The Ethical Issues of Gay Marriage

Marriage allows two people to demonstrate their love for each other, solidify their relationship with an officially recognized legal union, and enjoy the many benefits that often accompany a marriage. However, heavy media coverage and an increased number of homosexuals proudly revealing their lifestyle preferences has enabled the American society to develop an enhanced acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle, and this enhanced acceptance has stimulated the same-sex marriage debate regarding whether or not gay couples should be allowed to get married like all other couples. Although there are many ethical arguments that opponents of gay marriage propose to explain their disapproval, multiple ethical attitudes suggest that the legalization of gay marriage would yield the best results for gay couples and for our entire society.

One of the most common arguments used to oppose gay marriage is that the practice violates religious morals. For instance, in the Leviticus section of the Old Testament, the Ancient Israelites are informed that having sexual intercourse with a same-sex partner was an abomination. Although scholars maintain that this rule was implemented because the Israelites needed to reproduce and expand their small population, the selection of anti-homosexuality passages in the Old Testament has caused many religious groups that interpret the Bible as literal to contend that it is entirely immoral to engage in intercourse with a member of the same sex (Lipp). This argument is often expressed by religious enthusiasts and is a reflection of Deontological ethics, for the argument relates to their particular perception of morality and not to the actual consequences or specific effects caused by the action of gay marriage (Beauchamp). Although gay couples do not inherently or physically inflict harm on other people by getting married, opponents contend that it should still be illegal because it is against their religious laws and their conception of morality. However, because many other people do not agree or adhere to this religious conception of morality, it is unjust and illegitimate to compel other people to follow a religious moral code that they do not accept (Lipp). Furthermore, because the separation of church and state clause in the 1st amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing one religion’s moral code as being legally superior to other religious or secular moral codes, it is unconstitutional for the government to use a religious code as justification for a law banning gay marriage.

Another argument commonly used to oppose gay marriage is that the practice is unnatural. This argument maintains that same-sex intercourse is not natural, homosexuality is a violation against the natural order, and gay marriage would condone this transgression against the natural order (Lipp). This line of reasoning relates to virtue ethics, which entails standards and beliefs regarding what qualities constitute virtuous behavior and what flaws represent disgraceful behavior (Hursthouse). Thus, arguing that gay marriage is unnatural emphasizes virtue ethics because the argument reflects the opponents’ stigmatizing disapproval of homosexuality as a vice, demonstrates a conviction regarding virtuous character, and argues that it is unnatural and disgraceful for gays to get married while it is natural and virtuous for straight couples to become married. However, this argument is based on the falsehoods that marriage is natural, and homosexuality is unnatural. The construct of marriage is not a creation or law of nature, but instead marriage is a man-made creation that is artificially and arbitrarily established by humans and by cultural structures. Additionally, it is reasonable to argue that the sexual preferences of homosexuals are natural because gay humans are created by nature, same-sex relations are permissible according to the scientific laws of nature, and homosexuality is present among many other species as well.

Opponents of gay marriage also consistently argue that marriage is for procreation and that homosexuals should not be allowed to get married because they cannot reproduce or have children. The opponents further this argument by asserting that, because marriage is exclusively intended for procreation, marriage must be between a man and a woman and our entire society would be harmed by changing the institution or definition of marriage (Lipp). This argument reflects utilitarian ethics, which focuses the question of morality on what would be best for the majority and what would benefit the most amount of people. Opponents who express that our society would be significantly damaged by permitting gay marriage are using utilitarian ethics, for they are maintaining that the purpose of marriage is exclusively for the act of procreation and that our society would in turn be harmed by changing the institution of marriage to include gay couples in the process (Beauchamp). Thus, although marriage might be beneficial for the gay minority, these opponents argue that such marriages should still be prohibited because it would injure the majority and destroy our society.

However, both premises of this argument are dramatically flawed. It is false to insist that marriage is exclusively intended to facilitate procreation and to develop families, for there are no legal requirements that obligate married couples to have children and many married couples do not have any children because of biological difficulties or because of personal preferences. The marriage of a couple without any children is still perceived as legitimate, and thus marriage is not exclusively for procreation, does not need to be exclusively designated for straight couples, and our society would not suffer damage from allowing gay marriage.

Supporters of gay marriage also use many ethical arguments to solidify their positions that same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. A common argument of supporters is that because everybody in our society is established as equal, so too homosexuals must be treated as equal and must be granted the same educational, professional and marital opportunities as all other citizens (Berman). To prohibit marriage based on sexual preferences discriminates gay couples by denying them equal opportunities, by attempting to invalidate and delegitimize their romantic partnerships, and by asserting that they are legally and culturally inferior to straight people. The argument that gay couples must be granted equality represents deontological ethics, for the argument is based on general morals and the value of equality rather than on specific and tangible effects that would be caused by gay marriage (Alexander). Thus, the argument follows deontological ethics by supporting equality as a standard that our society should achieve and by insisting that gay couples must be granted equality and have access to the same marriage rights as straight couples.

The argument also emphasizes the ethical concept of “rights.” In contrast to a privilege, a right refers to an action that every member of society can experience, a freedom that is protected and guaranteed by the law, and an absolute liberty that cannot be denied to any individual (Beauchamp). Supporters of gay marriage propose that gays should have the right to equality, for every adult has the right to get married to the person they love, even prisoners, and thus gay adults should also have the same equal right to marry the person they love.

A compelling argument that same-sex marriage advocates express to support their positions is the fact that married couples often benefit from several tax credits and that gay couples should also enjoy the tax credits that are associated with a marriage union. For instance, married couples can file for joint tax returns, which enable a married couple to combine their incomes and complete one tax form to pay one established income tax rate. Joint taxes can place married couples into a lower income tax bracket, decrease the total amount that they are required to pay and qualify the couple for a wider range of tax credits (Bell).

Married couples can also enjoy a significant tax benefit when they sell a home. The tax exclusion that married couples can receive after the sale of a home is often dramatically more than the tax exclusion granted to a single person who has sold a home. If a married couple has owned the house and has lived on the property for at least two of the five years prior to the sale, the couple can exclude approximately $500,000 in sales profits from their tax requirements, while unmarried house sellers can only exclude approximately $250,000 in sales profits. This significant house sales tax exclusion for married couples also applies after one of the spouses has passed away. If one partner has died and the surviving spouse sells the house within two years of the day that the partner died, the surviving spouse is qualified to claim the $500,000 house sales exclusion (Bell).

Married couples are also exempt from the federal estate tax, which is a tax that can require a person to pay a percentage of the estate that he or she inherits from a deceased relative or friend. The gross value of an estate includes real estate, vehicles, personal belongings, bank accounts, investment accounts, small business shares and life insurance proceeds. As of 2013, if the estate that a person inherits exceeds the $5,250,000 limit, then the inheritor is required to pay a tax rate of about 40 percent for the amount that exceeds the limit. However, the marital spouse exemption on the federal estate tax asserts that any property that is left for a surviving spouse as the sole inheritor is completely exempt from the estate tax (Bell). Thus, if a surviving spouse is the sole inheritor of an estate, he or she is not obligated to pay for an estate tax, regardless of how much the estate is worth.

Married couples can also receive tax benefits for gifts that they have purchased for other people. As of 2013, the federal gift tax exclusion exempts people from paying the gift tax if the gifts they have provided do not exceed the $14,000 limit. Thus, if a person gives gifts to one person or to multiple people, and each gift is less than $14,000, the provider is exempt from the federal gift tax. However, spouses can combine their annual exclusion gifts and give up to $28,000 in gifts for each recipient without being obligated to pay a tax on the expenses (Bell). Additionally, married couples can also benefit from the gift exemption because any gifts that spouses provide for each other are also completely exempt from the gift tax, regardless of the total value that the gifts are worth.

Because marriage unions include such a multitude of beneficial tax credits that only married couples can utilize, gay couples should also be allowed to get married and enjoy these benefits. Furthermore, to deprive gay couples from getting married and from attaining the same benefits as straight couples discriminates against gay couples and dramatically reduces the financial stability of the couples. This argument reflects communitarian ethics, which entails the belief that morality relates to what is good and beneficial for other people within our community, rather than focusing exclusively on what is beneficial for only the majority (Communitarian Ethics). Thus, the argument that gay couples should be allowed to get married and benefit from the tax credits is a communitarian argument because it establishes that, although gays are a minority of the culture, they still deserve the right to get married because they would benefit significantly from the many advantages that accompany marriage.

Advocates of gay marriage also cite statistics and research studies to support the economic and financial benefit that gay marriage would yield for our entire society. For instance, many research studies indicate that allowing gay marriage would benefit the national economy in several ways, as gay marriage would increase the tax revenue of the country, decrease the amount of welfare checks that need to be distributed and improve the overall economy. Enabling gay couples to get married would also generate a significant amount of money for the individual states, as the states would enjoy the financial benefits that the couples provide by purchasing marriage licenses and by conducting wedding ceremonies (Berman). Thus, allowing gays to participate in the marriage process would be beneficial for the national economy and would improve the financial stability of our entire society.

This argument reflects utilitarian ethics, which proposes that the decisions we should make and the actions we should take are those that can yield the best possible results for the majority of people involved (Beauchamp). Although some people might personally dislike and disapprove of gay marriage, legalizing the marriages would stimulate substantial benefits for the majority. Thus, according to utilitarian ethics, gay marriage should be legalized because the marriages would be beneficial for the economy, for the society, and for the majority of people.

Although our culture has made significant progress regarding the understanding and acceptance of homosexuals and of the gay lifestyle, the inability for gay couples to get married is still an obstacle of discrimination that the culture must inevitably address. Opponents of gay marriage argue that the practice should be prohibited because gay marriage would be a violation of religious morals, a transgression against the institution of marriage and a destructive force that would damage our society. However, deontological, utilitarian and communitarian ethics suggest that gays should be allowed to get married because the legalization of gay marriage would provide gay couples with the right of equality, would enable the couples to benefit from the many tax credits associated with marriage, and would help to improve the economy of the nation and the quality of our society.

Works Cited

Alexander, Larry. "Deontological Ethics." Stanford University. N.p., 21 Nov. 2007. Web. 16

Nov. 2013. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#DeoThe>.

Beauchamp, Tom. Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. New York City: McGraw-Hill, 2001. Print.

Bell, Kay. "How Marriage Impacts Your Taxes." Bankrate. N.p., 18 Feb. 2009. Web. 16 Nov. 2013. <http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/how-marriage-impacts-your-taxes-1.aspx>.

Berman, Jillian. "8 Ways Legalizing Same Sex Marriage Is Good for The Economy." The Huffington Post. N.p., 15 May 2013. Web. 16 Nov. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/same-sex-marriage-economy_n_3267725.html>.

"Communitarian Ethics." Regis University. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. <http://rhchp.regis.edu/HCE/EthicsAtAGlance/CommunitarianEthics/CommunitarianEthics.pdf>.

Hursthouse, Rosalind. "Virtue Ethics." Stanford University. N.p., 18 July 2003. Web. 16 Nov. 2013. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/#2>.

Lipp, Murray. "The Top 10 Arguments Against Gay Marriage: All Receive Failing Grades!" The Huffington Post. N.p., 28 May 2013. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-lipp/the-top-10-arguments-agai_b_3337249.html>.