Examine the differences in ethical and religious views concerning homosexuality.

Homosexuality has been the topic of ethical debates for many years, concerning the rights of homosexuals, and whether or not they should be treated equally. In the modern day homosexuality is comparatively far more tolerated than in the past, when it had been at least somewhat illegal until progressive thinking led to the 1957 Sexual Offences Act, which set the wheels in motion towards ending the inequality between homosexuals and heterosexuals. One of the focal points of the issue is whether homosexual marriage should be permitted in the same way as heterosexual marriage – it can be argued that the introduction of Civil Partnerships in 2004/5 was, although progressive and still offering equal rights to those of married couples, still disrespectful to not allow homosexuals to be specifically ‘married.’ This kind of view suggests that ethical attitudes towards homosexuality are progressive and accepting, reaching a conclusion that would satisfy homosexuals in their quest for equal rights. Discrimination against homosexuality, however, is still fairly prominent, and the lack of ease in passing laws relating to homosexuality suggests that there is still a lot of unease surrounding the topic. It cannot yet be said that to see a homosexual couple canoodling in public is considered to have as subtle an effect as a heterosexual couple doing the same. John Harris, however, states that homosexuality is an issue of etiquette rather than ethics, as it doesn’t cause any harm to society.
Religious views on homosexuality are far more controversial. The Christian view of homosexuality can come under a great deal of scrutiny. There are many arguments against homosexuality from a Christian perspective, for example, if the logic is followed that sexual intercourse is purely for reproductive purposes, then homosexuality could be seen as against the will of God. This would also mean, however, that heterosexual couples within which one of them is infertile would also be lacking in purpose, and this view is generally criticised. There are various passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality, even as early as Genesis, where women are described as ‘a helper suitable for [man]’, implying that heterosexual relationships were the intended outcome of human relations. Whilst many more liberal churches are becoming more accepting of homosexuality, the degree of their leniency is varied. Some churches are willing to accept homosexuals but not their sexuality, thus ‘loving the sinner but not the sin.’ The most liberal churches have even gone as far to ordain homosexuals as priests, as they believe that the most important factor is the quality of the love between two partners, and not their gender. They may also argue that if everyone is made in the image of God, then homosexuals must be in God’s image too, and therefore should be accepted as equals. There are great divides in opinions on this in the Christian community; there are liberal churches such as the Church of England, although some members of it were so appalled by the decision to appoint homosexual priests that they converted to Catholicism. At the other end of the scale is the extremist Westboro Baptist Church, who believe that homosexuals deserve to die, and even set up the website godhatesfags.com to protest their cause. High profile homosexual Christians, such as Canon Jeffrey John, have withdrawn from their positions – in his case as the Bishop of Reading – to avoid creating further splits in the Church.
In conclusion, both ethical and religious views of homosexuality are, whilst edging closer towards equality in some degree, still incredibly varied in terms of how radical certain groups within society or any given religion are. Some are now fully accepting that homosexuals should have equal rights, whereas others still see it as a disease, something curable and wrong.