Question: Can it be moral for same-sex individuals to marry one another?

Objection 1: It seems that it cannot be moral for same-sex individuals to marry one another because what is impossible can hardly be moral, and its not possible for same -sex individuals to enter into an essentially heterosexual relationship such as marriage. Objection 2: Furthermore, because homosexual intercourse is immoral, marrying two homosexually orientated individuals as same-sex spouses are apt to be would unfairly place them in dangerously tempting situations and condemn them to a life of frustration as they struggle to refrain from acting upon their inclinations. Surely, inflicting such unnecessary torment is immoral. Objection 3: Finally, marrying same-sex individuals would undermine the basic unit of society: the traditional family, and therefore compromise the greater good of society itself. What compromises the greater good of society itself should be presumed immoral until proven otherwise. I answer that we should use what is clear to us as a guide when reasoning about what is unclear to us. Thus, it is a good heuristic to compare and contrast our paradigmatic examples with an object when determining whether it belongs to the class of objects our paradigmatic examples are representative of. Now, gender does not resemble our paradigmatic examples of important features of a good, wholesome and honorable marriage in any relevant way. It follows that we have prima facie reason to think gender is not an important feature of a good, wholesome and honorable marriage and therefore that it can be and is moral for same-sex individuals to marry one another. Whats important to a good, wholesome and honorable marriage are things like love, respect, honesty, patience, and fidelity, not things like race. But, gender is much more like race than like any of the listed qualities. Thus, gender isnt really anything like whats important to a good, wholesome and honorable marriage. Reply to Objection 1: We would be the simplest of idiots in asking whether same-sex individuals can enter into a relationship they cannot. Given our minimal intelligence and cursory familiarity with this subject, its more likely that the word marriage is being used to refer a relation same-sex individuals can enter in the Question and to a relation they cannot in Objection 1. But then, what Objection 1 means by marriage is not what the Question does, and the objection irrelevantly addresses something not asked by the Question.

Reply to Objection 2: This objection presupposes that gender and ability to procreate are relevant to the morality of a sex act. But, this is contrary to common moral reasoning. When a man rapes a woman (or vice versa), we dont count their genders as a point in favor of the acts morality. Likewise, when a man rapes a man, or a woman a woman, we dont count their genders as further reason to think the rape was immoral. Objection 2 would have same-gender rape worse than opposite-gender rape, simply because of gender, and not because of amounts of pain, degradation or any of the things that make rape wrong. Gender does not register as morally relevant: we look for things like competence, consent, respect, or pain when tracking the morality of a sex act, not gender. Reply to Objection 3: Suppose that the basic unit of society is the traditional family comprised of a man, his wife and their children. (Forget about the dog) Same-sex marriage can only undermine this unit so as to detriment the greater good of society in one of three ways: in principle, in practice or in both. Same-sex marriage could only undermine the traditional family as specified in principle if the traditional family was premised on something that same-sex marriage denied. And what could that be? That marriage is only between one man and one woman? Weve already addressed this concern in Reply to Objection 1. Furthermore, even if the traditional family has been historically premised on this assumption, its question-begging to say that it ought to be. Same-sex marriage would only undermine the traditional family as specified in practice if it disrupted the role that the good of society relies on the traditional family to play. The only realistic candidate here is that of raising children, a role traditionally reserved for a mother and father. But, numerous relevant, professional organizations have said that the non-traditional family can effectively play this role including the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the Canadian Psychological Association and the Australian Psychological Society. The result of scores of empirical research for decades now has revealed that sexual orientation does not affect parental performance. What does detrimentally affect the children of such families is the stigma and bigotry held against their families. But, preventing LGBT adoption so that the children dont suffer from bigots would be like prohibiting black couples from procreating in the 40s so that their children wouldnt suffer at the hands of racists. Clearly the right thing to do is stop the bigots rather than the parents. Finally, such bigotry is not universal and if its presence is what disables same-sex couples from effectively raising children, then at best, such adoption should be implemented only in parts of the world, and this form of bigotry will not be so influential forever.