Should society respect homosexuality as much as heterosexuality?

Pro: Homosexuality is natural. There is a biological basis for it. Research supports the notion that a homosexual orientation is founded in the physical nature of the individual: sexual preferences have their origins in neurobiology. People do not choose their sexual orientations. Homosexuality does not result from a person's conscious deliberation, nor is it an act of will: it results from a person's brain chemistry-something beyond any conscious control. A heterosexual cannot simply choose to become homosexual, that is, start being sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Moreover, homosexuality is found in all species where there is sexual differentiation.

Con: Homosexuality is unnatural, for the purpose of sexual activity is reproduction, and homosexual activity cannot involve that. Homosexual behavior is a matter of choice, and it morally wrong to choose to engage in homosexual acts.

Reply: The view that homosexuality is unnatural is based mainly on the notion that the purpose of sexual activity is procreation. Yet procreation is not the only purpose of sexual activity-even of heterosexual activity. People of all sexual orientations engage in sexual acts for pleasure and for the purpose of forming relationships-whether productive of offspring or not. Sex joins people together in caring, supportive relationships and thereby satisfies important psychological needs. Sexual acts do not have to be chosen for their capacity to create offspring. Because some sexual activity can lead to procreation does not mean that all sexual activity must.

Moral responsibility comes only with freedom: a moral agent is not responsible for anything he/she cannot control. Whatever can be said about a person's choices concerning sexual partners, a person's sexual orientation comes first; choices come afterwards: Sexual preferences are matters of fact and are not initially subject to the human will. All preferences, all desires, are vulnerable to repression and transformation. But an individual has no moral obligation and little incentive to change his/her own nature if that nature is self-satisfying and causes no harm to others.

Pro: Homosexuality is normal. It is found in a significant portion of the human population. Homosexual behavior can readily be found in other species as well.

Con: Homosexuality is abnormal. Only a minority of individuals in any species engage in homosexual activities.

Pro: Homosexual behavior does not hurt anyone.

Option: Recognize the marriage of homosexuals.

Pro: Marriage fosters stability in relationships, psychological security, and sound financial decision-making. This would be true in the case of homosexual marriage.

Pro: The institution of marriage for homosexuals would provide them with a more fulfilling option than living a lie by entering a straight marriage. Society benefits when its members are well adjusted psychologically. Legal recognition of homosexual marriage would promote the acceptance of gays and lesbians into mainstream society, and this would increase their sense of dignity and self-esteem, thereby promoting their psychological health.

Pro: The institution of marriage for homosexuals would confirm the existence of relationships and thereby help to determine rights and responsibilities for the partners.

Pro: It would help to give children for whom homosexual partners serve as parents the respect they need to enter and participate fully in society.

Con: Homosexual partners who are parents to children may fail to give them lessons they need to get involved in satisfying relationships to persons of the opposite sex. They may be inadequate as role models, and they may create confusion in heterosexual children regarding gender roles.

Pro: The institution of marriage for homosexuals would benefit public health during the epidemic of AIDS.

Con: Legal recognition of homosexual marriage would burden governments, employers and insurance companies with extra costs.

Con: The institution of marriage for homosexuals would weaken the appeal of the institution of heterosexual marriage by making the latter a less privileged arrangement. The institution of marriage for homosexuals might also reduce the respect that people have for the institution of heterosexual marriage.

Option: Allow same-sex couples to adopt children.

Pro: Same-sex couples, compared with couples of the opposite sex, have no less desire and no less ability to raise children.

Pro: Children are often raised by single parents. These parents are not asked to give up their children because of the absence of an opposite-sex spouse.

Pro: Many children lack devoted parents. There are fewer adults who are willing to adopt children than there are children who are in need of the care that adoptive parents can provide. For children who do not have parents, society ought to do all it can to give them opportunities to become members of families. Placing children in the homes of same-sex couples who are highly motivated to care for them can serve the best interests of all concerned.

Con: Heterosexual children raised by a same-sex couple would not have satisfactory adult role models. In particular, children would be lacking a parental role model of one sex.

Pro: Laws should promote social cohesion and promote as much as possible the establishment of stable families.

Con: Redefining the nature of parenthood, when such a redefinition would greatly increase the number of people who are termed 'parents,' would be very costly to the country: governments and businesses would have to bear a much greater financial burden if such a redefinition of parenthood occurred.