How homosexuality was discussed in the same-sex marriage debate in the UK House of Lords.
What is it about?
Homosexuality has been discussed a number of times in the UK Parliament. This paper looks at how it was discussed in the House of Lords during the debate in 2013 about legalising same-sex marriage in the UK. It turns out that those in favour of same-sex marriage use a very straightforward line of argument, simply saying that LGBT people, as an oppressed minority, ought to have equal rights. This makes use of what is called a 'hegemonic' position. This means a widely held set of beliefs which is not conventionally taken to be open to question – 'received wisdom' or 'mainstream' opinion. This move forces those opposed to the change in the law to use much more complex lines of argument, because it is not easy to just baldly disagree with a hegemonic position. The opponents of the bill do draw on well-known homophobic arguments (such as that same-sex relationships are 'unnatural'), but they do so in a much more subtle way than in previous debates. I suggest that this is because in the UK homophobia is less and less acceptable in public speech, even though it may not be any less prevalent in people's minds. This forces opponents of LGBT rights to use more nuanced and subtle lines of argumentation than those in favour, who can simply access the hegemonic or mainstream consensus on LGBT rights being accepted as a good thing.
Why is it important?
There is a growing appreciation of the importance of 'implicit homophobia' – that is, homophobia which is not as flagrant or overt as it may once have been, instead relying on more subtle or extended lines of argumentation. For instance, rather than saying 'Gay people are bad', the homophobe might say 'Family is good. Gay people can't have a family [because the speaker works with a definition which deliberately excludes them]', and then leaves implicit the conclusion: 'Therefore gay people are bad'. This study highlights the reach of such implicit homophobia in the political sphere and points the way for further research in this area. It also demonstrates the usefulness of combining quantitative and qualitative methods in extracting important themes and arguments from bodies of text.