NSS Learning and Teaching for the Ethics and Religious Studies Curriculum Series:

1. NSS Learning and Teaching for the Ethics and Religious Studies Curriculum Series: 11-12 December 2008 Hong Kong Central Library

2. Talk 2: Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage Presented by Francis Mok City University of Hong Kong

3. I. Background: • 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).

4. 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.

5. (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.

6. 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.

7. (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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. The Cathedral of Immaculate Conception (聖母無原罪主教座堂)

11. 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.

13. 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."

14. 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.”

15. 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.

16. II. Two Types of Moral Inquiry: • 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?

17. (B) Critical morality: • The fact that people consider an action as immoral cannot automatically support the conclusionthat 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.

18. III. Same-sex Marriage as aMoral Issue (A) The Moral Questions: • Is same-sex marriage morally right or wrong? • What are the possible justifications? Can we distinguish between the stronger and the weaker justifications? • What are the usual objections against it? And are they sound?

19. (B) What are the common justifications of same-sex marriage? • 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.

20. (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)

21. 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)

22. Do you think that these two are sound and adequate justifications?

23. (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.

24. 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?

25. (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.

26. 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.

27. 喜宴 (1993)

28. 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)

29. 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.

30. 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?

31. (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?

32. (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?

33. (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?

34. 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?