A Decision Long Overdue

Meg Lawrence looks at the recent decision to allow same-sex couples to qualify for IVF treatment on the NHS and asks if this development should have happened sooner?

Here is a question: how do you judge someone’s potential to be a good parent?

A modern family: what defines a good parent? Picture credits: Romulo Fotos

According to some it’s simple; if they are a heterosexual, young couple, they tick all the boxes, but this is obviously an oversimplification of parenting. And clearly the latest NSPCC statistics are being ignored – as every ten days in England and Wales one child is killed at the hands of their parent. In almost two thirds of the 55+ cases of children killed at the hands of another person, the parent is the principal suspect.

But it is not the callous, cruel individuals who abuse their position of trust that many prioritise when they think of who should be prevented from parenting. It’s same sex couples and older parents.

The debate about who should qualify for IVF treatment isn’t anything new. But it’s about time we looked at the statistics and stopped judging people for an apparent – but unproven – inability to be good parents.

IVF treatment should have been available to same-sex couples on the NHS the moment it was available to heterosexual couples. Unfortunately, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) have only just allowed same-sex couples to qualify for the treatment on the NHS- a move that should have been taken years ago. Along with homosexual couples, women aged between 40 and 42 will also be eligible to receive the treatment, which usually costs between £3,000 and £8,000 a cycle.

NICE Chief Executive Sir Andrew Dillion stated that, ‘thanks to a number of medical advances over the years, many fertility problems can be treated effectively. It is because of these new advances that we have been able to update our guideline on fertility.’ This statement clearly applies to the availability of new treatments for older women, but does not explain why same-sex couples have been denied the treatment until now.

Treatment usually costs between £3,000 and £8, 000 a cycle. Picture credits: moyix

The process of IVF doesn’t change because of the patient’s sexual orientation- this shouldn’t even be a factor that comes into consideration when deciding whether a person can have children or not. Far more important is the love, support and care they will give to the child, and any person, gay or straight, should have access to any treatment that may heighten their chance of having a baby.

Dr Clare Searle said in a recent interview that the altered IVF guidelines are ‘not a response to social change’ but about taking advantage of clinical effectiveness. This point lacks any credibility- sexual orientation has no impact on how a person responds to treatment. As long as IVF has been available, it should have been available for couples of any orientation.

Clearly, social change has had an impact on these improved guidelines. The recent adaptation of gay marriage laws, allowing same-sex couples to marry in a church, has made society more aware of its still backward approach to homosexuality. Ideally, these developments will gradually lead to a more open-minded society, where points like these aren’t issues to be debated, but accepted ways of life.

The availability of IVF treatment for same-sex couples isn’t as controversial an issue as the legislation of gay marriage, because the church doesn’t have the ground to argue against it. If the NHS were a religious organisation, I’m sure they would’ve protested about the availability of the treatment for gay couples. This is so wrong. Frankly, I find it terrifying that an institution followed by so many can express such bigoted, discriminatory, small-minded opinions. I just hope people following the church feel they can make their own minds up about such important issues.

The idea that anyone could be against same-sex couples being helped in the process of having children is appalling. Parenting isn’t about sex. A person’s ability to be a good parent is in no way affected by their sexuality. A successful parent is caring, nurturing and giving. If a single mother or father can raise a child successfully, why can’t two mothers or two fathers do the same?

Many people argue that same-sex couples don’t provide the influence of the opposite sex in their child’s life. Other relatives and family friends can easily compensate for this, and parents adapt to fulfill any of their child’s needs. There were 22,331 children in the UK on child protection registers in 2011- perhaps we need to focus on the issues of parents who don’t deserve their roles, rather than those who don’t even get a chance to try.

Sir Andrew Dillon said that including same-sex couples in the IVF NHS guidelines for the first time ‘reflects the right thing to do.’ Hopefully this is one more step towards the complete eradication of homophobia. For now, it opens up opportunities for homosexual people that should have been available a long time ago.

Society stigmatised

Photo credits to Fibonacci Blue

Michael Cope puts forward his opinions in response to a comment piece on gay marriage in Issue 47 of Exeposé.

In a discussion opposing equal marriage in the 19th February edition, the author indulges in the same stereotypes and misconceptions that LGBTQ people face every day. Reading his homophobic piece distressed me, as it contains the same arguments used by more vociferous bigots who demand far worse restrictions on the rights of LGBTQ people than a refusal of marriage rights. I found his arguments to be bigoted, hurtful and hetero-supremacist, so here’s my say on the issue.

Firstly, the writer uses the tired argument that the definition of marriage should not be changed, and that marriage is ‘public property’. He seems to forget that there is no set definition of marriage, as marriage is a social construct. Its meaning has changed constantly over time and it means different things to different people. Biblical polygamy anyone? If marriage is ‘public property’, then surely the sections of the public who are LGBTQ own it as much as anyone else?

Photo credits to Mariopiperni

The writer then goes on to state that marriage is unnecessary for homosexual people, firstly because same sex couples in civil partnerships have ‘near parity’ in terms of rights with married heterosexuals, and secondly because, as marriage is based on love, same sex couples do not need marriage as this will not add anything to their relationship. To deal with the first point, ‘near parity’ is not parity. It is not full equality and pretending it is sufficient is to defend the unequal position of LGBTQ people in British society.

The refusal to give a same sex couple the opportunity to marry reinforces the idea that same sex partnerships are inferior to and worth less than heterosexual ones. His argument that ‘the truth of the love and commitment surely comes from the couple, the name is worthless’ is laughable given that he seems very eager to defend the ‘name’ of marriage for heterosexual couples, regardless of how much they may love each other. In addition, does he have to refer to same sex couples contemptuously as ‘these people’?

The next section of his article rehashes two particularly pernicious and incorrect hetero-supremacist arguments: that marriage is a place for rearing ‘the next generation’ and that a heterosexual marriage is the best place in which to do this. Firstly, if the writer believes that the purpose of marriage is for procreation, then surely he also opposes marriage for those who do not want or are unable to have children. Yet there is no mention of this in his article. He focuses purely on same sex couples, which makes his message clear: same sex couples are unsuitable parents.

This argument feeds into hetero-supremacist views that homosexuality and same sex partnerships are innately dangerous. This has usually been linked to accusations of paedophilia or fears about ‘converting’ children. As well as being homophobic, it is also complete nonsense. Secondly, what is it about marriage that suddenly makes for better child rearing anyway? Does the word have magical properties we don’t know about? Despite the writer’s stated wish not to ‘slate’ single parents, this is exactly what he does. The writer argues that heterosexual marriage is the place to raise children because it is ‘the guise that society would prefer’. This is not true. It is simply the guise that those who have the loudest voices and the most power and privilege prefer, and they have used this power and privilege to enforce hetero-supremacy within society. When the writer says ‘society’, he means ‘I’.

Photo credits to Ehoyer

His homophobia does not end there. He uses his next paragraph to reduce homosexuality to a set of acts, to ‘what goes on in your bedroom’. The reduction of homosexuality to acts, historically with the term sodomy, has driven the oppression and persecution of homosexual people throughout history and is still used today to paint homosexuality and homosexuals as sinful and unsavoury. For someone who asks ‘why should I care that you love each other’, he seems to care a great deal about making sure same sex couples remain stigmatised.

In the grand scheme of the fight for LGBTQ equality, marriage equality is not the only or the biggest issue. However, it is an important one, one that reaches further then the right to walk up the aisle. It represents the fight for the de-stigmatisation of same sex couples and LGBTQ people. It is about the end to nonsense arguments about the inferiority of our relationships, our inability to bring up children or our danger to society. The equal marriage vote shows that legislators, in a small way, are starting to get it. The writer may not view marriage as a matter of equality, but he clearly has not spoken to people for whom it means a great deal.

Marriage equality looks set to happen, and with it will hopefully come the death of the stereotypes, misconceptions and homophobic arguments that I felt this article consisted of.

Michael Cope

Equality is on the horizon

Picture credits: Moser’s Maroon

With the recent passing of the same-sex marriage bill and to highlight LGBT history month, Exeposé Features looks at the issues behind the change to the legal definition of marriage in Britain.

 

James Crouch, Exeposé print Features editor

 

Listening to the debate over the introduction of gay marriage is fascinating. Only this government could introduce a measure that appears so popular and have it met by muddled half-hearted support surrounded by grumblings of even semi-coherent disapproval.

Now I will say only this of the political process behind the change. It is true that no-one voted for it in the 2010 general election because no-one proposed it and there has been little or no consultation. Opinion polling does show that only a minority support depriving homosexual couples of any rights, but whether or not the majority support changing the definition of ‘marriage’ is far from clear. It is this substantive issue which is so important.

What is key here is the fact that marriage and its’ definition is not a private matter. It is a social institution, it is public property as it were. The rights, preferences or interests of individuals should have no sway over the definition of such public property. I feel wholeheartedly that this is the angle we must look at: whether or not we should effectively change the definition of marriage.

Those often in support of gay marriage view it as the right of every consenting couple to get married. They view it as the right of a man or woman to publicly demonstrate their love to another and commit. But that in itself does not give a reason to change the definition.

For example, a religious marriage (for most faiths in the UK at least) is not legally binding – and so does not meet this criterion that homosexual marriage will – which I’m sure most religious people would view as drastically more important than the legal binding of a state sponsored marriage. These people go through the civil marriage process to achieve the legal rights. In terms of actual rights, gay men and women have already achieved near parity in the many rights civil partnerships give. The truth of the love and commitment surely comes from the couple, the name is worthless. A union without this does not magically gain it when called love.

But if marriage is a public and social institution, for society’s benefit, then what is that benefit? That everyone is in a loving relationship? Well, you can do that without being married, so it can’t be that. To make sure that everyone has the same legal rights? Well, that’s already been achieved without this change in the definition of marriage.

For me, society benefits because it is able to endorse a set of values and forms of conduct whereby we have children and perpetuate society. This sounds like a tiny part of marriage, but I argue there is nothing more fundamental in nature than reproduction and continuation of ourselves. And I argue this social institution is about trying to get all its members to raise the new generation, the continuation of ourselves, in the best way possible.

As is commonly spouted on TV and radio, ‘marriage is the best condition in which to raise children’, and I agree. This is not to slate single mothers and fathers, I myself was raised by a single mother for 20 out of 21 years of my life. I merely argue that the most worthwhile reason for marriage is for its adherents to state that they intend to a raise family and wish to do so in the guise that society would prefer.

This is why, of course, we used to have laws that made adultery illegal and made divorce impossible without evidence of some outside element that made the marriage untenable (such as impotence or infidelity). It was because the state tried to make it hard for couples to split and endanger the good upbringing of the next generation. That was the sole purpose of the state’s interference.

This is why I do not support ‘gay marriage’ as it is termed. I do not believe society has anything to gain by giving state endorsement to homosexual relationships any more than heterosexual relationships. What do I care about what goes on in your bedroom and why do I care that you love each other? But, as a member of society, I care that you bring up your children in the happiest and most secure situation we can all structurally provide.

I simply don’t view this as a matter of equality. This is an issue of what marriage is as a social institution and what it means for society. It is not just something which can be played around with personal preferences, but has to be focussed on the family nature of marriage. This is why I remain uncovinced by the change in the definition of marriage.

Picture credits: LiangHH

Conor Byrne

 

For advocates of equal rights, gay rights activists, and many ordinary citizens in British society, the news this week that gay marriage is to finally be legalised in Britain has met with joy, relief, surprise, and celebration. 400 MPs in the House of Commons voted in favour of legalising gay marriage and 175 voting against. Prime Minister David Cameron enthusiastically announced: “Last night’s vote will be seen not just as making sure that there is a proper element of equality, but also helping us to build a stronger and fairer society”. Ed Miliband agreed with Cameron, stating: “this is a proud day and an important step forward in the fight for equality in Britain”. But there has been a considerable backlash, particularly from other politicians who strongly oppose plans to legalise gay marriage.

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 first declared that a marriage is void if the respective partners are not male and female, while same-sex marriages were simultaneously prohibited in Northern Ireland and Scotland. However, in 2004 the Civil Partnership Act was passed and came into effect in December 2005, granting same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities of marriage but not allowing gays to marry in the sense that heterosexual couples are able to. There has been increasing levels of support for gay marriage in the UK, with a June 2012 survey showing that 71 per cent of the British population were in favour of same-sex marriage.

In Europe, the situations regarding same-sex marriage vary substantially. Same-sex marriage is currently legalised in Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. In contrast, however, the constitutions of countries including Belarus, Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia and Ukraine define marriage strictly as being between a man and a woman. Despite this, the situation in Europe is incomparably better in relation to gay rights in other continents. In Africa and some parts of Asia, for instance, continuing hostility remains, while the execution of a 16 and a 17-year old in Iran, allegedly for homosexuality, shocked the world displaying how gay rights are not universally accepted by any means. The Iranian President notoriously denied that homosexuals even existed in Iran.

So, is it likely that the gay marriage bill will be passed in Britain, and same-sex marriages will finally be legalised? Will we see our society becoming even more equal, or will continuing hostility mean that this is only a dream, with no hope of becoming reality? This is such a controversial issue that it is unlikely that anyone will ever be completely satisfied. What can be noted, however, is how gays have been granted increasing rights over a long period of time, with the concept of same-sex marriage generating more acceptance and support in a forward-thinking, liberal society. But issues of religion and tradition remain critical, meaning that the road to gay marriage on the same basis as heterosexual marriage is likely to be paved with troubles.