Transcript NSS Learning and Teaching for the Ethics and Religious Studies

NSS Learning and Teaching for the
Ethics and Religious Studies
Curriculum Series:
11-12 December 2008
Hong Kong Central Library
Talk 2: Homosexuality and
Same-sex Marriage
Presented by
Francis Mok
City University of Hong Kong
I. Background:
(A) Same-sex marriage in the world:
– In 2001, same-sex marriage was approved
by law in the Netherlands. It made
Netherlands the first country to grant legal
recognition to same-sex marriage.
– Up to now, same-sex marriage was legally
recognized in Belgium, Spain, Canada,
Netherlands, South Africa, Norway (starting
from 2009) and some states in USA
(Massachusetts and Connecticut).
– Civil unions and registered partnerships
are recognized in the following countries:
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, United
Kingdom etc.
– On November 17 2008, the Supreme Court of
Nepal made a ruling in favor of same sex
marriage and the government was asked to
make sure that the laws will not discriminate
sexual minorities.
(B) Same-sex marriage in Chinese
societies:
– In 2003, the Taiwan government
proposed a legislation that would grant
same-sex couples an equal right to
marry. But it was stalled and not voted
on because of oppositions from both
cabinet members and legislators of the
opposition party.
– Li Yinhe (李銀河), a famous scholar on
sexology in China, has attempted to put
forward same-sex marriage legislation in
the National People’s Congress for three
times but she failed to secure enough
support to table the bills.
(C) Homosexuality and same-sex
marriage in Hong Kong:
– Homosexuality was decriminalized
starting from July 1991.
– But all sex acts between two consenting
males under the age of 21 were still
illegal before 2005.
– In March 2002, two homosexual couples
married in the disguise of two
heterosexual couples. They claimed that
it would enable them to apply for public
rental housing.
– In 17th August 2003, eight members of
the Rainbow Action (a local gay rights
group) disrupted a Sunday mass at the
Catholic cathedral to protest against the
condemnation of same-sex marriage
made by the Hong Kong Roman
Catholic Church one week ago.
The Cathedral of Immaculate
Conception
(聖母無原罪主教座堂)
– In September 2003, Roddy Shaw and
Nelson Ng, a same-sex couple from
Hong Kong, married in Ontario, Canada
where same-sex marriage is legally
recognized.
– But Elsie Leung, the then Secretary of
Justice, responded that their marriage
would not be recognized in Hong Kong.
•
That’s how Roddy explained their decision to
marry in Canada: "The fact that we got married
legally in Ontario means that the Hong Kong
government has to recognize our marriage,
because it is a civil marriage that is required by
Hong Kong law to be recognized in Hong Kong,
for the different purposes of social policies, tax
breaks, inheritances, and all other legal
protections. The most immediate effect for us
will be the possibility of legal reform in Hong
Kong."
– The RTHK broadcasted a programme
called “Gay – Lovers (同志. 戀人)” in
July 2006. In response to criticisms
made against this programme, the
Broadcasting Authority ruled in
January 2007 that the programme was
“unfair, partial and biased towards
homosexuality, and having the effect of
promoting the acceptance of
homosexual marriage.”
– This ruling was later overturned by
Justice Michael Hartmann in a case of
judicial review initiated by a homosexual
who was interviewed in the programme.
II. Two Types of Moral Inquiry:
(A) Positive (or empirical) morality:
•
•
•
What are the prevailing moral norms in our
society?
What are considered as moral (and immoral)
by the general public?
Is a certain action or behavior moral (or
immoral) as judged by the prevailing norms
and expectations?
(B) Critical morality:
– The fact that people consider an action as
immoral cannot automatically support the
conclusion that such an action is really
immoral.
– We have to be very critical to the popular
views and the prevailing standards of morality.
– We should subject all commonly accepted
moral judgments to critical evaluation and to
see if those judgments can be justified by
sound moral reasons.
III. Same-sex Marriage as a
Moral Issue
(A) The Moral Questions:
(i) Is same-sex marriage morally right or
wrong?
(ii) What are the possible justifications?
Can we distinguish between the
stronger and the weaker justifications?
(iii) What are the usual objections against
it? And are they sound?
(B) What are the common
justifications of same-sex
marriage?
(i) The Liberal defense:
–
–
–
Freedom to pursue one’s own way of life;
Right to marry is a basic human right;
The state should be neutral and should not
favor one sexual orientation against others.
(ii) The Utilitarian defense:
– The society would be better off if
homosexuals were treated equally as
heterosexuals because the pleasure gained
by the former would outweigh the displeasure
felt by the latter.
– Besides, a city that is hospitable to
homosexuals is conducive to the
development of tourism. (Take a look at the
website of the Vancouver Tourism Board. It is
one of their selling points)
– Treating homosexuals fairly can also
contribute to the competitiveness of a country.
That explains why Lee Kuan Yew has
become more tolerant of homosexuality.
That’s what he told the reporter of Reuters:
“They tell me that homosexuals are
creative writers, dancers. If we want
creative people, then we have to put up
with their idiosyncrasies.” (April 2007)
Do you think that these two are
sound and adequate
justifications?
(C) What is the common objection
against same-sex marriage?
• The Communitarian objection:
– Same-sex marriage is contrary to our culture
and tradition.
– Once cut off from our culture and tradition, we
no longer know how to identify and to live a
good and flourishing life.
– The values underlying our culture, together
with the institutions and practices
constitutive of our tradition can confer
meanings to our way of life. Without them we
could no longer make sense of our life.
To what extent do you agree with
this objection?
(D) The film ‘Wedding Banquet’:
• This film is not directly addressing the
question of right and wrong of same-sex
marriage.
• Our focus is how homosexuals and gay
couples are portrayed in the film; through
these portrayals, we hope to gain a better
understanding of their way of life and see
whether they can defend themselves.
• Of course, we need not assume that
same-sex marriage can necessarily be
defended.
• The film has provide us an open-minded
and sympathetic understanding of
homosexuality. We shall judge whether it
can stand the test of our moral intuitions
and critical evaluation.
喜宴 (1993)
• Director: Ang Lee 李安
• Key characters:
– 高偉同, Gao Wai-tung (趙文瑄)
– Simon (Mitchell Lichtenstein)
– 顧葳葳, Wei-wei (金素梅)
– 高父 (郎雄)
– 高母 (歸亞蕾)
• Plot summary:
– Wai-tung and Simon, both professionals, is a
gay couple living in Manhattan. Wai-tung’s
parents in Taiwan very much want to see that
he get married and bring them a grandson.
– To meet this impossible demand of Wai-tung’s
parents, Simon suggests Wai-tung to enter
into a ostensible marriage relationship with
Wei-wei, a painter from Mainland China who
is desperate to get a Green Card.
– It appears to be a perfect solution that can
satisfy all parties concerned. But to their
surprise, Wai-tung’s parents are so happy that
they decide to fly to New York to attend the
wedding and to meet their ‘daughter-in-law’.
Can the secret be kept?
Would they be able to bear with the truth?
Will they get what they want?
(E) Analysis and Discussion:
(i) How would you describe the way of life
Wai-tung and Simon are trying to live?
• How would they defend their choice?
• What are the values underlying their
choices? What are their concerns in
arranging the ostensible marriage?
(ii) Are they traditional or anti-tradition?
• Are they trying to attack the tradition or to
be part of it?
• Do they want to be autonomous (and be
left alone) or be accepted as members of
a recognized institution?
(iii) In defending same-sex marriage, are
they simply fighting for their freedom to
choose, claiming that they can bring
about social utility, or defending the
opportunity to participate in a valuable
social institution (i.e. marriage and family)
as recognized by our tradition?
• Finally, to those who are in favor of the
legalization of same-sex marriage, what
would be your strongest moral justification?
• And to those who are still in opposition to
same-sex marriage, how would you
respond to the several moral justifications
we have come across so far?