The term “gay marriage”, to me, doesn’t sit right. We don’t have gay breakfast, or go on a gay road trip in the same way we don’t play straight tennis or go sexually-diverse camping. It. The Ethics of Same-Sex Marriage. Leviticus suggests that gay homosexual sex is so egregious, that offenders should be killed if they are caught. abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” So, according to those that look at the ethical world with a theological voluntarism approach, same- sex. Ethical arguments against same-sex marriage laws and that to deny gay and lesbian couples marriage is a denial of "natural justice." But under these proposals, marriage would be totally.
If it was OK to lie, say, our idea of the truth would become meaningless. The rule that lying is bad, and therefore wrong, protects our ability to tell the truth. Given this, is the rite for two consenting adults to marry, regardless of sex or gender, universalisable? Under a deontological analysis, our current marriage laws clearly do not apply to all consenting adults.
A virtuous person is a good person. Someone who embodies virtues such as love, respect, and generosity among others and rejects vices such as hatred, greed, and bad body-odour, are good.
Would the virtuous person accept or reject marriage equality? It seems to me that anything that allows two people who love each other to be recognised can only bring good into the world. The virtuous person would have an unwavering desire to promote love in all its forms throughout the world.
I have barely scratched the surface of these ethical frameworks, but I think you get the idea.Gay marriage should not be the ethical question .
the idea of marriage should be the ethical question. Is the binding generally contractual between 2 people an ethical practice?
If a contract is required the relationship should be questioned as ethical. Experiencing an ethical dilemma? Need advice from a humanist perspective? Send your questions to The Ethical Dilemma at [email protected] (subject line: Ethical Dilemma). All inquiries are kept confidential.
What to Say to the Anti-Gay: I have a number of conservative, religious associates who subscribe to the school of “marriage means one man and one woman.”. This is why it was so ironic that one of the most recent attempts to provide such an "ethical" argument in favour of same-sex marriage also played out so poorly.
Ethics and same-sex marriage. If gay marriage is legalized, the institution of marriage will be deprived of monogamy and thus any hope of permanence. (Kurtz ) I believe that this is a fallacy based on scare tactics, somewhat like the Bush administration idea of going to war with Iraq.
In this ethical dilemma, there are two sides: Those in favor of gay marriage tend to use arguments for legal matrimony, joint tax fillings, human needs, civil rights, justice, etc. On the other side of the issue, most “opponents” and defenders of the Holy Bible (God’s Word) hold religious and morals established by the founding fathers who.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 1 Same-Sex Marriage S. Derek Hadfield Philosophy of Ethics Dr. S. Koepke 7/22/14 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 2 Same-Sex Marriage The issue of same-sex marriage is something of a hot topic in our country these days.