same sex marriage essay quora

Evidence is clear on the benefits of legalising same-sex  marriage

PhD Candidate, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University

Disclosure statement

Ryan Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

James Cook University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Emotive arguments and questionable rhetoric often characterise debates over same-sex marriage. But few attempts have been made to dispassionately dissect the issue from an academic, science-based perspective.

Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the more robust, rigorous and reliable information that is publicly available, the better.

There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.

Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage.

Further reading: Conservatives prevail to hold back the tide on same-sex marriage

What does the research say?

Widescale research suggests that members of the LGBTQ community generally experience worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is possibly due to the stigmatisation they receive.

The mental health benefits of marriage generally are well-documented . In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognised that excluding sexual minorities from marriage was significantly contributing to the overall poor health among same-sex households compared to heterosexual households.

Converging lines of evidence also suggest that sexual orientation stigma and discrimination are at least associated with increased psychological distress and a generally decreased quality of life among lesbians and gay men.

A US study that surveyed more than 36,000 people aged 18-70 found lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals were far less psychologically distressed if they were in a legally recognised same-sex marriage than if they were not. Married heterosexuals were less distressed than either of these groups.

So, it would seem that being in a legally recognised same-sex marriage can at least partly overcome the substantial health disparity between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

The authors concluded by urging other researchers to consider same-sex marriage as a public health issue.

A review of the research examining the impact of marriage denial on the health and wellbeing of gay men and lesbians conceded that marriage equality is a profoundly complex and nuanced issue. But, it argued that depriving lesbians and gay men the tangible (and intangible) benefits of marriage is not only an act of discrimination – it also:

disadvantages them by restricting their citizenship;

hinders their mental health, wellbeing, and social mobility; and

generally disenfranchises them from various cultural, legal, economic and political aspects of their lives.

Of further concern is research finding that in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents living in areas where gay marriage was allowed, living in areas where it was banned was associated with significantly higher rates of:

mood disorders (36% higher);

psychiatric comorbidity – that is, multiple mental health conditions (36% higher); and

anxiety disorders (248% higher).

But what about the kids?

Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that children raised in same-sex households perform worse on a variety of life outcome measures when compared to those raised in a heterosexual household. There is some merit to this argument.

In terms of education and general measures of success, the literature isn’t entirely unanimous. However, most studies have found that on these metrics there is no difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents.

In 2005, the American Psychological Association released a brief reviewing research on same-sex parenting. It unambiguously summed up its stance on the issue of whether or not same-sex parenting negatively impacts children:

Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Further reading: Same-sex couples and their children: what does the evidence tell us?

Drawing conclusions

Same-sex marriage has already been legalised in 23 countries around the world , inhabited by more than 760 million people.

Despite the above studies positively linking marriage with wellbeing, it may be premature to definitively assert causality .

But overall, the evidence is fairly clear. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing. The benefits accrue to society as a whole, whether you are in a same-sex relationship or not.

As the body of research in support of same-sex marriage continues to grow, the case in favour of it becomes stronger.

• Human rights
• Same-sex marriage
• Same-sex marriage plebiscite

Community member RANZCO Education Committee (Volunteer)

Professor in Systems Engineering

Director of STEM

Chief Executive Officer

Head of Evidence to Action

• Podcast Blog
• Writings Elsewhere
• Audio and Video

Questions and Answers on Same-Sex Marriage

Just under a year ago, I wrote a post entitled  The Institution of Marriage, Same-Sex Unions, and Procreation  on the subject of same-sex marriage. With the topic such a live one, I frequently get asked follow-up questions and wanted a single place to direct people where such questions could be addressed. This is my attempt to provide such a place.

This isn’t going to be a comprehensive treatment of the subject of same-sex marriage, nor even of the questions that its opponents often face. I will probably update this post at various points. It is a work in progress, rather than a finished piece. I would welcome feedback from all parties on questions to add. If you have any questions that you would like me to address, please leave them in the comments here .

1. What could be wrong with affirming two people’s love and commitment to each other?

The question at issue in the same-sex marriage debate is not whether the love of same-sex couples for each other should be affirmed, but whether it should be affirmed as marriage . There are many ways in which families, friends, communities, and society more generally could affirm the love and commitment of a same-sex couple that don’t involve redefining the institution of marriage. These can and should be discussed in their place, but this particular debate concerns marriage.

Further to this, the love and commitment of individual couples has always had a rather uneasy relationship to marriage as an institution. While married couples are typically expected to get married in large part on the basis of a love for and a willing commitment to each other, the institution of marriage exists not to affirm this love and willing commitment as such, but to create something more certain and lasting beyond that. Marriage typically places considerable restrictions upon love. It places limitations and pressures upon our choices of suitable partners. It denies us the right to have sexual relationships with persons we might love outside of marriage bonds.

For many, the institution of marriage is designed to make it very difficult and costly for them to get out of a relationship with someone that they stopped loving many years ago and may now positively detest. While it begins with a willing commitment of two persons to each other, marriage renders that commitment something objective and binding upon the persons, even should the commitment become an unwilling one. The flipside of the romantic grounding of marriage upon love and willing commitment is a strong divorce culture, because for a significant percentage of marriages, what began as a willing and loving commitment will not always remain that way.

While this is certainly not the only way that a same-sex marriage proponent could put their case, it is important that we notice how the question frames the issue and the assumptions that it betrays. 1. Society is put in the position of ‘affirming’ and recognizing rights, downplaying the idea of the imposition of norms and duties. 2. The focus is upon individual couples, rather than upon marriage and society more generally. 3. More particularly, the focus is upon the underwriting, rubber-stamping, facilitation, and celebration of their volitional, dispositional, and emotive states and their sexual desires, without such a stress upon a binding and objective commitment.

What the framing of such a question reveals is that the re-imagining of marriage taking place in many quarters does not merely rest with the issue of whether two men or two women can marry each other just like a man and a woman. Rather, the very sort of thing that marriage itself is is in the process of being re-imagined. As I have argued elsewhere , marriage is ceasing to be about institutional norms and public values and is gradually moving towards a more privatized lifestyle consumer model.

Reframing the original question in terms of a more traditional understanding of the sort of thing that marriage is, our hypothetical interlocutor could ask: ‘what could be wrong with society expecting all LGBT persons willingly to commit themselves to the norm of lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships between two persons of the same or opposite sex, to reserve sexual relations for such bonds, to form a culture that reinforces and supports them, to privatize displays of sexuality (though not necessarily romantic affection), and to form a society that is ordered towards the needs and the raising of a new generation?’ Marriage culture is binding on everyone, not merely on those who get married.

The fact that a question of this form is so rarely asked is telling on a number of fronts. In particular, it reveals that society in general is largely leaving behind the idea of a ‘marriage culture’. With it the idea of marriage as an institution designed to serve and strengthen society’s fabric is being jettisoned in favour of the idea of marriage as a private lifestyle choice that should be underwritten, affirmed, and increasingly freed from external restrictions.

I also suspect that, despite the enthusiasm for same-sex marriage, with its affirmation of the equality of same-sex relationships to opposite sex relationships and its puncturing of heteronormativity, there really isn’t great enthusiasm for marriage culture within most quarters of LGBT communities. A campaign for same-sex marriage that is championed by a significant number of persons who are ambivalent, resistant, or even hostile to marriage culture isn’t really going to help an institution that is already ailing within our society. One of the things that have been most concerning in the recent debates is realizing just how extensive this departure from marriage culture in Western society actually is.

2. Isn’t it discriminatory for it to be illegal for two men or two women to marry?

Once again it is important to clear up a misunderstanding within the question as it is framed. For same-sex marriage to be illegal in the sense of being prohibited or unauthorized by the law it would first have to be a possible entity. For a considerable number of opponents to same-sex marriage, the key question isn’t whether same-sex couples should have permission to get married but, if such permission were granted, whether a same-sex marriage is even possible . The debate here is about the reality to which ‘marriage’ refers and whether it is a reality that a same-sex couple could constitute. The reason why circles cannot be squared or women cannot be fathers is not on account of a lack of permission . This is the reason why one would really struggle to find evidence of laws against same-sex marriages throughout various societies over the course of human history: one doesn’t need to legislate against that which is considered impossible.

The legalization of inter-racial marriage is frequently taken as an analogy for the present same-sex marriage debates. The contrast between the two examples is illuminating, however. There was general agreement that an inter-racial marriage was a possible entity. The debate was purely over whether the possibility should be a legal one. However, there is not the same agreement that a same-sex marriage is a possible entity.

This also reveals that the claim of discrimination isn’t as straightforward as assumed. Discrimination (and, more particularly, unjust discrimination) was clearly operative in the case of inter-racial marriages. However, if a same-sex marriage is an impossible entity it doesn’t make sense to say that it is being discriminated against.

Even were we to grant that same-sex marriage were a possible entity, however, discrimination against it would not necessarily be wrong. Despite the careless contemporary uses of the term, ‘discrimination’ is not a bad thing per se . Discrimination, when it recognizes the various natures and ends of things and treats different things differently, is very healthy. For instance, we discriminate when we establish ages of marital consent. We recognize that mature consent is conducive to the health of marriage, individuals, and society and so we restrict people below certain ages from marrying. Discrimination only becomes problematic when the grounds upon which we are discriminating are not good ones.

The prohibition of inter-racial marriage discriminated on the basis of skin colour, which, relative to the nature and ends of marriage, is a very bad reason upon which to discriminate. However, in discriminating between the committed sexual partnerships of same-sex couples and couples of the opposite sex there are many more grounds upon which to discriminate and, relative to the ends and nature of marriage, a strong argument can be made that they are good ones.

3. Shouldn’t we seek to treat all people equally?

This question is related to the last. The language of ‘equality’ has considerable currency within our society. However, by itself the term ‘equality’ is largely question-begging and tends to obscure rather than reveal. ‘Equality’ is only truly meaningful when people or entities are in fact equal and, within the relevant context, interchangeable. When we use ‘equality’ language to speak of complex realities where genuine and significant differences do exist, such as gender and forms of relationships, we start to presume the very things that we need to prove.

As it functions in contemporary discourse, especially surrounding gender, sexuality, and forms of relationships, egalitarianism tends to be a self-asserting dogma, often making it impervious to reasonable discourse. I firmly agree with egalitarianism on the point that, when things are truly equal relative to a particular end, they should be treated equally. We should never discriminate between persons or entities on the basis of irrelevant criteria. However, when we are trying to have a debate about the natures and ends of particular realities and which criteria are relevant in particular contexts, to speak about equality merely begs the question.

Instead of the language of equality, I suggest that we adopt the language of ‘equity’. Equity recognizes that people are different and, taking those differences into account and discerning differing natures and ends, is impartial, even-handed, and fair in its administration of justice.

We all agree that equal things should be treated equally: the challenge for proponents of same-sex marriage is to prove that, relative to the ends and nature of marriage, same-sex pairings are actually equal to opposite sex pairings. ‘Equality’ rhetoric simply dodges this difficult task.

4. Why should same-sex couples be denied rights in areas such as inheritance or visitation?

I do not believe that they should. However, there are ways to grant or secure such rights without redefining marriage. To redefine an institution as fundamental to human society as marriage for the sole purpose of addressing such problems is extreme overkill. More troubling, the suggestion that one not infrequently encounters that it would be a sufficient rationale for doing so betrays an alarmingly hollow view of what marriage actually stands for.

5. Jesus never said anything about same-sex marriages. Why should Christians speak on the subject?

As I have already remarked, many opponents of same-sex marriage believe that it is an impossible entity, so it should not surprise us that Jesus never spoke about it, just as he never spoke against women being fathers. Nevertheless, Jesus’ teaching does clearly stand against same-sex marriage. Jesus grounds the institution of marriage firmly in the created reality of sexual dimorphism:

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” – Matthew 19:4-6

Jesus’ argument against the Sadducees in Luke 20:34-38 is also illuminating on this front. N.T. Wright observes:

The logic of Luke’s version of Jesus’ riposte then depends for its force on two unstated assumptions: (a) that marriage is instituted to cope with the problem that people die; (b) angels do not die. The Levirate law, quite explicitly, had to do with continuing the family line when faced with death; Jesus in Luke’s version, not only declares that this law will be redundant in a world without death, but that marriage itself, even with one husband and one wife, will likewise be irrelevant in such a world. A key point, often unnoticed, is that the Sadducees’ question is not about the mutual affection and companionship of husband and wife, but about how to fulfil the command to have a child , that is, how in the future life the family line will be kept going. This is presumably based on the belief, going back to Genesis 1.28, that the main purpose of marriage was to be fruitful and multiply.

The purpose of marriage, both in Genesis 1 and 2 is about much more than companionship. It is framed by the concept of vocation: the vocation of humanity to be fruitful and multiply, to fill and subdue the earth, and Adam’s vocation to serve the earth, to guard and keep the garden, and to uphold its law. After the Fall, marriage is also framed by the reality of death and the need to survive and multiply in its face. Human companionship is wonderful and many of its benefits can be enjoyed in particular richness in the context of the lifelong bond of marriage. However, marriage serves ends beyond this and, for Scripture, the tasks of procreation and child-rearing are central. In the new creation, the human race will have finished these tasks and so marriage ceases too. Companionship isn’t as primary an end of marriage in biblical thought as it is within contemporary society, where, given the nature of our world and our economy, companionship with a spouse has to bear the sort of existential weight that were previously typically borne by thick relationships within a settled community.

Such a firm grounding of marriage upon both sexual dimorphism and procreation stands sharply opposed to same-sex marriage.

Why should Christians speak to this issue? First it should be stressed that Christian ethics should address matters of which Jesus never spoke. The fact that Jesus never explicitly condemned bestiality doesn’t make it permissible. We have explicit commands elsewhere in Scripture that address such things. We also have developed principles of justice that we can bring to bear upon realities that aren’t addressed in the biblical text.

The Christian teaching on subjects such as marriage, gender, and sexuality are extensive. Most of this teaching takes a positive form, filling out such realities as sexual dimorphism with meaning and purpose, rather than the negative form of prohibiting particular behaviours (although there is plenty of that too). One of the problems with the assumption that Jesus never spoke to the subject of same-sex marriage is that, rather than taking our bearings from close attention to the positive teaching, it presumes that our answers would only be found in the form of negative prohibitions. However, the positive statements that Jesus makes about marriage clearly reveal that he is speaking about something quite different from same-sex relationships.

Christians should also speak to the subject of same-sex marriage because we are members of society and have an interest in and duty to it. Marriage and the family that grows from it represent the fundamental institution of the original creation. It relates us to deep and transcendent dimensions of reality. It humanizes some of our most fundamental animal functions and orders them to personal and societal ends. It explores and articulates the meanings of the most basic created anthropological difference and relationship – that between a man and a woman. We should seek to guard this for the sake of the good of wider society and for generations to come.

6. Doesn’t all opposition to same-sex marriage boil down to homophobia and opposition to gay sex?

No. One does not have to exclude LGBT persons from those to whom we owe equitable treatment and recognition of personal dignity in order to oppose same-sex marriage. Opposition to same-sex marriage can be quite consistent with support for civil rights for LGBT persons more generally. The arguments that I have raised against same-sex marriage here and elsewhere do not presuppose opposition of homosexual relations, nor even to their recognition by society. The question that we are addressing here is not about the morality of homosexual practice (a question that must be addressed in its own place), but about the meaning of marriage.

7. Why the fixation on same-sex marriage? Why not the same opposition to divorce culture, for instance? Surely husbands and wives divorcing weaken the institution of marriage much more than same-sex couples wishing to enter it.

Divorce culture represents a huge threat to the integrity of marriage. However, divorce culture is a very complicated thing to address. There are valid reasons to divorce, so making it illegal isn’t a solution: it is not divorce but divorce culture that is the problem. Divorce is a symptom of an underlying set of problems. Often these problems don’t lie so much with the laws surrounding divorce or even with the liberal ways in which they are applied (although these are problems) as they do with the underlying values of the society. Challenging and changing these values is difficult.

We attack divorce culture by attacking the values that underlie it. However, the arguments for same-sex marriage that we are encountering at the moment are closely bound up with or serve to strengthen many of these values. It is at points like this, when the underlying values of the divorce culture break the surface and meet us head on – and especially when we are asked to affirm and celebrate them – that we have the duty to resist them.

One of the principal threats posed by same-sex marriage is that of establishing within the very public meaning of marriage key elements of the value system integral to the divorce culture. Same-sex marriage would not be a cultural possibility had not the values underlying the divorce culture paved its way. One’s perspective on the current arguments for same-sex marriage will tend to be shaped by your ranking of values relating to such things as, for example: 1. procreation; 2. the stability of the environment of child-rearing; 3. the relating of the two sexes to each other in society; 4. individual choice, autonomy, and self-fulfilment; 5. the anthropological and religious significance of sexual dimorphism; 6. sexual gratification; 7. marriage as cultural and institutional norm (sexual exclusivity, lifelong union, avoidance of sexual relations outside of marriage, opposition to adultery, etc.); 8. romantic love; 9. the bond between biological, legal, and social parenthood; 10. the need for both a father and a mother and the full involvement, commitment, and interdependence of both sexes in child-rearing; 11. the enjoyment of social status, benefits, and perks; 12. the presence of social support structures that uphold, inculcate, and facilitate the cultural norms.

The values that we hold most highly will be the values into which we will try to integrate all others. However, such a process always requires sacrifice or compromise. For instance, if romantic love is our highest value then we will tend to compromise on marriage as a cultural and institutional norm, because the two will frequently be at odds with each other. If we value marriage as a cultural and institutional norm very highly, we will tend to tolerate – indeed, to expect – much greater sacrifice in such areas as the happiness and sexual gratification of the unmarried. All of this should be fairly straightforward and obvious.

In terms of the values listed above, traditional opposition to divorce culture would place a high emphasis upon 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 12 in particular and to downplay and expect sacrifices in the areas of 4, 6, and 8. In order to secure the best interests of children, adults need to learn how to resolve conflicts rather than escaping them, to cope with profound sexual frustration, and to recognize limits on their choice and autonomy. In tackling the divorce culture we need to stress the importance of the duties and roles of both parents and just how necessary it is to guard the integrity and unity of the bond of parenthood. For the same reasons as we oppose divorce culture, we also seek to ensure that marriage is a universally acknowledged cultural norm, so that children aren’t born out of wedlock and so that all of society is committed to and focused upon making marriage a stable and healthy institution, ordering our sexual and relational behaviour in terms of it.

The case for same-sex marriage, however, must necessarily downplay 1, 3, 5, 9, and 10, factors that serve as the primary basis for marriage as a socially normative institution (7). Given the way that the core values of the institution of marriage are carefully woven together, the significance of male-female bonding is never merely an isolated thread within it, but is connected to everything else. Cut that thread, and don’t be surprised if you find all sorts of other things unravelling. The arguments in favour of same-sex marriage have typically emphasized 4, 6, 8, and 11, which, once again, has tended drastically to diminish the significance of 7. Grounding the practice of marriage upon choice and love may seem natural, but history has shown that it is far from a stable basis for the institution.

The divorce culture approaches marriage as an institution ordered primarily around adults’ ends and stresses individual autonomy. It tends to resist marriage’s demands of couples and of society more generally, both married and unmarried. It often treats romantic love and sexual gratification as the primary reasons both for getting and for staying married. It tends to diminish the significance of the very same values as same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage goes further, however, as such a diminishment is essential to what it is. While divorce is a failure to attain to certain values integral to marriage, same-sex marriage simply denies that many of these values are integral to marriage or that necessary in the first place. Divorce culture may seriously compromise the bond between biological, legal, and social parenthood. However, every child in a same-sex relationship has at least three parents. Divorce culture may compromise the child’s right to the presence of an involved father and mother. Same-sex marriage typically denies that children need both a father and a mother.

A further and absolutely crucial difference between divorce and same-sex marriage is that divorce has never pretended to be anything other than a tragic sign that something has gone seriously wrong somewhere and that something sought for was not successfully attained. However, same-sex marriage takes much of the same value system of which divorce was a symptom and calls us both to celebrate it and to present it as integral to the meaning of marriage. Divorce typically acknowledges the compromises and the sacrifices that it is making: same-sex marriage strenuously denies them.

8. On what basis do opponents of same-sex marriage say that it will lead to polygamy?

Questionable ones, I believe.

The shift to a more constructivist and malleable understanding of marriage, moving away from close reflection upon the nature and ends of the realities with which it deals, can definitely lead to a weakening of traditional objections to polygamy. The steady de-institutionalization and privatization of marriage can also have the same effect: if James and Steven’s marriage doesn’t harm mine, leaving me with no reason to object to it, couldn’t the same be said of Simon, Linda, and Jane’s? A number of the arguments that many bring forward for same-sex marriage prove more than they intend to and in this sense it could be said that they will lead to polygamy.

However, I have yet to see a convincing reason why legalizing same-sex marriage will open a legal door to polygamy. Nor, more importantly, is there much of a cultural desire for it: the will of our society is running in very different directions. Even if polygamy were made possible, it would be fringe in contrast to same-sex marriage, which is in the mainstream. The following are a few reasons why polygamy goes against the zeitgeist.

1. Polygamy is characterized by a fairly extreme gender differentiation. The current trend is in precisely the opposite direction.

2. Polygamy has male-female bonds at its heart. It is worth remembering that polygamy is not one man entering into one marriage within many wives, but one man entering into many marriages with many wives. The wives are not married to each other. There is an essential affirmation of sexual dimorphism and the fact that a marriage is built around the committed sexual relationship between a single man and a single woman at the heart of polygamy, even if those relationships aren’t exclusive.

3. Polygamous groups tend to be highly procreative and polygamous families tend to place a lot of emphasis on children. Marriage is oriented towards the production of a new generation, not mere sexual gratification or romantic companionship. Once again, this is directly contrary to the current trend.

4. Polygamous marriages tend to challenge the sentimental nuclear ideal of the family, expanding the family beyond a unitary bond of affection and making it far more of a public and communal reality that transcends and limits the will and entitlement of those within it.

5. Polygamy tends to be de-individualizing, particularly for women and children. While it produces more children, the polygamous family invests less in each particular one. It also stresses roles, limitations, and one’s ‘place’ within a greater order, not hinging upon and affirming the choices of sovereign individuals.

6. Polygamy typically relies upon a vision of marriage that is neither companionate nor romantic in character. Almost the entire reason for same-sex marriage’s plausibility to contemporary society rests upon such a notion of marriage.

7. Being procreative in orientation, polygamy would typically stress the connection between sex and marriage, ironically strongly maintaining many of the values that we associate with ‘monogamy’. Polygamous marriages are not typically ‘open’, ‘non-monogamous’, or ‘monogamish’ marriages in the sense that many more modern relationships are.

It is worth remembering that polygamy is typically practised in more conservative religious communities. This really isn’t an accident. Polygamy is in many respects the antithesis of same-sex marriage. While polygamists could exploit the current inclarity concerning marriage for their ends, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that polygamy is the direction that things are heading. Polyamory is a far more likely suspect: it is romantically driven, gender neutral, oriented towards the satisfaction of individual desires, more fluid and renegotiable, more sexually open to outsiders, and typically non-procreative.

9. Couldn’t same-sex marriage lead to a strengthening of marriage as an institution?

Following all of the focus over the last few years of the same sex marriage debate upon marriage being primarily about the love, choice, rights, and affirmation of individuals’ desires by society, it is unlikely that we are about to see a return to marriage as a true cultural norm that would be prepared to compromise or limit those things to maintain its institutional integrity. What we are seeing is a de-institutionalization of marriage for everyone, as the wider public has largely bought into the same notion.

I have encountered suggestions that a lowering of the divorce rate in some countries where same-sex marriage has been introduced is evidence for such a strengthening. Beyond the fact that divorce rates are complicated things to interpret, given the difference in the duration of the marriages involved, it must be recognized that divorce rates have generally dropped because far fewer people are marrying in the first place. When only those who are most committed to the institution bother to get married in the first place, a decline in the rate of divorce is exactly what we should expect to see. The more telling figure is the percentage of the population that marries in the first place.

Also, as a number of the ends integrated by marriage are slowly detached and downplayed, we should expect to see a further chipping of the coin of marriage in various ways. The value of monogamy will be weakened in favour of open marriages, non-monogamy, and ‘monogamish’ relationships. Marriage may also become less oriented to the needs of children and more focused upon the rights of adults. In such a situation, even those who do get married are committing themselves to much less.

The effect of same-sex marriage is not really about the cumulative effect of particular gay couples getting married. Its true damage arises from the corrosive influence of the system of values that it champions and establishes. This system of values isn’t an invention of LGBT communities. Rather, it is a system of values that has been operative in wider society for some time. The problem with same-sex marriage is that it establishes this system of values as the new orthodoxy, the public meaning of marriage, accelerating the change in what marriage means for everyone and making reversal of these unhealthy trends exceedingly difficult.

It shouldn’t surprise us if same-sex marriage further decreases the number of people who marry (as marriage moves from being a cultural norm to a private lifestyle choice), increasing the number of children born out of wedlock. Nor should it surprise us if it reinforces the values of divorce culture (as that is the flipside of the romantic view of marriage that makes love its all-encompassing rationale), and gives pace to the movement towards a loosening of the values of monogamy.

My suspicion is that same-sex marriage and increasingly marriage in general, as it will be practised in the future, will be more of a class-based entity, focused on the class status signalled by the lavish wedding and upper-middle class domestic lifestyle. It will function as a social norm to some degree, but the emphasis will be on the desirable social appearance that marriage confers, and much less upon its integral values. Weddings will be bigger, but marriages will be weaker. Such a form of marriage, with its greater emphasis on marriage as ‘sign value’, serving to indicate social status and provide a context for shared consumption, will also tend to discourage the poor from entering into the marriage market in the first place.

10. If we oppose same-sex marriages, should we support civil partnerships?

Before attempting to address this question, we must stress its distinction from the same-sex marriage question. A rejection of same-sex marriage need not entail a rejection of civil partnerships, as civil partnerships aren’t subject to quite the same critique, having a rather different character. On this particular issue, it seems to me that our answers are less clear-cut and must be determined through a process of careful discernment and deliberation, taking into account the nature of the unions in questions, society’s interest in them, and their relationship to society’s broader interests and forms. Rather than providing a direct answer to this question, I will discuss some of the issues that we must take into consideration and leave it

We should recognize that same-sex relationships can often exhibit traits that are conducive to the health of society. Even those of us who have ethical objections to homosexual practice should be able to recognize the positive dimensions of a commitment between two persons for mutual support, provision, and companionship. We can also recognize that, while it is not the ideal situation of being raised by a mother and a father, and by one’s biological parents, a child raised in a stable household with two parents or guardians of the same sex is probably better off in many respects than a child raised by a single parent. There is a strong argument to be made that the interests of wider society are served by a number of these things, so we have good cause to ask how these values can be supported and encouraged.

Society also has an interest in orienting all of its members to the service of common ‘goods’. In large part this orientation requires that the goods of society are clearly rendered ‘common’, rather than exclusive to certain parties. As a society we need to champion a mutually invested relationship between society and its members, ensuring, to the degree that we can, that every member of society is valued by the wider society and that wider society is valued by every one of its members. Inclusive and democratic institutions are ways in which the threat of social alienation is combatted.

Relating these different areas of concern isn’t always easy. There are many occasions when the interests of particular members of society won’t be conducive to the good of society as a whole. When tolerance and inclusion become our overriding goals, we can often find that the bonds of society are weakened in the process. When inclusion becomes our overriding end, social tensions are reduced, but at the cost of fragmentation, distance, and the compromising of key social goods. These are concerns that I raised in my post on same-sex relationships and the institutional character of marriage .

It should be stressed that the task of securing these social goods and inclusion does not primarily rest on the shoulders of the law or the government, but upon the family, church, and a host of other civic institutions, and also upon business and the economy. As society privileges forms of relationships and commitments that are much conducive to the broader social good there will always be forms of discrimination. However, the justifiable social privileging of marriage does not mean that unmarried persons need be socially alienated. Society has often sought ways to invest itself in the lives of those who are not members of its primary institutions and to ensure that, in turn, these persons are invested in the social order in various ways.

As an unmarried person, for instance, I may not be directly included in the institution of marriage, but I have experienced its benefits less directly in numerous ways – as a child in a stable and loving home, as one invited into the life of loving families, as someone with a strong and tightly knit extended family, as someone whose gender has been valued in my communities on account of its association with committed fatherhood, and as someone who has enjoyed the strong bonds of communities where marriage and its values are central. The great value placed upon marriage demands various sacrifices of me, but I am prepared and enabled to make them in large measure because I know that many of my communities honour me for and support me in making them and because I see in those communities something for which it is well worth sacrificing.

As an institution, marriage has always been about socially approved and supported sexual partnerships. This isn’t all that it is about, but this sexual dimension has always been essential to its social value. If there is one thing that we can typically assume about marriage partners, it is that there is a sexual dimension to their relationship. This sexual dimension has been valued because sexual relations between a man and a woman relate to primary ends of our human nature. It fulfils the primary purpose of sexual dimorphism and establishes strong and lasting relations between the genders, the two halves of the human race. The sexual relationship between a man and a woman is also, crucially, the way that the human race procreates and, as a result, produces very ‘public’ effects. For these reasons, wider society has a vested interest in the sexual relationships between the two sexes.

This vested interest, however, does not exist in the case of sexual relations between two persons of the same sex. Although friends and relatives may value and desire to celebrate the love and intimacy of the same-sex couple, the fact that the couple will be sleeping together is irrelevant to the wider society: it is a principally private fact.

The problem that attends civil partnerships is that they typically connect the enjoyment of social benefits to the presence of a sexual relationship. However, the positive ways that committed same-sex partnerships can serve the wider social good are not ultimately contingent upon their sexual dimension. For this reason, it is unjustly discriminatory to withhold the same privileges from couples prepared to make a commitment to each other without a sexual element. The presence of a sexual relationship would be an irrelevant criterion on which to discriminate.

This, I believe, gets us closer to the nub of the cultural issue that we are facing here. It is not really about the enjoyment of equal social perks and protections. Rather, it is about the insistence that homosexual relations are no less valuable to society than heterosexual ones. The push for same-sex marriage is really about a concerted attack upon the primary bastion of ‘heteronormativity’. What is being sought in civil partnerships, and even more insistently in same-sex marriage, is the public affirmation and celebration of homosexual sex, as interchangeable with marital sex between a man and woman.

The truth that cannot be acknowledged is that sexual relations between members of the same sex are not, in fact, equal in value and significance to those between men and women. This is not to deny the great level of intimacy and commitment that can exist between same-sex couples, but to make the surprisingly controversial point that the objective meaning and value of sexual relations between men and women goes so much beyond mere private intimacy. It is for this reason that they should be privileged, not merely over same-sex relationships, but also over the important relationships enjoyed by the rest of us who are unmarried.

To make civil partnerships contingent upon homosexual sex or to offer same-sex marriages would be unjustly discriminatory against those who serve the same social goods apart from sexual relations. It would treat homosexual sex as if it entitled people to special treatment, apart from a demonstration of its objective value relative to wider social goods and ends. The insistence of a powerful lobby upon such recognition is not sufficient to render such recognition ‘just’.

So, returning to a point with which we begun: same-sex relationships do in fact serve certain wider social ends and goods and, to the extent and in the manner that they do this, they deserve society’s support and recognition. This is merely a matter of equity. For this reason, I believe that such things as rights of visitation and inheritance should be easy for such couples to obtain and that there should also be certain tax benefits. Where non-sexual relationships serve the same social goods and ends, they should receive exactly the same recognition.

Should society establish a separate institution for such couples or merely make legal provisions for them as private (and bespoke) contractual relationships? Alternatively, it could restrict itself to providing benefits to less formally recognized relationships. The key problem to tackle here is whether such an institution would end up weakening marriage. This is a distinct danger, as illustrated by something like the PACS system in France, which has created a two-tiered marriage culture.

None of this need deny communities, churches, families, and individuals from celebrating and giving form to their lives and relationships. By not providing them with formal institutional recognition, the state would not be rendering same-sex relationships illegal, nor denying their subjective importance to those within them, but just denying the state’s vested interest in them. There are various deeply meaningful life commitments and relationships that justifiably lack such recognition. There may be certain tax benefits that are attendant on committing oneself to lifelong membership of a monastic community, for instance, but there isn’t necessarily a good reason why the state need provide formal and institutional recognition to this commitment.

The criteria by which religious communities will determine whether or not to provide formal recognition to same-sex partnerships are different as they have a different set of interests that could be vested within such unions.

11. What about same-sex couples adopting?

Once again, this is a decision that must be made on the basis of equity and close attention to the common good. The primary rights under consideration should always be those of the children. Discrimination, in the sense of wise and careful discernment of relevant factors, is essential, as is close attention to the dimensions of specific situations.

Same-sex couples cannot offer children the same things as male and female married couples. They cannot offer children the form of the natural family. They cannot offer children a mother and a father. These facts provide strong basis for discrimination and favouring of male and female couples over same-sex couples in many situations. However, it does not mean that same-sex couples cannot prove good parents, nor that they are not the right choice as adoptive parents in certain situations.

We must also recognize that our actions in such areas have broader consequences. The more same-sex couples adopt, the more widespread will be the loss of the public norm of children having both a mother and a father as committed presences in their lives. Schools and other organizations will be even more discouraged from referring to mothers and fathers. For the sake of the sensitivities of the children within them, same-sex relationships will also be steadily normalized, much as has happened in the case of single parenthood.

12. Isn’t the ‘redefinition’ of marriag e a misnomer, as marriage has never been defined in the first place?

There is an important point to make here: marriage was never ‘defined’ into existence. Rather, a natural reality was recognized and adumbrated with a fitting institutional form and protection. This natural reality has several dimensions, including: 1. Sexual dimorphism; 2. Sexual partnership between men and women as the primary context towards which this is ordered and in which union between the two halves of the human race is most powerfully secured; 3. The procreative nature of the union between man and woman; 4. The appropriateness of heterosexual desire to the natural ordering of our bodies, the sexual dimorphism of the human race, and the process of procreation; 5. The bond between children and their biological parents; 6. The bonds of blood more generally.

Different societies have articulated these realities in very different ways. However, substantial agreement exists across cultures and human history that these realities are in fact clear and constant features of our human nature. They didn’t come into existence through our definition, nor will they disappear through a redefinition.

Abraham Lincoln is popularly credited with having asked the question ‘if we should call the dog’s tail a leg, how many legs would it have?’ To the answer ‘five’, he pointed out that the true answer was four: calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. In like manner, calling same-sex relationships ‘marriages’ does not make them so, as they lack a clear relationship to the realities that ‘marriage’ names.

In answer to the question, then: no, I do not believe that it is a misnomer. However, the ‘redefinition’ is not a response to a human definition of marriage, but rather to the ‘definition’ of marriage as the form that arises from the very natural realities that it articulates.

13. Can and should Christians argue from a position that does not grant the legitimacy of same-sex relations for the sake of argument?

The concern underlying this question is that we don’t, through a constant bracketing of the question of the morality of homosexual practice, end up abandoning the historic Christian conviction that homosexual practice is contrary to divine will and human nature.

This is definitely an important concern. Accommodating our arguments to the limitations of a rapidly shifting Overton window of public discourse can unintentionally lead to a withdrawal from or weakening of conviction upon positions that are deeply objectionable to the wider public. Prudence and shrewdness in argumentation should not lead to an abandonment of principle.

For the vast majority of those who deny the moral legitimacy of same-sex relationships, the question of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage has already been settled elsewhere, before it was even raised. This makes it difficult for them to establish common ground with those who do not share their moral objections to homosexual practice. As I believe that no position can develop a perfect immunity to the claims of truth and that, wherever people stand, there are ways of challenging them with it, I don’t have a problem with granting opponents many things for the sake of argument. While I want to make clear that my arguments against same-sex marriage do not typically depend upon opposition to homosexual practice, I am prepared to give an explanation for why I am also opposed to that when people ask me. The following is what I believe to be the basic rationale for the position outlined in Scripture.

There are, I believe, clear and strong divine condemnations of homosexual practice in Scripture. These condemnations do not focus merely upon culturally contingent forms of homosexual practice, but draw our attention to the essential form of homosexual relations themselves. The strength of the scriptural case against homosexual practice does not, however, rest upon prohibitions of homosexual practice so much as upon its positive teaching about the appropriate context, nature, and ends of human sexual behaviour.

The common conservative Christian way of reasoning on the subject of same-sex marriage begins with the divine commands against homosexual practice and works from those to the illegitimacy of same-sex marriage. In this respect, Christians opposed to homosexual practice and same-sex marriage reason in much the same direction as those who support homosexual practice and same-sex marriage: both reason from sexuality/sexual practice to marriage. While such reasoning holds up on its own terms, I submit that we would be much better off if we learned to think the other way around – from marriage to sexuality and sexual activity.

For this reason, I think that we need to begin with a strong and richly developed understanding of marriage and reason from there. It is from this point that we will have the greatest traction in the debate about the morality of homosexual practice. This is where we will begin to understand something of the biblical rationale for the prohibition of homosexual practice. Rather than throwing detached biblical commandments and seemingly arbitrary condemnations at the question, we will address it with a rich positive case for the appropriate ends and nature of marriage and the place that sex occupies within it. In light of such a case, the reasons for the scriptural condemnation of homosexual practice will become more apparent.

Framing matters in terms of homosexual practice versus heterosexual practice obscures matters considerably as far as scriptural teaching is concerned. Scripture’s reasoning in these areas does not operate in terms of ‘sex’ as such, or even in terms of heterosexual sex as such, but in terms of the purity and honour of the marriage bed and God’s judgment and condemnation of fornicators and adulterers who dishonour it by their behaviour (Hebrews 13:4). Scripture doesn’t give us a theology of sex in the abstract, but a theology of marriage and the marriage bed.

For Scripture, the vocation of procreation is central to the blessed calling given to the human race as originally created and it is regarded as integral to the purpose of marriage. Sexual difference is also given huge significance as the one created difference that is rendered constitutive to some degree of humanity’s bearing of the image of God. The marital union between a husband and a wife is an icon of the unity of the human race, both in its source and its telos . Marriage exists to order human behaviour to higher ends and meaningfully to articulate our nature as created beings.

Marriage relates us to realities that transcend us and to realities that are quite other to us: to the meaning of our sexed bodies, to the other sex, to the one flesh union of physical intercourse between husband and wife, to the mystery of procreation, to offspring, to the intergenerational and extended reality of the family, and to the God whose image and vocation we express. Consequently, marriage is taken with the utmost seriousness, as something that orients and relates us to some of the deepest realities of our creaturely existence.

When the Scriptures speak of homosexual relations as an ‘abomination’, it is against this background that it is speaking: it is seen as a violation, perversion, and dishonouring of some of the most important dimensions of human existence and a distorting of the very image of God. This is why, in Scripture, homosexual practice falls in the same category that we would put something like the creation of a human-animal hybrid – it is regarded as a moral monstrosity, a sin against human nature itself. It is seen to cut loose sexual practice from the transcendent objective realities for which it was given to connect us and to create an inverted reality in their place, one that no longer clearly directs sexuality outward to serve a reality greater than itself.

Homosexual practice is seen to dis-integrate sexuality from its proper ends, leading to a more general sexual and existential disorientation within society as a whole. Incidentally, it is interesting to observe that, in a culture where sex is very firmly oriented towards ends that exceed mere sexual pleasure, homosexuality and masturbation don’t even appear on the cultural radar . Sexual pleasure can clearly occur and be highly valued in such a context, but it is never detached from something beyond itself, as it is within a contraceptive culture such as ours.

The reason why we find it hard to understand the reasoning behind this is because we tend to consider sexual behaviour in detachment from these ends and more from the perspective of personal sexual gratification, individual self-fulfilment, romance, and autonomous meaning. Sex means what consenting adults want it to mean, can serve whatever purposes they want, and such sex can’t reasonably be said to hurt anyone else.

We have also so tied personal identity and human intimacy to sexual relations that to deny the legitimacy of some people’s desired sexual relations is seen to deprive them of meaningful existence. The form of modern society, where we are increasingly rootless and deep and intimate friendships are considerably harder to develop, doesn’t make this any easier. Furthermore, when the wider society is so geared towards indulgence and realization of one’s own desires, it naturally seems quite cruel and unreasonable to deny one class of persons such a right. We have lost stomach for sacrifice, both our own and those of others. However, such sacrifice is necessary if we are to pursue something greater than our own pleasure.

In Scripture, the widespread practice and toleration of homosexuality is presented as an indictment, not so much upon a particular class of individuals, but upon an entire society. It is a sign that the whole culture has been sexually disoriented and not a judgment exclusively upon those who engage in such relations. Consequently, addressing society with Scripture’s teaching is a matter that calls for considerable wisdom, care, and sensitivity. The culpability of individuals within such a disoriented society is severely diminished, as their sins are less witting. Furthermore, our actions in such a disoriented context often arise, less from a highly developed vicious will than from the natural ruts along which desire is trained to move within such a context.

For someone who is naturally predisposed to homoerotic desire (and, while I don’t think that it is sufficient as an explanation, it seems clear to me that homosexuality has a biological component), remaining chaste in our society would be an incredibly difficult task, while remaining chaste in others would be considerably easier. If the sexuality of the general population wasn’t so frequently perverted and self-serving, such persons would have a considerably easier time of it and we would no longer be put in the position of demanding seemingly unreasonable moral heroics of them, expecting an unfortunate class of persons to bear a heavy burden while we show no restraint. The biblical teaching on homosexuality is not designed to create a sexual ‘leper’ class of those who experience homoerotic desires. Like the rest of us, our friends, relatives, neighbours, and acquaintances who experience such desires are struggling with the disorientation and dis-integration of fallen human nature.

It should be stressed that the scriptural teaching on marriage holds heterosexuals to a standard that is equally unbending. Sexual relationships outside of marriage are condemned, whether fornication or adultery. Sexual unions are expected to be lifelong and exclusive, even in cases where sexual gratification is no longer possible.

While I believe that the position that I have outlined above is the appropriate Christian position, it is one that wider society and a significant proportion of the Church would vehemently oppose. While I believe that a strong case against same-sex marriage can be made without the above points – and that we are wiser to present it in such a manner – I also believe that my comments above illustrate the difficulty that a full and rich cultural understanding and practice of marriage has with homosexual practice.

14. Some, especially John Boswell, have argued that the adelphopoiesis ceremony was designed to create marriage-like unions between members of the same sex in a Christian context. Can we take this as precedent for same-sex marriages?

Perhaps the best analogy for adelphopoiesis unions would be something like adoptions, and we see them related to adoptions in certain contexts. They are more general kinship-forming unions, rather than the equivalent of marriages. Of course, marriage involves a sort of adoption (a fact more pronounced in certain cultures, but we still speak of daughters- and sons-, brothers- and sisters-, mothers- and fathers-in-law), and wives can be regarded as ‘sisters’ (one sees this within biblical texts on occasions, for instance), but this dimension is secondary. Also, like adoption, adelphopoiesis was not regarded as an exclusive relationship: one could form such relationships with a number of parties. The other reason why adoption might provide an apt comparison is that adoption is about the negotiation of bonds where emotional attachment may or may not be present, but where what emotional attachments exist are regarded as non-sexual in character.

Differences between the adelphopoiesis union and adoption (and the adoption dimensions of marriage) could be found in the more private character of adelphopoiesis unions, which do not seem to register the same changes in relationships within the broader kinship structures. They also have a more clearly defined bilateral aspect than one would find in many adoptions.

As ceremonies they bound two men together in a sort of fictive kinship as ‘brothers’. They were not that common and were only practised in a few areas of the church. If the blessing of a sexual union (as in the case of marriage) between two persons of the same sex could be proved to be part of these rites, or their theology, then Boswell would have a strong case. However, there isn’t. It also neglects to make clear that those brought together in such rites were often already married.

If these rites really were marriages, it should be demonstrated that they formed broader unions between families (as in the case of genuine marriage in such cultures), and not just a union between two individuals. If these unions really were marriages, it should be shown that the same grounds and procedure exist for their dissolution.

We should recognize that these rites occurred in a society with all sorts of kinship bonds (spiritual kinship, voluntary and other forms of fictive kinship) that extended far beyond marriage and the nuclear family. They also occurred in times when much that we might deem homoerotic wasn’t regarded as having the same erotic dimension. Men (who frequently had wives) kissing, living together, sharing the same bed, entering into deep vows of friendship, and having profoundly emotional bonds are common in many societies prior to and outside of modern West culture (there are references to all of these things in the Bible), right alongside strong condemnations of homosexual intercourse.

There are potential anachronisms on all sides here. We should recognize that our model of romantic and companionate marriage hasn’t always been the historical norm. We should further recognize that there were no ‘heterosexuals’ or ‘homosexuals’ in the eras in which these rites were practised, only homosexual acts and coitus, marriage, other kinship bonds, and situations of their absence.

In many of these societies, in the context of strong gender differentiation in areas of social activity, in education, etc., the most powerful emotional bonds were between persons of the same sex, even though sexual bonds were only sanctioned between males and females, and within the context of marriage. Deep homoaffective bonds should not be presumed to be homoerotic or to have a sexual component.

On the other hand, we should not presume that all of the things that we associate with marriage (companionate bonds, romantic bonds, cohabitation, pooling of resources, the social expectation of sexual exclusivity, an entrance into union with a publicly witnessed vow, etc.) have always been associated with it, regarded as exclusive to it, or functioned similarly in relation to it in all cultures and places. Before labelling these as ‘marriages’, it should be demonstrated that they were regarded as equivalent to marriages within the cultures in which they were practised, or that they clearly include those elements that constitute a marriage as such within our culture. On the other hand, while I don’t believe that these were marriages on either of those counts, we should be prepared to recognize that, within their historical context, they may have had dimensions that we tend to associate exclusively with marriage (for instance, a companionate or affective bond bound by oath).

Of course, it is possible that some couples who had sexual relations with each other availed themselves of such adelphopoiesis unions. Perhaps some churches (who probably would not have been approved of by higher church authorities) even operated a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding such uses of the rite. This area is ripe for historical speculation. However, the unions themselves (which is the point at issue) were not marriages, and were not designed for sexual bonding. As such, there is no evidence whatsoever that the church ever officially sanctioned or blessed homosexual unions as homosexual unions, which is the tendentious claim being made here.

One not infrequently encounters claims concerning same-sex marriages in history or distant tribal cultures. In my experience, such claims tend to fall apart when subjected to more careful analysis, analysis which seeks to determine the cultural meaning of the unions or ceremonies in question: how they functioned in terms of the broader cultural system, how they related to marriage between men and women, and the sorts of people who entered into them. Often might find, for instance, that a particular union involved no recognition of a sexual dimension: although homosexually active couples might enter into them, they weren’t considered homosexual unions. Anachronism and cultural projection are huge dangers of which we should be aware in this area.

15. Some opponents of same-sex marriage claim that it will tend to weaken the value of lifelong monogamy. Isn’t such a claim merely homophobic, denying that same-sex couples can be as committed to each other as male and female couples?

Are gay persons hardwired to be more promiscuous or less committed to lifelong relationships than straight persons? I don’t believe so. However, once you completely separate sex from reproduction and sexual difference, sex loses a significant amount of its power as a binding force between people, and as a curb to promiscuity. The communities built around homosexual relationships will tend to exacerbate and amplify these tendencies of particular sexual relationships.

First, sexual difference. Every heterosexual relationship will have to negotiate this in some form or other. In order to establish the equality and similarity of gay relationships to straight ones our society tends to think more in terms of a homogeneity of male and female/masculine and feminine economies of desire. However, there are huge and significant differences, as sexual difference has to be traversed in one case, but not in the other.

Our gender has a first person presence in us. This plays a significant shaping role in our relationships with people of the same or different genders. When two men or two women have sexual relations they are relating to someone who operates within the same gendered economy of desire, and they can presume that they will, to some extent or other, know the territory. When we relate to someone of the opposite sex we are venturing into territory of which we have no firsthand knowledge. In such an encounter we are more vulnerable and so greater degrees of caution, reticence, trust-building and the like will usually need to attend the task of negotiating sexual difference than would be necessary in its absence, where our partner would be capable of more immediate empathy with the nature of our desire.

On account of the differences between male and female economies of desire – despite areas of considerable overlap – heterosexual relationships will be faced with the task of forging a complementarity of desire to a degree that homosexual relationships will not. The territory of masculine sexuality and the territory of feminine sexuality differ in many respects and relationships formed between people from both territories will face challenges that those formed within one will not.

In this respect at least I believe that we need to be very open about the fact that gay relationships are categorically different from straight ones. With a denial of this difference comes a denial of the significance of sexual difference. The result is to press for homogeneity of desire, pushing the territories of male and female desire into the regions of their overlap, abandoning the more adventurous traversal of sexual difference as a relic of unenlightened thought, and denying the degree to which the other sex remains a mystery to us. I believe that one of the results of this is to make things difficult for those whose sexuality lies in an area where less overlap exists, as they are often forced to operate in terms of a sexuality in which the differences of the economy of desire are denied and hurt in the process.

Even contrasting the general tendencies of gay and lesbian relationships will serve to illustrate the fact that the reality of sexual difference isn’t about to go anywhere. In marriage the differences between a female economy of desire and a male economy of desire must be negotiated, and the union represents a rapprochement between the two. In same-sex relationships the partners are far more likely to bring the same expectations to the relationship, and to have an intimate understanding of how the body and desire of their partner works, as it is much like their own.

In contrast, marriage forges a bond between you and one who is not merely personally other to you, but one who is sexually other, one whose body works quite differently, one whose desire has different tendencies. This intrinsic other-orientation of marriage, and its nature as rapprochement and negotiation of sexual difference does not merely serve to curb selfishness; it also makes the relationship harder to form and thus establishes a certain inertia for desire, male desire especially. When forms of desire are different, relationships take longer to form, as they involve the navigation of the treacherous waters of sexual difference, promiscuity will also be discouraged and there will be greater emphasis upon the need to create secure and stable settings where this negotiation of sexual difference can be safely undertaken.

Gender difference also introduces greater asymmetry in relationships and, hence, imbalances of power. For instance, the fact that the wife gets pregnant but the husband doesn’t can make her vulnerable and dependent upon the security of the relationship in ways that he is not. One of the reasons that monogamy is so emphasized is on account of these imbalances, imbalances that demand a firm mutual commitment to a structure in which more powerful parties are limited in the degree to which they can take advantage of their greater leverage and renegotiate the terms. Same-sex relationships, as they do not typically have the same levels of imbalance of power have much less of a natural need or demand for the objective norms of monogamy.

Second, reproduction. The big elephant in the room when talking about the difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex is that homosexual sex is sterile by its very nature: heterosexual sex is not. The difference that this makes is huge. This fact impacts on all heterosexual activity, even where contraception is used. The fact that heterosexual intercourse can be reproductive leads the sexes to place greater expectations upon each other’s and their own sexual behaviour: it is a much weightier matter.

As heterosexual relationships are apt for reproduction, the behaviour of men and women (and especially women) in such relationships, even where contraception is employed, will be taken as an indication of how suitable they are as reproductive partners. When something as significant as a man’s knowledge of his relationship to his children can rest upon his trust in his wife’s sexual exclusivity, sexual exclusivity will have much greater significance.

Within all of this we see more of the reasons why men and women are drawn to ‘couple’. Between men and women there are natural impetuses towards longer term coupling and towards a higher demand for sexual exclusivity. These do not exist to the same degree in homosexual relationships. These impetuses are founded on the sexual relationship itself, and not merely on some emotional bond that exists between the sexual partners, however strong that may be. It is because heterosexual sex is apt for reproduction that strong expectations exist for each of the sexes with regard to sexual partners. Both sexes expect the other sex to approach sex in general in a responsible way. Men expect women not to be promiscuous, so that they can know when a child is theirs; women expect men to be sexually exclusive because the security and status of their children can depend upon it.

Where there is no sexual difference to navigate and sexual activity can be completely divorced from any hint of reproductive activity the impetus towards lifelong and exclusive coupling will be considerably less and will rely almost entirely on an emotional bond (which can also give rise to the notion of emotional monogamy, in which no strings attached sex can be engaged in outside the union). There is already a movement in this direction in heterosexual relationships (which is one reason for the weakening of marriage bonds), but escaping sexual difference and the fact of reproduction is a struggle for heterosexual relationships: for homosexual relationships sexual difference and reproduction were never issues in the first place. Heterosexuals must aspire to purely contraceptive sex and the complete denial of reproduction, but this comes naturally to homosexuals.

Finally, children. Sexual exclusivity benefits children in a number of ways and the fact that male-female relationships are not merely reproductive unlike same-sex ones, but are also more likely to involve shared child-rearing is hugely significant. Here are a few ways that it makes a difference:

1. Sexual exclusivity strengthens the bond of paternity, ensuring fathers and their children of their relationship, and of its significance, as the child’s origins lie in an act that for his or her parents is practised exclusively within their relationship.

2. Sexual exclusivity situates sexual intercourse in the context of committed lifelong bonds. By powerfully personalizing sex as the marital act, children in turn are personalized. Where sex is depersonalized, children (especially the unborn) in turn tend to be depersonalized, and the bond between biological parents and their children weakened. A father will care far more about the child born to his beloved wife than to the woman that he had a one night stand with.

3. Sexuality exclusivity and monogamy makes the duty of paternity extremely clear, and lowers the risk of this duty not being met. Sexual exclusivity and monogamy ensures that the duty for raising and loving the child falls squarely at the feet of one man, rather than being divided between an absent biological father and a present stepfather, for instance.

4. Sexual exclusivity and monogamy decrease the probability of jealousy, and the poison that it introduces into relationships. It protects men and women from the jealousy caused by other lovers or partners in the lives of their spouses. It protects children from jealousy of the affection that their parents give to those other than their other parent. It protects legal parents from jealousy of the biological parents of the children in their relationship, and their place in the lives, identities, and affections of the children.

5. Sexual exclusivity serves to strongly discourage the straying of affections and consequent household instability that polyamorous relationships could invite. Sexual exclusivity puts a premium on household stability; non-monogamous relationships don’t tend to do long term household and relational stability anywhere near as well.

6. The consequences of the breakdown of relationships with children in them are far more severe than those without, providing a much greater incentive to work towards reconciliation rather than abandoning an unhappy relationship.

In sum, on account of the realities that are operative within marriages between men and women, they will have a much greater inclination towards sexual exclusivity and lifelong union than those between persons of the same sex. With the introduction of same-sex marriage and the increased tendency to view marriage in detachment from reproduction, sexual difference, and child-bearing, it shouldn’t surprise us to see a strong movement towards open marriages, non-monogamy, ‘emotionally monogamous’, and ‘monogamish’ relationships, and away from the norm of lifelong sexual exclusivity.

16. Isn’t polygamy clear evidence against a supposed historical consensus on marriage?

It can be readily admitted that countless different marriage customs exist across human cultures. The claim of historical consensus focuses on certain dimensions of marriage that have been as near to universal as one can get, right down to the present day. These dimensions include an institutional expression of the interdependence of men and women; an institutional encouragement of procreation under appropriate conditions; the existence of public norms, meaning, and incentives; and expectation of the support of parents for their offspring. For the overwhelming majority of human societies, marriage has served to bind together biological (genetic and gestational), legal, and social parenthood, ensuring that their unity is disrupted as rarely as possible.

Polygamy is one of the variable features of human marriage cultures. However, the degree to which it represents a variation is frequently greatly overstated, especially in the context of the current debates. Polygamy is not to be confused with a single marriage to multiple wives. In a polygamous society, the wives of a polygynous husband are not married to each other. Rather, polygamy is typically a matter of one man entering into many marriages. However, each of these marriages consists of one man and one woman. Polygamy doesn’t change the internal character of a marriage so much as permit someone to be within a number of marriages at the same time. Obviously this will have a detrimental impact upon the internal character of each marriage, but this effect is more indirect.

There are a few rare examples in various cultures of practices resembling group marriage. However, even in these cases, the interdependence of male and female is typically central. They usually are instances of spouse-sharing among brothers, rather than unions which involve both homosexual and heterosexual practice, let alone which present them as possessing parity in their significance.

Even polygamous societies serve to underline the sheer prevalence of the cross-cultural consensus on marriage: 1. Marriage involves interdependence between men and women; 2. A particular marriage exists between one man and one woman (save in the very rare case of spouse-sharing); 3. The source of the union of marriage is in the bond between a man and a woman (this bond may become fused with other such bonds, as in the case of spouse-sharing, but the source of the union remains the same: remove the women and the marriage ceases to exist); 4. Marriage encourages procreation. The closer we look, the more that we will see that same-sex marriage represents a far more serious violation of the nature of marriage than polygamy does.

Share this:

44 responses to questions and answers on same-sex marriage.

Pingback: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate – Questions and Answers | Alastair's Adversaria

Pingback: The Institution of Marriage, Same-Sex Unions, and Procreation | Alastair's Adversaria

“The culpability of individuals within such a disoriented society is severely diminished, as their sins are less witting.”

What are your thoughts on letting practicing homosexuals to Church fellowship then? It seems we would allow people who habitually and unrepentently commit other sins to fellowship–for instance, husbands who are habitually rude to their wives are routinely exhorted to change, but, unless the situation is severe, are not usually excommunicated for it. (Indeed, if we excommunicated people for any unrepented sins, we would all be excommunicated.)

Could admitting practicing homosexuals to fellowship be taken on a case-by-case basis like gay adoption, or does practicing homogenital sex exclude people from table fellowship as such? (I’m not sure if that question even makes sense with an established Church, but it’s a very live one here in the States.)

Thanks for the question, Matthew. It is an important one.

I think that we need to take people from where they are, so we don’t treat people in unwitting sin as if they were high-handed sinners. However, to come into the life of the Church we all called to repent and turn our back on sin. As sin is identified to us we should take such steps to reject it. Where we refuse to do so outright, this entry into fellowship cannot take place. A habitual sin is a different sort of thing from a state of sin that we wilfully choose to remain within, which is what a homosexual relationship would represent. A person genuinely struggling with temptation to sin in this area, who is outside of such a relationship, but has given in on occasions is a slightly different case.

Scripture doesn’t view all sins as equal either. Some sins are treated as matters of particular seriousness and homosexual practice is one of these. While a person’s culpability might be diminished in a sexually disoriented society in relation to such actions, this doesn’t allow us to wink at them, or to admit to fellowship those committed to practices that God explicitly commands that we put away from us, along with those committed to them.

First, Alastair, thanks for all of this. Incredibly helpful discussion.

I agree with your answer to the above question, with qualifications — and I think these are qualifications that are vital to the pastoral and ecclesial side of this question’s answer.

You said… “However, to come into the life of the Church we all called to repent and turn our back on sin. As sin is identified to us we should take such steps to reject it. Where we refuse to do so outright, this entry into fellowship cannot take place.”

I’ve heard this in other similar discussions, and the underlying assumption usually seems to be that once a sin is pointed out or “identified” that a Christian should both recognize it as such and come under conviction of it. But in my experience (and, frankly, in the experience of every other Christian, I am confident) conviction doesn’t always, or even usually, follow identification; indeed, even mere recognition doesn’t always follow identification.

So how can/should a communion of believers handle a practicing homosexual who has professed faith in Christ, and who has had their homosexual sin pointed out to them, if he/she does not immediately respond to the identification of such sin? I think we first must recognize that only further discipleship will yield any fruit in bringing conviction for this sin — and discipleship is always most effective within the local church. Second, I think we recognize the progressive nature of sanctification as having vital bearing on this situation, and accommodate it accordingly.

The church seems to have a varied history on this. The New Testament-era church appears to have baptized into membership immediately upon conversion, and then disciplined diligently if problems arose. Meanwhile, the church of the second and third centuries catechized extensively before admitting to membership. So I don’t think we can point to a normative historical pattern — but I think what I described above is historically justified, and pastorally appropriate for today.

You said… “Scripture doesn’t view all sins as equal either. Some sins are treated as matters of particular seriousness and homosexual practice is one of these.”

Yes; but so is adultery, greed, drunkenness, and lying (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:10). So we either must bring a similar standard against those addicted to porn, or are over-ambitious in their career pursuit, or struggle regularly with having one too many beers, or regularly embellish and exaggerate the truth — or we should recognize that the social stigmas attached to homosexuality (in the church, and until recently culturally) have led us to treat that particular group of sinners differently in our membership standards and expectations.

The truth is, for most evangelical churches the standard for membership is, “do you believe the Gospel?” EXCEPT for anyone who has been in a homosexual lifestyle, in which case the standard is, “do you believe the Gospel AND have you left your life of homosexual sin?” Whether we intend to or not (and I think too often it IS intended), we have applied a standard of salvific works on top of the Gospel for homosexuals.

Thanks for the comment, Ed. You raise some important points.

You are right: recognition and conviction of sin do arise gradually. We can’t expect people to arrive instantly at a perfect awareness of sin that all of us lack to some measure or other.

The relationship between discipleship and full admission to fellowship that you raise here is a helpful discussion to have. Baptizing quickly after confession of faith was the pattern of the apostolic Church, as you say. This seems to have been followed by discipleship within the life of the Church. The fact that there was so much confusion and so many crazy practices in the early Church is probably not unrelated to this.

I believe that the practice would have been to take the person confessing faith at their word and then work on the basis of the break with past ways of living to which the person had been bound in baptism. God deals with us on the basis of his prior welcome. Exclusion is on the basis of rejection of the life that is offered, rather than on the basis of failure to meet some initial behavioural standard. In baptism you would also come under the discipleship and discipline of the Church. A refusal to live in terms of the break and in terms of the discipleship of the Church would be grounds for discipline.

This submission to the discipleship and discipline of the Church is an important part of the picture, I think. It is this discipleship that bridges the gap between conversion and conviction on some moral issues. Refusal to submit to the discipleship of the Church is a very serious matter. It is appropriate to expect people to recognize the authority of appointed leaders in such matters, even when they do not yet fully understanding the moral reasoning itself. The logic here is much the same as that which applies to children, whom we expect to honour and obey those put in authority over them, even when they are not entirely sure why they are told to do particular things. The sin for a child is often primarily one of resistance to just authority, yielding actions of wilful and high-handed ignorance, which is more culpable.

The purpose of leadership, of course, is to bring people to this maturity of understanding, so that they are not purely dependent upon other people’s knowledge. Where someone won’t recognize a serious fault and won’t hear the voice of the Church either, we shouldn’t have fellowship with them.

We are not looking for complete understanding or perfection. Rather, what we are looking for is ignorance submitted to the process of discipleship . Someone who wilfully continues in a homosexual relationship is not submitting to this discipleship, while someone who falls into homosexual sin could well be doing so.

Willing commitment to certain habitual sinful practices should exclude one from the life of the Church: greed, drunkenness, and lying are all examples of this. There are also actions which can demand serious action. For instance, if a member of the congregation was seeing a prostitute, he should not be admitted to communion immediately afterwards, but some process of discipline and restoration should be followed.

Paul uses the Old Testament death sentence as a paradigm for Church discipline in 1 Corinthians 5:13. There are certain sins, homosexual practice among them, which require exclusion. Consequently, a person known to have been homosexually active should undergo a process of exclusion, repentance, and restoration. The same would apply to an adulterer. This process is undertaken as much for the health of the body of Christ as a whole as for the one who has sinned in such a way. God treats such sins differently from many other sins and so should we.

The fact that our culture is ignorant of the seriousness of certain sins – economic and sexual particularly, perhaps – does not mean that we should adopt that standard in our treatment of those sins in the Church. Rather, we should recognize reduced culpability through ignorance, call people to the responsibility of discipleship, welcoming them on the basis of God’s free acceptance, and only exclude where that discipleship is rejected. In other cases temporary exclusion for the purpose of restoration should occur.

Pingback: Pages! | Alastair's Adversaria

Is part of the issue the palpability of sexual sins? I can agree in principle that, say envy, is wrong, and be envious without knowing I am. But if I commit sexual sins, I can’t trick myself into thinking I did not commit a sinful act, at least, not without tricking muself into believing sexual sins are sins.

Yes, I think that that is an important part of it. We can’t read people’s hearts, but the boundaries relative to certain actions are clear. We can see where such sexual actions go against God’s law, although it is hard to tell whether a couple buying a bigger house are given over to greed.

However, I think that we need to go further than this. Scripture seems to treat certain sins, including sexual sins, in a class by themselves. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:188, the person who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Sexual sins are classed along with sins such as murder as a more direct assault upon the image of God and hence receive a more severe punishment.

Alastair, I believe God’s idea of sex as presented in the Scriptures is much bigger than the puzzle pieces of what gets put where. The regulations contain some of these instructions, but they also contain the ‘when’ and some of the ‘why,’ which is usually related to health.

I think we make a mistake by believing that sexuality operated the same biblical times as it does today. Procreation was tautamount to survival for a nomadic, agricultural people. Sexual rights were more akin to property rights and cleanliness rituals than we often admit. More than anything though, we see in the Old Testament how sexuality was used in the ancient world as an act of subjucation rather than mutuality. Rape was an initiation into a community’s power structure as we see in Sodom, it didn’t matter if the victim was male or female – because it wasn’t a specifically genital act.

Homosexuality in Greece and Rome was largely practiced against the young and against slaves in a “power-over” relationship. It was a common rite of initiation upon obtaining slaves that they’d quickly be introduced to the proverbial “man of the house.” In order to break the spell of shame, many of the exploited turned to pagan temples where the power structure could be temporarily reversed and they could be the dominate ones.

Bottom line to me is that we don’t have very many examples of mutuality in homosexual relationships in the ancient world. Perhaps you know of some texts that point to a few. It seems to me though that nearly everything I’ve read presents bisexual situations in which homosexuality serves more as a tool for dominance than it does a loving relationship. The pagan gods reinforced the stereotypes and the orgies provided a breakdown of the traditional power structure which is probably why they appealed to many, as well the fact that they believed their sexual rites promoted agricultural abundance thru rich harvests.

The Scripture seems plainly rejectionist of the homosexual lifestyle as it existed in the ancient world, I just have a tough time seeing where that lifestyle is at work in the modern world, save perhaps sex trafficing and the NAMBLA movement.

A drunk 3,000 years ago wouldn’t look too different than a drunk today. Neither would a liar. But a homosexual 3,000 years ago most likely looked radically different. To reduce the the act to mere genital activity feels short-sighted.

David, thanks for commenting.

A number of points in response:

1. ‘I believe God’s idea of sex as presented in the Scriptures is much bigger than the puzzle pieces of what gets put where.’ Amen. Sex is the seal of the marital union, in which the two halves of the human race are united and their interdependence is expressed, revealing the truth that God made us male and female as the bearers of his image. It is the primary telos of sexually dimorphic bodies. It the union that bears God’s blessing and fulfils his vocation of fruitfulness and multiplication. It is the loving one flesh union from which human beings find their origin (as physical one-flesh unions of their parents) and the place where the bonds of blood that bind us together are forged. It is the union that stands in the succession of the generations and passes on its life in turn. It is the union that expresses the unity of the first couple. It is the seal of the union that symbolizes Christ’s bond with his Church. It is oriented towards its proper ends by the institution of marriage and is not a dis-integrated end to be pursued in abstraction from those greater ends.

2. The fact that you characterize moral opposition to homosexual practice as arising from a ‘what gets put where’ way of thinking makes me wonder whether you have been listening carefully to what actually is being said, or whether you really think that opposition to homosexual practice isn’t all about how homosexual practice relates to a larger picture.

3. The Scripture’s focus is not upon homosexual and heterosexual sex in the abstract, but upon marital relations and those forms of relationship that pervert, undermine, or are detached from marital relations and the ends of marriage (procreation being one of the chief of these ends). Likewise, the biblical teaching is not against anal or oral sex in particular, but against sexual relations between persons of the same sex and against sexual relations outside of the male-female bond of marriage, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.

4. I would like to see you substantiate your suggestion that the biblical regulations relating to homosexuality were primarily about health. If this were the case, why isn’t the teaching against anal sex, rather than against sexual relations between males? Or why threaten such persons with death if the preservation of life was the primary end? Knowing the book of Leviticus very well, I think that the claims that its regulations are primarily about health are quite unpersuasive.

5. The teaching against homosexual practice is hardly exclusive to a nomadic, agricultural people. You don’t get much more cosmopolitan in the ancient world than someone like the Apostle Paul, but the teaching is even less compromising in his writings than in the Old Testament, even though procreation wasn’t some huge imperative for the man who recommended celibate singleness for those who could manage it. Nevertheless, he still speaks of homosexual practice in terms of ‘vile passions’, being ‘against nature’, ‘committing what is shameful’, doing things ‘which are not fitting, and being given over to ‘a debased mind’. In other words, the biblical teaching against homosexual practice stays consistent throughout a wide variety of cultural settings.

6. If power-over relations were the primary issue and gender wasn’t the real issue, then surely the Scripture would have spoken of it as such. This rather undermines your point. The fact that the Scripture focuses upon homosexual relations in particular, rather than upon the vast range of power-over relations is extremely telling.

7. Whether homosexual or heterosexual, sexual relationships in the ancient world were a lot less symmetrical and egalitarian than those that we tend to value in all sorts of ways. However, this does not mean that they were necessarily unloving. If asymmetrical male-female relations could be considered loving and morally licit, we really must ask why homosexual relations couldn’t be viewed in the same manner. There were examples of relationships commonly considered homosexual that were characterized by love within the ancient world: Achilles and Patroclus is one such example.

8. Is it the case that lesbian relationships were also perceived to be about unloving subjection and domination? Why do they come under the same judgment in Romans 1?

In short, the biblical rejection to homosexual practice is not about the fact that it is unloving or about domination. That certainly wasn’t always the case and, if it held for homosexual relations, much the same held for many heterosexual relations. Singling homosexual relationships out for particular censure would be strange. The rejection rather arises from the biblical teaching that God created humanity male and female in his image, that sex belongs solely in the context of the marriage bed, and that marriage is established with procreation as a primary source of its purpose and blessing, being ordered towards that end as an institution. In terms of this vision homosexual practice is disoriented sex, sex dis-integrated from its created ends, and distorting the very image of God. It is not the biblical vision that is taking a reductionist view of sex here.

The things you’ve placed in your first point are true, not of sex alone, but of intercourse between married, heterosexual people who love and care for each other. The one man / one woman relationship is unquestionably God’s highest ideal for us as human beings. The descriptions are not true about sex in general terms, which comes in a variety of broken forms that deviate from that ideal – among them are many heterosexual manifestations as well. I am certain than you would not advocate for a “rubber-stamp” to be placed upon all heterosexual relationships, even if they were practiced in a divinely sealed, legally binding, totally monogamous marriage. I’ve personally done enough marriage counseling to see the kinds of problems that when left unaddressed, manifest in the bedroom; sexual relationships between married people that are wrecked with violence, the threat of violence, rape, humiliation, verbal abuse, and much more.

You’re right, it’s not merely about the genitals. It’s also not merely about the marriage. It’s about health and well-being and honoring God with our whole bodies. There’s something larger at work in our bodies, even in fully monogamous relationships, that can take us closer to God’s ideal, or further away – most of that comes down to the Spirit of the Law and not it’s letter.

I have little doubt that the items in your third point above are correct, but certainly in the Hebrew scriptures, this picture is often quite skewed. It becomes skewed, not only throughout the biblical ages in the form of polygamy, but also in the willingness to step outside the boundaries in the case of barrenness. The idea that sexual relations were primarily promoted between monogamous people in the Bible doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. These realities lend themselves to the suggestion that what we are dealing with is a time sensitive set of behaviors which promoted procreation, as it was essential to survival. The portrayals we see in the Old Testament of sexuality are not nearly the uniform fit of holy matrimony pointing us to Christ as many would have us believe… and these from God’s elect no less. This is why I have difficulty accepting your interpretation of polygamy above. God was working with broken vessels in a broken system.

On the fourth point, I wouldn’t try to substantiate the claim that homosexuality laws were about health. I meant simply that most laws were about health and well-being of the community unit. They make sense from that perspective. I realize much in holiness code doesn’t make much sense because it related to purity in ways that don’t translate into today’s world very easily. The death penalty you mention arrives in numerous places, not just the sexual sins as I am certain you know. To answer that question though, it seems clear that these were desperate times. Survival was tantamount. A tiny crack in the unity of the group could bring the whole group down. Why, for example, kill the man who wears fabrics from two different sources? It makes sense to deduce that the law existed to simply isolate allergens. Lower immune systems, allergies, hives – all these things meant a weaker soldier, a weaker farmer, and translated into an overall weaker community. The bans on certain sexual behaviors also kept the group unified; it protected young daughters from having to bed their step-fathers, while at the same time keeping heterosexual relations (and procreation) at the forefront. A man or woman with a child would have defended that child and the community with their dying breath – the interest in survival and unity is vested. Some of the laws, like forbidding a man with a crushed testicle from being a priest, were about purity and wholeness. The issue, as time progressed, was determining which laws mattered most and why. Those decisions I am certain were rooted in what was needed at the time to survive. We see this even today – the first thing that happens in a community wide survival situation is Martial Law. Those laws don’t apply in less threatening situations.

I don’t agree with your fifth point, ironically because of Paul. The cosmopolitan apostle had seen temple orgies, or at least spoken with those who had participated in them. He had seen homosexual slavery, I’m sure. Probably spoken with many a soldier who described the process of brutalizing the conquered with both homosexual and heterosexual rape. I am quite certain that I could write a completely accurate paragraph about the sexual culture of Myanmar using much of this terminology without ever having described the quite monogamous, homosexual couple that lives two blocks down the street. In my opinion, the mistake we make is taking the short view of history: to believe that the sexual culture of ancient world, particularly that of homosexuals, is somehow akin to our own. Any literary evidence pointing us to similarities is paltry at best.

I also disagree that the Scripture’s silence about power relations is telling of much. It’s silent on numerous things from contraceptive use to the total emancipation of slaves. That said, even with silent scriptures, I don’t believe God remains silent on too many fronts, which is why the Holy Spirit leads and guides us to all truth. One thing we do know, the scripture is silent about even Paul taking a case for the preservation of marriage to the tribunals. Not saying he wouldn’t, or even that he didn’t appeal for his view of marriage in a secular court – just saying the shoe fits on either foot.

The scriptures aren’t totally silent however, as I said above, I don’t think you’d approve of just any monogamous, heterosexual marriage relationship and neither would Paul. Power-sharing and vulnerability are a huge part of healthy sexual intimacy & which is why submitting one to the other is a priority. It’s only then, in sacrifice, humility, love, and mutuality that the heterosexual union is compared with Christ.

On point 8, I think we should be clear what’s going on the letter. Chapter one is judgment on the world and all the ways it has fallen from God’s perfect ideal. Homosexuality, including lesbianism, is included in that mix. Chapter two is devoted to demonstrating that religion alone won’t cut it either. And chapter three goes so far as to say none of us can escape sin and judgment. It’s a classic “not so fast” series of verses. We can think we’re better off because of the law, or because of religion, but we aren’t. Everyone’s in the same boat without Jesus.

You stated that “the biblical rejection to homosexual practice is not about the fact that it is unloving or about domination,” but I sincerely find it difficult to support that assumption given what we know of the practice in the ancient world. I also do not think the Bible is silent on the same mandates for heterosexual unions – the whole idea of vile lusts, or feeding the “sarx” / flesh / appetite crosses all boundaries, including monogamy. Monogamous marriage can be a stop-gap measure to keep us from burning up with lust, even Paul admits such; but it is far from a cure of all that ails us from within. Christ is that cure, not marriage.

All of the above said, you might be surprised to know that I still don’t believe a homosexual union constitutes as marriage from a Christian perspective for some of the reasons you’ve described, but mostly because of the picture provided to us at Creation. The ideal was always one man and one woman for life. That ideal was broken time and time again in the scriptures by people that God used over and over again for His good work – always because there was a higher work to be done than the letter of the law, which is but dung compared to Christ.

In Him, Acts 17:28

Thanks for the lengthy response and the continued interaction, David.

This response will have to be fairly brief as I have a busy evening. I may not be able to follow up further for the next few days, as I will be out of town.

Scripture doesn’t celebrate sex in the abstract. Sex is celebrated in the context of the marriage bed. Can a marriage be the context for deep sexual abuse and sin? Most definitely. However, it is the context within which the biblical end is to be realized. God’s ideal is realized as we see many ends harmonized within the context of marriage.

If we want to know about the Spirit of the Law, rather than merely the letter, it is to the study of the ends of sex that we must attend. And, in Scripture, these ends are to be realized within the context of marriage. This form is oriented towards the blessing and vocation of procreation, it celebrates the natural order of sexual dimorphism, expresses our being created male and female as the image of God, and the interdependence of the sexes, it binds parents to their offspring, and it is also a context for deep personal union and joy.

Homosexual practice, in terms of these greater ends, is a jarring note. While the form of marriage integrates these ends together, even in cases of infertility, homosexual practice detaches and dis-integrates these ends, abstracting certain ends from the form in which they are to be harmonized. This might put it in the position of a marginal exception, or benign departure from the celebrated norm to be tolerated. However, in Scripture, as a form of fornication, it is condemned with all forms of sexual relations outside of or contrary to the form of the marriage bond. Vague appeals to the ‘Spirit of the Law’, which don’t actually focus upon the ends that the Law itself highlights, are rather problematic.

The fact that polygamy and such customs as Levirate marriage were tolerated and even divinely ordained (in the case of Levirate marriage) underlines the connection between marriage and procreation. They clearly are not presented as an ideal. However, in their time they served a purpose. Where the entire society essentially operated in terms of family structures and male mortality was very high (on account of the dangers of work and warfare), polygamy and Levirate marriage were ways to deal with the tragic reality of the situation. They were very far from the ideal, but nor were they necessarily sinful in and of themselves. As our society is less threatened by death on these fronts, we no longer require these practices and can adopt a more ideal form.

However, it is important to notice that polygamy still operates with the basic grain of the institution of marriage, as a relationship between one man and one woman (although allowing a man to form more than one such relationship), ordered towards procreation, and the formation of the natural family. It is not an ideal form, but it remains clearly ordered towards the primary ends of the institution of marriage. It is an attempt to secure these ends in a situation where death is a far more real threat. The contrast with same-sex marriage is striking, as same-sex marriage is ordered in a manner contrary to the ends that marriage serves in OT and NT and contrary to the natural realities that marriage upholds, encourages, and protects. Same-sex marriage isn’t an attempt to secure the ends of marriage in a situation of threat, but a departure and orientation away from those ends.

I still maintain that the claim that the holiness code was primarily about health is unsustainable. I wonder how closely you have tried to account for the laws in terms of such a thesis. I also think that, when we are talking about the laws, we need to be very attentive to detail. There is no punishment stipulated for mixing wool and linen, so I wonder where you get the idea of the death penalty. Actually, if you look more closely at that law, it should become clear that the mixtures were forbidden because they were holy (read the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 22:9). Mules were royal mounts. The creatures that bear God’s throne chariot are hybrids. The priests wore mixed garments. The tabernacle was made of mixed fabrics. The Garden of Eden was sown with different seeds. Trees in the new heaven and new earth produce different types of fruit.

The health explanation just doesn’t fit the facts. In fact, even in the case of ‘leprosy’ (not the same as what we think of as leprosy) – the one example where health would seem to be the most immediate explanation – the health explanation is insufficient, as the person who is completely covered with it is allowed into the camp (Leviticus 13:12-13). The real logic is symbolic in character.

Paul would also have been well aware of stories of homosexual love. They were present in the major literature of his day. Do you really believe that all homosexual relations were abusive in form in the ancient world? And, as I pointed out, the same asymmetries of age and power that you suggest would underlie the condemnation of homosexual practice do not lead to the same condemnations in the case of male-female marriage.

Homosexual and lesbian practice is not just something less than the ideal in Paul’s teaching, as polygamy functions in Scripture. Rather it is a paradigmatic distortion of the image of God in mankind. None of what follows changes this fact.

Once again, I ask: do you really believe that all homosexual relations in the ancient world were abusive and about domination? Also, my point remains, why are such unions singled out for condemnation, when similar things occurred in many heterosexual relations? Further, why does Paul frame his point by saying ‘leaving the natural use of the woman…’? This clearly suggests that homosexual practice is being singled out, not merely because it happened to take an abusive form in that culture, but because it is a departure from the male-female form of sexual relations. On top of this, the description in Romans 1:27, far from suggesting a situation of domination, seems to presume completely consensual sexual relations. I suggest that, as in the case of the mixed garments, you are not actually reading the text very carefully here.

Once again, I am not arguing that marriage is a panacea. There is a lot of brokenness in every marriage (is there a family that isn’t seriously dysfunctional within the Bible?). However, sexual fidelity within marriage and celibacy outside of marriage are the vocations that are given to us.

While I appreciate the fact that you deny that a homosexual union can constitute a marriage, I believe that it is incredibly important that we pay very close attention to the biblical teaching on such matters as homosexual practice, that we make close and careful distinctions, and that we don’t drift into the sort of lazy and inattentive reading that has so often been presented in challenge to the Church’s historic stance on these issues.

Thanks once again for taking the time to discuss this. As I probably won’t be able to respond for a while, I will leave you to have the final word.

I don’t know much about a last word because the Scripture is far too alive to me to think in such a way, but I appreciate the sentiment. At issue for me I suppose is a pretty clear differentiation of the Law’s purpose. I take a much more anthropological approach to it than it seems that you do. I habitually read blogs like this in order to better understand how the other side of the aisle thinks and would say it’s rare to find one that thinks as clearly as you do.

I’d be the first to confess that I’ve no more than two semesters of Hebrew under my belt and six of Greek – all of which came 20+ years ago. My M.Div. was concentrated in pastoral care and counseling. But I was raised by farmers in a farming culture and I do read the scripture like a farmer which is why things like Deuteronomy 22:9 only make sense to me from the perspective of one who keeps a garden. The idea that the God of the Universe somehow needed particular strains of genetic purity in his grain offerings doesn’t carry nearly as much weight to me as does the idea that mixing seed strains could ruin a harvest and lead the people closer to starvation. Not only do different types of seed require different soils, but they spread and leaf in different weeks – meaning the early and healthiest grown plants will easily choke out the rest. An early sprout with a wide leaf throws too much shade or consumes too much water to keep the weaker agricultural brother nourished.

Why wouldn’t the priests use the people’s spirituality as a tool to help them toward a better harvest? It certainly would be in God’s favor to teach them sound agricultural practice, and history across cultures demonstrates that both hunting and farming techniques were taught to the people via the priest / shaman class.

The idea that mixing fabric is related to mixing seed is the kind of stretch one is forced to make in order to promote an unchanging view of God and scripture over time. The very fact that the things you mention are evidences of changing views – even rapidly changing views based on the needs of a changing culture as it moved from being a nomadic people to a settlement culture, then from settlements to city-states. The laws themselves change over time, until by the time of the prophets (and later Jesus) they have been whittled down mostly to the intangibles of the Divine Nature.

Leprosy too, in the verses you mention, are really very logical when we stop and think about them. In the mind of the ancients an oozing wound was considered quite dangerous. A leprosy which had covered over in white was considered different than one that was ulcerous. It’s easy to see why decisions were made as they were – the health of the group and the dignity of the person were both being taken into account. I see nothing symbolic at all between distinguishing an ulcerous leper from one who had so scabbed over as to form the white nodules. But perhaps you are aware of a detail that escapes the surface.

You worry about the Bible being taken too lightly and I respect that. I worry about it being taken too seriously and thereby giving rise to grandiose explanations of literality which exceed its original intent.

But that’s probably a discussion held for another day.

As it stands, you’ve asked a very fair question as to whether or not Paul had examples of mutuality, love, and acceptance among the homosexual population of his day. It deserves a straight answer, so I won’t throw out an escape hatch by saying that we don’t know for sure, even though that is probably the most accurate answer. Let’s assume he did and like you or me, found it to be less than the standard God put in place for humankind. We’d still be making a stretch to say that the consensual, monogamous homosexual relationship was what raised his ire. Give the state of homosexual brutality and pedophilia in the Roman Empire, what Christian wouldn’t rail against it? And yet, even amidst such misgivings, we still don’t see Paul pushing a social agenda against either form in a secular setting. He was out to protect the church. Paul realized that Christianity was the new kid on the religious block. I can only imagine how many pagan followers of Dionysius or Aphrodite came to check out the sexual stamina of the new religion in town. He needed to make absolutely clear that the Christian life was nothing like the Roman culture. Desire, passion, and Eros could only be understood in relationship to the cross of Christ. I don’t see any other way for him to have presented the Christian faith. Those brackets and boundaries were drawn down by the era in which he lived; just like having a crushed testicle was a bracket and boundary for the era that the Levite priest lived in.

It was natural for Paul to single out the worst of the sexual abuses in his era, but I believe he walked a tight rope with regards to heterosexuality. His admonitions to husbands and wives is probably the most ultra-progressive pronouncements of liberty in the ancient world, stemming I am certain, from the freedom he found in Christ. That previous life of straining gnats and drowning in the minutia of the Jewish religion was gone. If anyone had the right to boast of knowledge about the Law, it was Paul. He admitted to trying to enforce the minutia to his own shame. He pushed what boundaries he could and did so, I think, quite effectively, but it always boiled down to Christ for him.

And I guess that’s where I ultimately land… in a Christ alone mindset. Whereas I completely understand the dangers of taking the scriptures too lightly, I think that dangers of taking them too seriously are the heavier millstone because they carry a Jesus+ potential… and I’m not a Jesus+ believer, just a Jesus one and try to shy away from anything that steers me away from that.

Not at all saying that’s you or this blog, so please don’t hear me saying that. I enjoy this blog way too much and never want to come across negative. I visit here regularly, fully believing that I might be wrong about a great many things and enjoy the way it stretches me. Also, I’m deeply appreciative of the time you’ve taken here.

There are no final words with a living Word… or at least none we can speak. 🙂

Be well. Acts 17:28

Hi Alastair , you have done a good job answering a number of questions. I have a question , and some issues I would like to here your thoughts on. Here is the question:

How should the church deal with homosexuals outside of marriage? These are homosexuals who affirm the traditional views of marriage , recognize the authority of scripture , and seek to live accordingly. How are they to relate to other homosexuals within the church , and form relationships with one another? You talk about the affirmation of same-sex love as a separate issue , and I am wondering if you are willing to elaborate on that.

The second issue , is more practical and in fact relates to an issue going in my own community , and within my very school. Here are the news stories:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/gay-teen-holds-the-line-for-manitoba-bullying-bill/article9863497/

And the Pastors words here ( I should add , that this isn’t the church I attend):

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/multimedia/video/local/southland-church-sermon-targets-bill-18-195799631.html?story=Southland%20church%20sermon%20targets%20Bill%2018

So an issue involving the largest church in the community , and I guy i run into in the halls. I have a lot of thinking to do , as well as a lot of dialogue and discussion with people.

T.J., In response to your questions.

First, we should begin by breaking down the ‘us and them’ framing of the situation. Those with same-sex attraction are a problem to be ‘dealt with’ (to make clear, I am not suggesting that this was your meaning). Rather, it is an opportunity for the Church to find out something about itself. The question that needs to be addressed is what the Church can learn about herself in these members, and how these members can bear the meaning of the kingdom of God in their very particular circumstances. The Church should see this as an opportunity to be welcomed – the opportunity to discover what shape discipleship and the meaning of Christ can take in this situation and what lessons such Christians hold for all of us – not just as a moral question to receive a ‘NO!’.

As the Church learns to answer the question of how the gospel is good news to the Christian with homoerotic desires and how that Christian is a gift to the Church, not merely someone to be ‘dealt with’, I believe that all of us will be enriched.

Same-sex relationships are a distinct (but related) question from same-sex marriage. I believe that the Scriptures give us a clear line here and oppose homosexual practice.

I think that such members of the body of Christ should challenge us all to make the sacrifices of sexual faithfulness, the sacrifices that undergird the practice of marriage. Too often homosexuals are expected to make costly sacrifices that no others are expected to make. Marriage requires sacrifices of all of us.

Second, I think that we need to take an extremely strong line on homophobic bullying. There really is a lot of it, and in Christian circles too. The hyperbolic reactions don’t help either. Religious freedom is being lost in large part because many religious people have proved themselves incapable of opposing homosexual practice but still treating gay persons with basic dignity.

A little awareness of what it might feel like to be a gay teen would go a long way. The gay teen needs more protection than the religious kid in most situations, as he is considerable more vulnerable and less supported in most cases (I say this as someone who was bullied for my faith a lot as a kid). While I definitely think that biblical teaching on the subject should be given, we seriously need to work out how to avoid making gay persons the lightning rods for our frustration, anger, and fear.

“The Church should see this as an opportunity to be welcomed – the opportunity to discover what shape discipleship and the meaning of Christ can take in this situation and what lessons such Christians hold for all of us – not just as a moral question to receive a ‘NO!’.”

I’m 100% with you on this. A lot of Christians go straight into battle mode , whenever homosexuality is mentioned , regardless of what is actually said about it. I think it would be a good idea for the Church to listen first.

“Religious freedom is being lost in large part because many religious people have proved themselves incapable of opposing homosexual practice but still treating gay persons with basic dignity.”

I have found this to be the case a number of times. A lot of religious people , don’t have any good reasons for opposing homosexuality. I think it may have something to do with a generally poor understanding of sexuality and marriage today. Teleology is absent is most discussions about marriage , and apart from opposition to homosexuality , I can’t detect anything in some peoples understanding of marriage that relates to scripture or the tradition of Christian thought. Although I think the Catholic Church has a pretty consistent body of work , that is both theologically robust and oriented towards the common good.

Are you familiar with the relatively extensive writing of celibate gay Catholics like Joshua Gonnerman, or Eve Tushnet? I’m not sure they’re getting all the right answers, but their writings may be a place to start looking for reflections on “How the gospel is good news to the Christian with homoerotic desires and how that Christian is a gift to the Church, not merely someone to be ‘dealt with’” (as Alastair put it).

Yes I am familiar with the writings of Eve Tushnet , and I think she has a good understanding of vocation.

Pingback: Letters To My Kids- Same Sex Marriage I: The Discussion | Dappled Thoughts

Pingback: SAET » Resources on same-sex sexuality and gay marriage » The Society for the Advancement of Ecclesial Theology

Pingback: Two Reformedish Writers to Keep An Eye On | Reformedish

Pingback: Ten Years of Blogging: 2012-2013 | Alastair's Adversaria

Well said, Alistair. Would that the majority of the people of the world could see these things through the lens of reason. Here’s a shorter article on the subject for any who are interested: http://lcosanswers.com/IDCrisis.php

Sean Capparuccia, NC,USA

Pingback: Retrospective on 2013 | Alastair's Adversaria

Pingback: Thoughts on the World Vision Debate | Alastair's Adversaria

Pingback: On the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage in England and Wales | Alastair's Adversaria

we need help on our school project we are debating about this and need some facts

Pingback: 2014 Retrospective | Alastair's Adversaria

Pingback: R-E-S-P-E-C-T | More Enigma Than Dogma

Pingback: Too Long; Didn’t Read | Alastair's Adversaria

What is the porpuse of same sex merriage,it is need to be legalized?

The majority of LGBTIAQ people believe same-sex marriage will change marriage for every man and woman including those whom identify as Gay or Lesbian. Countries which have changed legal marriage into a union between any two people haven’t expanded marriage to include same-sex couples. They have completely changed the meaning of marriage as it’s no longer a sexual union between a man and woman which can reproduce biological children because same-sex couples can’t practice this sexual behaviour. Religious people may want only to identify their marriage with sexual intercourse between a man and woman which can reproduce biological children, but the law refuses them this religious belief and freedom of speech. The new “marriage for benefits” club has made sexual intercourse and biological children irrelevant or optional. A equivalent change to a meaning of a practice is Nursing which use to include midwifery. This means a nurse is no longer identified as a midwife. Some midwifes have a nursing qualification but this doesn’t allow them to identify as a nurse. Therefore, the traditional belief in marriage for centuries of a sexual union between man and woman which can reproduce biological children is no longer identified as legal marriage.

The anti-discrimination court no longer allows religious people to believe in the Biblical practice of marriage between a man and woman because this offends homosexuality. This explains the reason legal marriage was changed rather than expanded. However, Homosexual behaviours (anal and oral sex) can be practiced by both same-sex and heterosexual couples. Marriage is a sexual union otherwise we would call it a friendship or business partnership. People may reject marriage including sodomy (anal and oral sexual behaviours) for religious reasons. Likewise, nurses whom have religious faith may reject abortion, but the practice of nursing includes abortion. However, these nurses don’t identify with the practice of abortion, and will try to remove themselves from this practice of nursing. History is repeating itself as my German forefathers didn’t have legal marriages, but only home church weddings. The King tried to control their minds, and persuade them to get married in his state church, but they refused. The history of marriages in NSW (Australia) were only registered in the Church of England and other denominations from 1788-1856. The Birth, Death & Marriage registry was introduced in 1857 which recognised the religious practice of marriage, and to maintain an accurate record for the illegitimacy of children and inheritance. Therefore, couples got married because of their religious beliefs not because there was a Federal law to get married. I only have a marriage certificate issued by the church, and I have been able to change my name. I don’t ever plan to get my marriage certificate from the NSW registry because my religion, culture and family history doesn’t require me to have a legal marriage.

The reason legal marriage was changed into sodomy (anal and oral sexual behaviours) were because both same-sex couples and heterosexual couples can practice these sexual behaviours. However, these western countries didn’t argue that sodomy (anal and oral sexual behaviours) and sexual intercourse between a man and woman aren’t the same sexual behaviours and have different outcomes. Teachers, doctors, nurses and parents have never encouraged and promoted children and teenagers to practice sodomy (anal and oral sexual behaviours). There is no medical or nursing textbook available which advocates the practice of sodomy. If all boys/men and girls/women were taught to practice sodomy then there would be no need for contraception because it is impossible to get pregnant. However, there are significant harmful health and relationship problems from practicing sodomy. These include: higher risks of illnesses – faecal incontinence, anal pain, vaginal pain, throat pain, lip pain; self-harm/suicide; higher risk of diseases- hepatitis B, STDs/HPV, HIV/AIDS; pelvic inflammatory disease which leads to infertility and death if left untreated; anal, cervical, throat, tongue and lip cancer; anal fistulas; parasitic diseases “gay bowel syndrome.”

There are now cases of girls (13yr old) presenting to health clinics with faecal incontinence after practicing anal sex. This has a significant negative mental health problems because the faecal odour isolates them from family, friends, school, and sporting functions. This can lead to self-harm and suicide. The physical health problems include: vaginal thrush; risk of pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility; anal and vaginal pain; risk of anal cancer, anal fistulas, STDs/HIV/AIDS. A 12 yr girl was self-harming because she refused to give a guy a “blow-job” (oral sex). All her friends had isolated her because they believed this was normal sexual behaviour. Is it only religious people that will defend this girl for not performing this sexual behaviour?

Every man and woman including gays and lesbians had marriage equality to marry a consenting person of the opposite sex. However, the change to legal marriage now means every man and woman including gays and lesbians have the right to marry a consenting person of the same-sex. This means sodomy (anal and oral sex) is the new sexual behaviours for both same-sex and heterosexual couples in legal marriage. Religious people may be against the practice of sodomy like abortion, illegal drugs, active euthanasia, but the law can re-enforce these practices as normal. Unfortunately, morality is going to decline which will lead to government becoming more involved in people’s lives. The government will need to provide more assistance for single parents and families operating two households. Religious freedom and freedom of speech are now becoming more restricted because of new laws which are against the practice of Christianity.

What a bunch of crap. Same-sex marriage is about equality. Do unto others… Love thy neighbor.

why argue just let it happen there is no notable reason to stop same sex marriage.

I am a lesbian. My girlfriend and I are trying to have a baby. But she is married to another woman. They are not legally separated yet. I’m not sure the proper steps to take to avoid any legal problems being as though they are married.

Undeniably the above was a well-informed, meaningful and thought-provoking, article. However, it overlooked to mentioned that whereas the word “marry” is a religious term it should be treated reverently as such. See e.g., Institute of Marriage Research & Studies (www.IOMRAS.info), their Etymology page. Thank you.

as a happily married man I can see no real reason to deny the opportunity for couples to join together in marriage. Marriage is Not a religious term, it simply means to join together, for instance in the navy the term is used to join two ropes to be then used as one. The change to the act only came about in 2004 when John Howard altered the legislation [without going to the people as Abbott has argued]. Many other countries have allowed same sex marriage and the world didn’t come to a crashing holt, and if the Irish can do it surely we can, or has the Catholic church got the parliamentarians in Canberra by the balls? Spending 180 million as Abbott and Turnbull have promoted is the most stupid thing I have ever heard.

You’ve conflated two things the use of the term marriage in a different context, to the origin and function of marriage which is from religion. As for not allowing it clearly they shouldn’t be allowed.

Pingback: Where to Find My Stuff | Alastair's Adversaria

I would like to leave an observation for you and ask a question. First, my sister in-law adopted 2 boys with her same sex partner. The boys are now teenagers and are reaping the biblical fruit of growing up fatherless and bringing shame to their mother ( mothers? ). Having two parents doesn’t matter if it is outside of God’s design. I would like to know from you what biblical reason you have for divorce as you stated there are reasons for it?

We broke up and went our separate ways. Neither of us fought for our relationship. I was angry and decided not to be upset about it and just keep it moving. Then after about few months of no contact with her I became sad. I wanted her to tell me she wanted to be with me and not her old friend. I visited __________________( Dr.ma c ‘ ‘ y a ho O… co m )… for a love spell and he truly helped me! he was able to get her to miss me she wanted us to get back together again. She had lot of regrets and felt bad for not fighting to keep me and for cheating in generally. she cherish our relationship so much more now and we are together now! Thanks 🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂

Pingback: Celebrate Love Your Way at Your Same-Sex Wedding - Gear Fixup

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

My Podcasts and Videos: Adversaria Videos and Podcasts

• ‘A Christian Account of the Sexes in Conversation’ Course

The Tithe and Praise of Yahweh: Deuteronomy 26 (The Book of Deuteronomy)

Zechariah 2 [god’s story podcast], how should we then die (with dr ewan goligher), zechariah 1: revelation—the prequel [god’s story podcast].

• Search for:

Recent Posts

• The Bible and Politics Course
• An Introduction to Biblical Wisdom Course
• The Sabbath as a Key to Biblical Law
• You Shall Call His Name Joshua

Recent Comments

• A Living Text
• A Thinking Reed
• Bully's Blog
• Caroline Farrow
• Carpe Cakem!
• Cogito, Credo, Petam
• Curlew River
• Daniel Silliman
• Dappled Thoughts
• Deo Favente
• Experimental Theology
• Faith and Theology
• Fors Clavigera
• Here's A Thought
• Hierodulia's Blog
• ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ
• Jake Belder
• Mere Orthodoxy
• Nothing New Under the Sun
• Passing the Salt Shaker
• Per Crucem ad Lucem
• Reformedish
• Relocating to Elfland
• Scott Schulz
• Shored Fragments
• SimonPotamos
• The Boar's Head Tavern
• The Calvinist International
• The Sword and the Ploughshare
• The Thirsty Gargoyle (Tumblr)
• Theopolis Institute
• Think Theology
• RSS - Posts
• RSS - Comments

Follow me on Twitter

• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.com

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Same-sex marriage: What you need to know

• Marriage and Relationships

Are same-sex marriages different from heterosexual marriages?

Like heterosexuals, many lesbian, gay, and bisexual people want to form stable, long-lasting relationships and many of them do. In fact, researchers have found that the majority of lesbian, and gay, adults are in committed relationships and many couples have been together 10 or more years.

Scientists have found that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners largely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships . Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Same-sex and heterosexual couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Empirical research also shows that lesbian and gay couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.

How do laws that limit marriage to heterosexuals affect gay and lesbian people?

Being denied the right to marry reinforces the stigma associated with a minority sexual identity. Researchers have found that living in a state where same-sex marriage is outlawed can lead to chronic social stress and mental health problems . Psychologists are particularly concerned that such stigma may undermine the healthy development of adolescents and young adults.

The families and friends of lesbian and gay couples who are denied marriage rights may also experience negative physical and mental health consequences similar to those experienced by their loved ones.

Do same-sex couples make fit parents?

The vast majority of scientific studies that have directly compared lesbian and gay parents with heterosexual parents have consistently shown that the same-sex couples are as fit and capable parents as heterosexual couples , and that their children are just as psychologically healthy and well adjusted. For instance, one recent study found that children of same-sex couples do just as well in school as children of heterosexual couples, and these children are equally popular among their peers.

Why is marriage so important?

Marriage bestows economic and social support to couples in committed relationships, which can result in substantial health benefits . Researchers have found that married men and women generally experience better physical and mental health than comparable cohabiting couples. Additionally, same-sex couples in legal unions are more likely to remain in a committed relationship than those denied marriage rights.

Taken together, the research shows that there’s no scientific basis for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, and doing so can adversely affect them as well as their family and friends.

For more information, visit APA’s marriage and family issues for LGBT people page.

This fact sheet is based on APA’s amicus brief in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry and APA’s Public Interest Government Relations Office fact sheet on Marriage Equality and LGBT Health.

Related reading

• Marriage and Family Issues for LGBT People
• Understanding transgender people, gender identity and gender expression
• Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel
• Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says APA
• Sexual orientation and gender diversity

You may also like

MyInfoBasket.com

Free Quality Online Learning Materials

• Pagkilala sa Pambihirang Pagkakakilanlan ng Lahing Pilipino
• Alab ng Kultura: Mga Musika at Sayaw ng Lahi na Pambihirang Ipinagmamalaki ng mga Pilipino
• Tunay na mga Biyaya: Mga Kawanggawa sa Pamayanan na Bunga ng Pananampalataya
• The Last Words of Jose Rizal: An Insight into the Final Moments of the National Hero
• Who was Jose Rizal? Discover the Life and Legacy of Jose Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda

Same Sex Marriage Debate: Reasons For and Against

Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance in other countries, but are still banned in the Philippines. Some explain that the traditional marital set-up defines the fundamental, cross-cultural institution that healthily provides ‘normal parents’ to children.

Same-sex marriage advocates however argue that legalizing same-sex unions would be good not only for gay people, but also for society as a whole, since society fundamentally supports loving relationships regardless of the people’s gender orientations and preferences.

So generally speaking, should same-sex marriage be legalized?

These are some of the reasons used by those who propose the legalization of same sex marriage:

1. Same-sex marriage does not hurt the society or anyone in particular. Denying this form of marriage is a case of minority discrimination.

2. A legalized same sex marriage can be a big help to orphanages. Same sex partners’ inability to procreate would probably bring them to adopting orphans.

3. Today, homosexuality is already an accepted lifestyle. Many productive and highly-respected people in the society (such as leaders, filmmakers, and other artists) belong to the gay community. It’s about time to positively sanction their relationships.

4. Is not love the most important thing that should matter in marriage? Once same-sex marriage is legalized, the political and financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages will also be enjoyed by genuinely loving gay couples.

Oppositely, those who take the traditional stance offer these reasons against same-sex marriage:

1. Same-sex union may traumatically confuse children especially about gender roles, procreation, and societal expectations. For children’s sake, same-sex marriage must be banned.

2. Though becoming rampant, gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged as studies show that it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other personal and societal problems.

3. Same-sex union and building a family out of it are not biologically natural. Same-sex couples cannot naturally produce children through their union.

4. The proposal will weaken the sanctity, honor, and prestige of marriage as a fundamental institution. Same-sex marriage will destructively weaken many traditional family values that serve as fabrics of a stable society … continue reading

©  Jensen DG. Mañebog /MyInfoBasket.com

SA MGA MAG-AARAL : Maaaring ilagay ang inyong assignment/comment dito sa comment section ng Moral Standards and Non-Moral Standards (Difference and Characteristics)

ALSO CHECK OUT: Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook  by  Jensen DG. Mañebog

IMPORTANT: TO STUDENTS (and their friends/relatives): For your comments NOT to be DELETED by the system , pls SUBSCRIBE first (if you have not subscribed yet). Thanks.

===== To post comment, briefly watch this related short video:

==== For your COMMENT, use the comment section here: Comments of RATIONAL STUDENTS

Share this:

• ← Mandatory Drug Test for Students Debate: Reasons For and Against
• Curfew Debate: Reasons For and Against →

Privacy Policy

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Russell A. Berman
• Robert Service
• Arun Majumdar
• H.R. McMaster
• Justin Grimmer
• China's Global Sharp Power Project
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

Hard Questions On Same-Sex Marriage

Opposition to gay unions has been swept away. Will religious rights go next?

It doesn’t take a weatherman to tell which way public opinion blows. The huge uptick of support for same-sex marriage has been described as swift and broad, to which we can add, in all likelihood, lasting.

In my view, every time the defenders of the traditional view of marriage speak in public on behalf of a ban, they lose the support of neutral third parties. The problem is that they are trying to tell other people how they should lead their own lives, and are using the power of the state to do it. Their justifications are far from compelling. They talk about the need for procreation in marriage, though many straight married couples use contraceptives. They talk about the risks to parenting, when there is no evidence that suggests that gay and lesbian couples are worse parents, especially when compared to dysfunctional couples in traditional marriages or single parents of limited financial means. Their arguments against same-sex marriage thus fall flat to modern ears, so that the basic support for same-sex marriage only grows.

The transformation of public opinion dovetails nicely with the recent Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges , in which Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Olympian opinion echoed the social tidal wave in favor of same-sex marriage. Kennedy did not bother to articulate what standard of scrutiny, high or low, controls the case. In his mind, the case for an inclusive definition of marriage is so strong that the ban on same-sex marriage cannot survive under any standard of review. Analytically, however, he provided only weak answers to an even more fundamental question: What judgments should be left to democratic processes and what judgments should be insulated against majoritarian politics?

This problem has special urgency here because of the unbroken historical record that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Justinian’s Institutes of the sixth century AD, for example, apply the rules of marriage only to human beings, but treat them as part of “that law which nature teaches to all animals.” That code of law states: “Marriage, or matrimony, is a binding together of a man and woman to live in an indivisible union.”

The defense of the traditional understanding of marriage that was raised forcefully by Judge Jeffrey Sutton in the Sixth Circuit (and picked up by Chief Justice John Roberts in his pointed dissent in Obergefell ) raises the question of how can the Court read the Constitution to invalidate the universal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? Tradition is a legitimate ground on which to defend social legislation elsewhere, so why not here?

The best way to go is to try to understand why the traditional definition of marriage was universal. The defenders of traditional marriage claim that the purpose of marriage is procreation, which is impossible with same-sex couples. Kennedy denies that there is any good fit between marriage and procreation: After all, many men and women wish to marry when they do not or cannot have children, so the state could never condition a marriage license on couple’s commitment to have children.

Nonetheless, this response underestimates the role of procreation in defining marriage. Historically, procreation was widely regarded as the essential purpose of marriage. Indeed, the words in Genesis 1:28, “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it,” read as much like a command as a blessing. Within this framework, same-sex relationships are different: They can never add offspring to society, but they can reduce them by taking both men and women out of the reproductive market, and thus undercut that social imperative. The preservation of society through reproduction is strongly tied to traditional marriage, but not to same-sex marriage. So why condemn the traditional view as arbitrary when it tends to advance a desirable societal end?

Historically, this point found a constitutional home. Even though the traditional “morals” head of the police power is nowhere mentioned, it had long been used to give the state extraordinary leeway in regulating all sorts of sexual relations, as was detailed in Justice Byron White’s now-widely-reviled 1986 opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick , whose historical accuracy remains unquestioned. As late as 1961, all 50 states outlawed all forms of sodomy, even though many bans fell into desuetude. But throughout it all, no one, anywhere, has suggested that it would fall in the power of the state to abolish the traditional institution of marriage altogether. The overall consequences for child rearing would be disastrous.

It is fair to respond, as Kennedy does, that the advocates of same-sex marriage do not wish to ban marriage but to partake in it, so that there is nothing to fear from the decision except the fuzzy sentiments of individuals opposed to the practice. That is a good reason to ask the legislature to change the definition. But it is less clear that it is a good reason to allow courts to preempt the democratic process. On this point, the Kennedy response is to say that there has already been “far more deliberation” than the Sutton opinion acknowledges in every conceivable forum. In Kennedy’s view, the endless discussion has led to an “enhanced understanding” of the issue—namely his—which displaces the vote as a way to resolve the debate. The dignitary interests of these couples is so strong that it is “demeaning to lock same-sex couples” out of marriage.

Yet at no point does he ask whether the criminalization of polygamous marriages under the Supreme Court’s 1878 decision in Reynolds v. United States— an uncommonly ugly invocation of the morals head of the police power—should be overturned given how it demeans and punishes polygamous families. His blinkered view of autonomy lets him attack the restriction of marriage to persons of opposite sexes, but not its limitation to two people.

The Scalia dissent scores big points in attacking Kennedy for judicial hubris, by insisting that the whole point of democracy is not just to inform the justices but to let the people decide on the issue. So Kennedy, like everyone else, must explain why a nationally consequential decision on same-sex marriage should be taken out of the democratic process. His answer is that it involves the assertion of a “fundamental right,” a term that he nowhere defines. Thus, when the fundamental rights of persons are violated, “the Constitution,” he writes, “requires redress by the courts, notwithstanding the more general value of democratic decisionmaking.”

At this point, his analysis turns wobbly. Kennedy eagerly talks about the “dignity” of the individual in two-person marriages. And he lauds the Court’s 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia for striking down the ban of interracial marriage between a man and a woman, on the combined strength of the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The libertarian foundations of Loving are also evident.

But why stop there when the concept of liberty goes a lot further? In particular, Kennedy never explains why his notions of dignity and autonomy do not require the Supreme Court to revisit its 1878 decision in Reynolds upholding criminal punishment for polygamy, which is still on the books. Nor does he ask whether the dignity of workers could, and should, be used as a reason to strike down the full range of labor regulations on both wages and hours that make it flatly illegal for two individuals to enter into a simple employment contract on mutually agreeable terms.

To his credit, Chief Justice Roberts—no libertarian—sees the connection, and thus uses his condemnation of the 1905 Supreme Court decision, Lochner v. New York , for striking down a maximum hours law, as a cudgel to explain why the Constitution has nothing to say about same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, Roberts lurches too far in the opposite direction. Historically, the case for economic liberties is far stronger than that for same-sex marriage because labor never got entangled with the morals head of the police power. Indeed, much recent scholarship, especially by David Bernstein , shows the dubious special interest, anticompetitive politics that Lochner helped thwart. It would be a lot easier to accept the Kennedy position if he were prepared to embrace a concept of liberty for all by overturning Reynolds and restoring Lochner . But on those areas, inexplicably he flips back to the democratic side, without ever defining the state interest in squashing the operation of competitive labor markets.

It gets worse because in the wake of Obergefell , we have to ask what the next step in the struggle over same-sex marriage will be. By insisting that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right, Kennedy has consciously introduced an equivalence between race and sexual orientation. How far is he prepared to go? In the 1983 case of Bob Jones University v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld an IRS decision to deny tax-exempt status to schools engaging in racial discrimination. The Court acknowledged that it could not outlaw the Church’s practices, which were protected as a free exercise of religion. But the differential tax treatment was fine because “the Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education.”

Can the IRS now deny tax exemption to the Roman Catholic Church on the ground that it rejects, on religious grounds, same-sex marriage? If so, that judicial notion of “fundamental interests” works effortlessly both to expand and contract state power. It can insulate the exercise of some liberties from state control, but allow other liberties to be burdened by differential treatment of other liberties, including those expressly embedded in the Constitution.

The point here is not idle speculation. Here are three data points. In Martinez v. Christian Legal Foundation (2010), a five-to-four majority with Justice Kennedy concurring, held that it was perfectly proper for Hastings Law School, a public institution, to deny the tiny Christian Legal Foundation the full benefit of school facilities largely because of its opposition to same-sex marriage. The government can offer its subsidies to some groups but not to others, and in so doing, force small isolated groups to subsidize powerful gay rights organizations. Religious intolerance best describes that outcome.

Since then, the situation has only gotten worse. Last year there was public outrage at the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby , which upheld claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that a closely held company did not have to supply contraceptives to its female employees in a fashion inconsistent with its owners’ religious beliefs. And more recently, claims for religious autonomy have been crushed in state court decisions that have fined individuals who have refused on religious grounds to make wedding cakes for same sex couples. No one seems to be concerned with the autonomy and dignity of those under the state’s thumb. They will have to abandon their chosen profession to honor their religious beliefs. I see no evidence that gay and lesbian rights advocates are prepared to back off of these statist claims.

The hard question is how Justice Kennedy—now the swing vote on all matters “fundamental”—thinks about this issue. Here the evidence is decidedly mixed. To be sure, his opinion in Obergefell talks about the importance of letting religions “teach” the central principles of their faith. But as Justice Thomas’s dissent points out, a religion that is allowed to teach its beliefs may be forced to give up its tax-exempt status if it puts those beliefs into practice, and its adherents can be hounded by the state if they decide to run their personal lives in accordance with their religion. We thus face a serious risk in the aftermath of Obergefell : liberty in gay rights will turn out to be a one-way street. Some liberties will be guaranteed for some people while other liberties will be squashed for others. As I write, the gay rights movement is gearing up to expand the scope of the antidiscrimination laws in housing and labor markets.

No one says that democratic theory is easy to understand. But there is nothing in the Kennedy opinion that offers any assurance that the religious beliefs and practices of the shrinking religious minority who are opposed to same-sex marriage will be respected by the Supreme Court. As a libertarian, I support same-sex marriage. As a libertarian, I fear the totalitarian overtones sounding from the next round of gay rights initiatives.

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Same Sex Marriage Essay for Students

Introduction

The same-sex marriage has sparked both emotional and political clashes between supporters and opponents for years. Although it has been regulated through law and religion in many countries around the world, legal and social responses often range from celebration to criminalisation of the pair.

Essay No - 1

Marriage equality – importance of same sex union.

Back in 2018, the Supreme Court of India passed a watershed judgement that was ordained to go down the archives of the country’s history. In spite of the majoritarian prejudices prevalent in India directed towards the LGBT community, the apex court revoked the draconian and out-dated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. 

This Section, in typically vague and diplomatic terms, belittled homosexuality and criminalised intercourse that goes against the “laws of nature”. It was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code under the British Raj in 1861, and it took the Indian judiciary system 70 years since independence, to abrogate the law and decriminalise homosexuality. 

Nonetheless, the landmark decision was met with euphoria from its proponents, especially the activists who fought for the cause for more than a decade, wrangling with society and courts to attain equality in the eyes of the law. Even though a marriage equality essay is far from sight in a time when it is legal to marry the person one loves irrespective of their gender identity or sex, the decision by Supreme Court portends its occurrence. 

Equality in Marriage

Equality in marriage is an idea, which propagates that all marriages notwithstanding whether it is a Sapphic marriage or gay marriage or heterogeneous matrimony are equal and should enjoy similar rights and status in society.

Unfortunately, our society’s construct is such that we grow up with the idea that only a man and woman can be bound in matrimony. And while doing so, we overlook the multitudes of individuals that associate with different sexual preferences and gender identities. 

While the western world marches toward inclusive societies, where individuals are treated as equals irrespective of their sexuality or gender, we still are in the embryonic stages towards such acceptance. 

If one searches for same-sex marriage essay or statistics, one will find that support for marriage equality in countries like the USA hovers above 60%, a data presented by Pew Research Center. And if one were to rummage through the same statistics for India, it is a dismal 18%, according to a poll by Mood of the Nation (MOTN) in 2019.

Importance of Same-Sex Marriage

Because no change is appreciated until it contributes to the betterment of society in one way or another, proponents of an inclusive society have long contested its importance in same-gender marriage essays and discourses.

We are an overpopulated country and encouragement of marriage equality and an increase in same-sex matrimonies would lead to lower population growth. At the same time, it might witness a growth in adoptions of orphans, which is a significant move towards a holistic society. 

And last but not the least it would be an encouraging shift towards adherence to the laws of human rights, which dictates that no human should live under discrimination, fear, or oppression. 

The seeds of prejudice prevalent in our society, however, will not change overnight. Our traditions and social construct are vastly different from those of western societies. A change in mindset is a process that might take decades and even centuries. 

Nonetheless, the change should begin somewhere. And awareness that every human is equal and their preferences and choices about who they love and marry should not be a ground for discrimination is quintessential to that change. 

Essay No - 2

Same-gender marriage: a threat or blessing for the reunion of two people.

Marriage or wedlock is the cultural union of two people for a lifetime. Considered an integral part of one’s life, it involves both legal and social formalities performed by the two families in concern. Besides, it also comprises regulations and obligations to be followed by the spouses and their children as well as their immediate family members.

However, there have been instances where marriage equality essays have been spoken of by many. These are instances where marriage between couples of the same gender is considered inappropriate. Nevertheless, the global society is evolving and people are coming out of the closet more often than ever before.

How Does the World Perceive?

Most communities are becoming liberal in terms of being more accepting in nature. People by and large are taking a stand to abide by their sexuality. It is no more a matter of shame that has to be kept hidden or shut behind the doors.

Multiple same sex marriage essay has come up sighting the incidents where the couple were accepted by their respective families. In addition, the act of legalization of same-sex marriage has been going on since the past two decades with great vigour.

Countries like the Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium had legalised it in the wake of the 2000s, while other countries such as Canada, South Africa, and Norway followed suit in the upcoming years.

The marriage equality essay has been in the limelight because more people are opening up about the benefits and importance of such marriages in today’s world. The reasons that have fuelled such a dramatic change can be listed below as -

People can be themselves and do not have to try hard to get accepted for who they are.

They are proud of both their individuality as well as sexuality and do not have to wear a mask.

They can plan for the future instead of having to succumb to societal pressure.

Same-sex couples now have the opportunity to live with their loved ones happily, without having to take cover. 

The spread of the same gender marriage essay has been a saviour for many who were not aware of the changes that are taking place all around the world. It has not only made the LGBTQ community aware but also encouraged them to evaluate themselves and take the plunge to raise their voices too. They can now take a stand for themselves and feel relieved that they are not discriminated against anymore.

What is the Scope in the Future?

Although a significant part of the world including countries like Taiwan, Germany, USA, etc. have been able to match the steps with the advancing surrounding; there is still a section who has not. Even now, marriage equality essays and other online content create backlash.

Therefore, it is essential that more people come forward and join hands to the cause of being united in terms of accepting the bond between people. 

Essay No – 3

Same-sex marriage - the changing attitude of modern society.

Most religions and cultures accept that marriage is not a trivial matter but is a key to the pursuit of happiness. However, they still openly criticise the practice of same-sex weddings. Fortunately, the stigma related to homophobia and LGBTQ community is slowly but surely lessening. Better education, introduction to different cultures, and an open mindset played a critical role in this development. 

Let’s discuss the changing attitude of today’s society and the benefits a culture might enjoy in this same-sex marriage essay.

The History of Same-Sex Marriage

During the mid-20 th century, historian Johann Jakob Bachofen and Lewis Henry Morgan made systematic analyses of the marriage and kinship habits in different cultures. They noted that most cultures expressed support towards a heteronormative form of marriage that revolves around union between opposite-sex partners. However, all these cultures practised some form of flexibility while following these ideals. 

Scholars like historian John Boswell often declared that same-sex unions were recognised in medieval Europe, but the most notable changes were introduced during the late 20 th century. 

An Accepting Society

A more stable society was created over the years, with a better understanding of each other and acceptance for the different. As the culture opened its arms to learn about others, it also learned about minority groups such as the LGBT community. Similar to racial equality, or the equality movement for women, growing acceptance of that community ultimately made the commune much more stable. 

Many consider that same-sex unity will only benefit the homosexual community. However, it leaves a much more profound impact on the overall society. To begin with, it will reduce homophobia by a significant margin. Acknowledging a homosexual relationship will also reduce hate crimes in countries like India. There are many research papers and marriage equality essays available that show how communities that allow an individual to choose their partner to enjoy a significantly less rate of crime. 

The Economic Boost

An unlikely benefit of same-sex marriage and a compassionate society towards homosexuals is the economic boost. For one, the wedding and marriage industry is the biggest beneficiary of same-sex marriage, as it increases their customer base by a significant margin. It also allows several business providers to service them, and helps the travel and tourism industry by boosting the number of honeymoon goers.

For example, businesses in New York enjoyed almost 260 million dollars boost within a year when same-sex marriage was legalised. Similar effects were also found in other countries.

Even though India still hasn’t shaken the stigma attached to a same-sex relationship, somewhat modern society is slowly learning to accept the diversity of human nature. With the help of the government, activists, and hundreds of individuals creating and posting blogs, same-gender marriage essays on the internet, society is gradually becoming an understanding and nurturing entity for everyone.

FAQs on Same Sex Marriage Essay for Students

1. Which countries have legalized same-sex marriage and when?

With the advancement in the thought process of people, many countries have passed laws in favor of same-sex marriage, thereby legalizing it in their countries. The first countries to legalize same-sex marriage before 2010 were the Netherlands who legalized it in 2001, Belgium legalized it in 2003, Canada and Spain legalized it in 2005, South Africa in 2006, Sweden and Norway in 2009 and Iceland, Argentina, and Portugal legalized same-sex marriage in 2010. Later on, Denmark legalised it in 2012, and countries like Uruguay, New Zealand, France, and Brazil in 2013, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the United States in 2015, Colombia in 2016,  Malta, Germany, and Finland in 2017, Australia in 2018 and Ecuador and Austria in 2019. The recent country to legalize same-sex marriage is the United Kingdom. Thus, now people have started accepting the idea of same-sex marriages across the world.

2. What is the importance of same-sex marriage and why should it be legalized?

As the world is progressing we all must understand that each one of us is a human being and before labelling us with our caste and love preference, we must learn to respect each other. In this progressing era as more people with same-sex preference are coming up it has become more important to accept and legalize same-sex marriage because of the following reasons:

It will give people a chance to be themselves and enjoy their own individuality.

It will make people understand that loving a person of the same sex is not wrong or abnormal.

It will teach people that it is better for people to spend their lives with someone they love and not with the person whom they don’t even like.

This will make this place a much happier space to be in.

It gives people with homosexuality a hope of a happy life.

3. What is the status of same-sex marriage in India?

Same-sex marriage in India is still not encouraged. In India, neither the laws are lenient nor the people are broad-minded to accept it happening around them. The legal and community barriers never give these people a chance to prove themselves. Indian society is not very welcoming to changes that are different from the customs and culture they have practised till now. Thus, any change in these cultural laws gives rise to an outburst of anger in the country which makes legalising these issues even more sensitive and challenging for the law. India still needs time to get accustomed to the concept of same-sex marriage. However, not knowing about the concept is a different thing, and completely opposing it is different, therefore, awareness about such issues is very necessary for the developing countries so that people can first understand the pros and cons of it and then either accept it or reject it. Not only in India, but in other countries also, the idea of same-sex marriage is not accepted because they think it is against their religion. People opposing the LGBTQ community to get the right to marry their lovers take away the very basic human right of such people. There has been a long-lasting war for the members of the LGBTQ community for their rights. Although there have been some positive results in recent years, for example, the end of Section 377, which criminalizes homosexuality. However, India still has a long way to go in terms of the LGBTQ community and their rights.

4. What approaches can be used to legalize same-sex marriage?

Same-sex marriage is currently not taken in kind words by the people but slowly and steadily the things are changing and people are able to change their perspective with respect to the LGBT community. Legalizing same-sex marriage in a country like India where a number of religions and customs are practiced is really difficult. Therefore, few approach switch can help legalize same-sex marriage without hurting any religion are that the existing laws are interpreted in such a way that they legalize same-sex marriage, LGBT can be regarded as a different community which has customs of its own that permits same-sex marriage, making amendments in the Act itself or all the religions can individually interpret their marriage laws in such a way that same-sex marriage becomes in accordance with their religion.

5. Briefly discuss your view on same-sex marriages?

Same-sex marriage refers to the marriage of the same sex which is similar to heterosexual marriages in terms of rituals and proceedings. Same-sex marriages should not be ashamed of and are justified because after all love knows no boundaries. The community must be made aware of this concept so that they can appreciate and celebrate the union of two loving souls without considering their gender. The community as a whole must attempt to legalize and accept same-sex marriage with respect to the laws, religion, and customs of the country. In the coming years, there is a ray of hope that same-sex marriages will also be celebrated just like normal marriages in India.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Same Sex Marriage Essay | Essay on Same Sex Marriage for Students and Children in English

February 13, 2024 by Prasanna

Same Sex Marriage Essay: Sex is a biological term that differentiates between two biologically different human beings- the Male and the Female. When we talk about same sex marriage, we are intending to a sacred union of two people belonging to the same sex. This union can be called when two females get married to each other or when two males get married to each other. It is not the sex or gender that binds two souls together but love and care for each other.

Same sex marriage has been legal in many countries for a very long time. Indian judicial system legalized LGBTQ+ rights on 6 September 2018.

You can also find more  Essay Writing  articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

Long and Short Essays on Same Sex Marriage for Students and Kids in English

We are providing a long essay on same sex marriage of 500 words and a short essay of 150 words on the same topic along with ten lines about the topic to help readers.

Long Essay on Same Sex Marriage 500 Words in English

Long Essay on Same Sex Marriage is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Love has no boundaries; thus, marriages are no longer limited to heterosexual sted in couples. Same sex marriages have been legalized in several countries that have lead to the initiation of demanding equal rights by the people of the LGBTQ+ Community. With the struggle of these activities, it has now become possible for same sex couples to be free and enjoy equal rights in some countries.

Same sex marriages are not a trend or western influence that is adapted by the society. Same sex attraction has existed from ancient times. It was not openly and vividly talked about due to lack of knowledge and understandings. It is still a taboo in most of the world. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves and the world so that the same sex couples do not face discrimination.

In India, same sex marriages are yet to be legalized. On 6 September 2018, the Supreme court of India decriminalizedecriminalize gay sex marking a historic judgement in the Indian judiciary. The court defined love to be without boundaries. This historical judgement is a result of prolonged protests and sufferings. It was welcomed and celebrated by the country with joy.

Same sex marriages are held like every other marriage. The rituals and traditions are not different for the same sex marriage than a heterosexual marriage. Both kinds of marriage are intended to unite two souls who are in love and care for each other. Discriminating and judging same sex couples in inhuman and wrong. This mindset needs to be changed as we are moving towards a progressive world.

To understand the concept of same sex attraction and the LGBTQ+ community, proper sex education must be introduced in school level. This education is very important so that a person discovers the true soul and desire within oneself. It is always said to be with the person one loves. To find the person one loves, we must educate ourselves about the different aspects of love and desire. Educating oneself of the various aspects of sexual attraction will lead us to be a better person and make others a better person.

You can now access more Essay Writing on this topic and many more.

Same sex marriages are ridiculed at most places by society. It is wrong to discriminate human beings for their sexual preferences. Nor it is our right to devoid them of the fundamental rights as a human being. They are humans who deserve respect in all points of their life irrespective of their sexual preference.

We have come a long way now in protecting gay rights. It is the duty of every individual to support the cause of equality. Same sex marriages must be legalized in all parts of the world, and the same sex couples must be given equal human rights.

Same sex marriages must be welcomed with joy, and the same sex couples must not be subjected to discriminations. Marrying anyone is a basic fundamental right, thus not allowing the same sex couples to get married is devoiding basic human rights. We must take care that the LGBTQ+ community are not devoid of their fundamental rights and are treated with respect like everybody else.

Short Essay on Same Sex Marriage 150 Words in English

Short Essay on Same Sex Marriage is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Marriages are sacred events that unite two people who are in love irrespective of their gender. Same sex marriages are those marriages where humans of the same sex get married to each other. Same sex marriages are somewhat a taboo, that isn’t talked about much. But it is very important to educate the upcoming generations of the concept that same sex marriages are completely natural and humane.

Love is the sacred thread that binds two people in a marriage. Same sex marriages are no different than normal marriages. The rituals are followed and enjoyed by the brides and grooms with their families. The only difference is the presence of two brides or two grooms. Same sex marriages must be celebrated, and same sex couples must not be devoid of equal rights.

Some countries around the world have legal rights for same sex couple just the way heterosexual couples. However, most of the countries have strict rules against same sex marriages on religious and philosophical perspective. LGBTQ+ activists are struggling to gain equality in such countries.

10 Lines on Same Sex Marriage Essay in English

1. Same sex marriages are marriages between human beings of the same sex. 2. In the same sex marriage, two females get married to each other or two males who get married to each other. 3. Same sex marriage is no different than heterosexual marriages in terms of rituals and proceedings. 4. Love sees no boundaries and thus same sex marriages are justified, right, and nothing to be ashamed of. 5. The society needs to be inclusive and appreciate the unity of two loving souls beyond the humanmade paradigms of gender. 6. All must celebrate same sex marriages. 7. The present preachers must educate themselves and prepare future generations on the topic of same sex marriages and the LGBTQ+ community. 8. The upcoming generations must be given sex education and liberty to discover themselves irrespective of judgements. 9. Same sex marriages are absolutely normal and are nothing to be ashamed of. 10. Steps must be taken by everyone to ensure same sex marriage is legal, and the same sex couple enjoys equal rights.

Frequently Asked Questions on Same Sex Marriage

Question 1. Is same sex marriage a disorder?

Answer: No, same sex marriages are not a disorder. It is completely normal and biological.

Question 2. Can anybody marry a person of the same sex?

Answer: Same sex marriages depend on the sexual preferences of an individual. Everybody is not entitled to have the same preferences.

Question 3. Are same sex marriages legal in India?

Answer: Same sex marriages are not yet legal in India.

Question 4. What is the full form of the LGBTQ community?

Answer: The full form of LGBTQ Community is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer community.

• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

Essay on Same Sex Marriage

Students are often asked to write an essay on Same Sex Marriage in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Same Sex Marriage

Introduction.

Same-sex marriage is when two people of the same gender get married. It’s a topic of much debate globally.

Historical Context

Historically, marriage was between a man and a woman. But, societies evolve and views on marriage have changed.

Legal Status

Many countries now legally recognize same-sex marriage. It’s seen as a matter of equality and human rights.

Society’s View

Society’s views are mixed. Some support it as a step towards equality. Others oppose it due to religious or personal beliefs.

250 Words Essay on Same Sex Marriage

Same-sex marriage, also known as gay marriage, is the marriage between two people of the same sex. This topic has been the epicenter of numerous debates worldwide due to its legal, social, and human rights implications.

Legal Perspective

Legally speaking, same-sex marriage is a civil right that should be accorded to all individuals regardless of their sexual orientation. It is crucial to remember that marriage is not just a religious institution but also a legal one, conferring rights and responsibilities upon the couple. Denying same-sex couples this right is a violation of equal protection under the law.

Social Perspective

From a social standpoint, acceptance of same-sex marriage signifies progress towards a more inclusive society. It challenges traditional norms and paves the way for a broader definition of love and family. It also provides societal recognition and validation to same-sex relationships, thereby reducing stigma and discrimination.

Human Rights Perspective

From a human rights perspective, same-sex marriage is fundamentally about the freedom to love and be loved. It is about the right to form a family, to enjoy companionship, and to partake in the joys and challenges of married life. Denying these rights based on sexual orientation is contrary to the principles of freedom, dignity, and equality.

In conclusion, same-sex marriage is not just about legal rights, but also about social acceptance and human dignity. It is a step towards a more inclusive, diverse, and equal society. As we move forward, it is crucial to continue advocating for the rights of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

500 Words Essay on Same Sex Marriage

Historical perspective.

Historically, same-sex marriage was largely taboo and illegal. However, the late 20th and early 21st centuries saw a shift in societal attitudes. The Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001. Since then, numerous countries including Canada, Spain, South Africa, and the United States have followed suit, reflecting changing societal norms and growing acceptance of diverse sexual orientations.

The Argument for Same-Sex Marriage

Advocates for same-sex marriage argue that it is a matter of civil rights and equality. They posit that denying individuals the right to marry based on their sexual orientation is discriminatory. Moreover, legal recognition of same-sex marriage provides couples with legal protections and benefits, such as inheritance rights and access to healthcare benefits, which heterosexual couples take for granted.

The Counter Argument

Impact on society.

The legalization of same-sex marriage has had significant societal implications. It has challenged traditional norms and values, leading to a broader discussion about the nature of marriage, family, and love. It has also been a catalyst for increased visibility and acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals, although this varies significantly across different cultures and societies.

In conclusion, same-sex marriage represents a significant shift in societal norms and values. As society continues to evolve, it is essential to continue this discourse with respect and understanding, acknowledging the diverse experiences and perspectives that exist. Regardless of personal beliefs, the recognition of same-sex marriage in law is fundamentally about equality and human rights. It is a testament to how far we have come as a society in recognizing and respecting diversity, but it also underscores the ongoing challenges that remain in achieving true equality for all.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

ARCHIVED WEBSITE

This site was archived on Dec. 15, 2021. A reconsideration of the topic on this site is possible in the future. 

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a right protected by the US Constitution in all 50 states. Prior to their decision, same-sex marriage was already legal in 37 states and Washington DC, but was banned in the remaining 13. US public opinion had shifted significantly over the years, from 27% approval of gay marriage in 1996 to 55% in 2015, the year it became legal throughout the United States, to 61% in 2019.

Proponents of legal gay marriage contend that gay marriage bans are discriminatory and unconstitutional, and that same-sex couples should have access to all the benefits enjoyed by different-sex couples.

Opponents contend that marriage has traditionally been defined as being between one man and one woman, and that marriage is primarily for procreation. Read more background…

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1 To deny some people the option to marry would be discriminatory and would create a second class of citizens. Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. On July 25, 2014 Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Sarah Zabel ruled Florida’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional and stated that the ban “serves only to hurt, to discriminate, to deprive same-sex couples and their families of equal dignity, to label and treat them as second-class citizens, and to deem them unworthy of participation in one of the fundamental institutions of our society.” [ 105 ] As well as discrimination based on sexual orientation, gay marriage bans discriminated based on one’s sex. As David S. Cohen, JD, Associate Professor at the Drexel University School of Law, explained, “Imagine three people—Nancy, Bill, and Tom… Nancy, a woman, can marry Tom, but Bill, a man, cannot… Nancy can do something (marry Tom) that Bill cannot, simply because Nancy is a woman and Bill is a man.” [ 122 ] Over 1,000 benefits, rights and protections are available to married couples in federal law alone, including hospital visitation, filing a joint tax return to reduce a tax burden, access to family health coverage, US residency and family unification for partners from another country, and bereavement leave and inheritance rights if a partner dies. [ 6 ] [ 86 ] [ 95 ] Married couples also have access to protections if the relationship ends, such as child custody, spousal or child support, and an equitable division of property. [ 93 ] Married couples in the US armed forces are offered health insurance and other benefits unavailable to domestic partners. [ 125 ] The IRS and the US Department of Labor also recognize married couples, for the purpose of granting tax, retirement and health insurance benefits. [ 126 ] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimated that same-sex couples denied marriage benefits incurred an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetimes compared with married heterosexual couples. [ 7 ] Additionally, legal same-sex marriage comes with mental and physical health benefits. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others concluded that legal gay marriage gives couples “access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support.” [ 47 ] A study found that same-sex married couples were “significantly less distressed than lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons not in a legally recognized relationship.” [ 113 ] A 2010 analysis found that after their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 248% increase in generalized anxiety disorders. [ 69 ] Read More

Pro 2 Gay marriages bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments, and boost the economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2004 that federally-recognized gay marriage would cut the budget deficit by around $450 million a year. [ 89 ] In July 2012 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that gay marriage had contributed $259 million to the city’s economy in just a year since the practice became legal there in July 2011. [ 43 ] Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances (the so-called “marriage penalty”), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. [ 4 ] In 2012, the Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) found that in the first five years after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004, same-sex wedding expenditures (such as venue rental, wedding cakes, etc.) added $111 million to the state’s economy. [ 114 ] Read More

Pro 3 Legal marriage is a secular institution that should not be limited by religious objections to same-sex marriage. Religious institutions can decline to marry gay and lesbian couples if they wish, but they should not dictate marriage laws for society at large. As explained by People for the American Way, “As a legal matter, marriage is a civil institution… Marriage is also a religious institution, defined differently by different faiths and congregations. In America, the distinction can get blurry because states permit clergy to carry out both religious and civil marriage in a single ceremony. Religious Right leaders have exploited that confusion by claiming that granting same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage would somehow also redefine the religious institution of marriage… this is grounded in falsehood and deception.” [ 132 ] Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that “[c]ivil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage.” [ 41 ] Read More

Pro 4 The concept of “traditional marriage” has changed over time, and the idea that the definition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. Harvard University historian Nancy F. Cott stated that until two centuries ago, “monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion” of the world’s population, and were found only in “Western Europe and little settlements in North America.” [ 106 ] Official unions between same-sex couples, indistinguishable from marriages except for gender, are believed by some scholars to have been common until the 13th Century in many countries, with the ceremonies performed in churches and the union sealed with a kiss between the two parties. [ 106 ] Polygamy has been widespread throughout history, according to Brown University political scientist Rose McDermott, PhD. [ 106 ] [ 110 ] Read More

Pro 5 Gay marriage is a civil right protected by the US Constitution’s commitments to liberty and equality, and is an internationally recognized human right for all people. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 21, 2012, named same-sex marriage as “one of the key civil rights struggles of our time.” [ 61 ] In 1967 the US Supreme Court unanimously confirmed in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man.” [60] In 2014, the White House website listed same-sex marriage amongst a selection of civil rights, along with freedom from employment discrimination, equal pay for women, and fair sentencing for minority criminals. [ 118 ] The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the 1974 case Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause” of the US Constitution. US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was “unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.” [ 41 ] The Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” [ 111 ] The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [ 112 ] Since 1888 the US Supreme Court has declared at least 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right for all. [ 3 ] Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion… the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.” [ 103 ] Amnesty International states that “this non-discrimination principle has been interpreted by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become an internationally recognized principle.” [ 104 ] Read More

Pro 6 Marriage is not only for procreation, otherwise infertile couples or couples not wishing to have children would be prevented from marrying. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. From 1970 through 2012 roughly 30% of all US households were married couples without children, and in 2012, married couples without children outnumbered married couples with children by 9%. [ 96 ] 6% of married women aged 15-44 are infertile, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [ 97 ] In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey, both married and unmarried people rated love, commitment, and companionship higher than having children as “very important” reasons to get married, and only 44% of unmarried people and 59% of married people rated having children as a very important reason. [ 42 ] As US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan noted, a marriage license would be granted to a couple in which the man and woman are both over the age of 55, even though “there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.” [ 88 ] Read More

Con 1 The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman. Civil unions and domestic partnerships could provide the protections and benefits gay couples need without changing the definition of marriage. John F. Harvey, late Catholic priest, wrote in July 2009 that “Throughout the history of the human race the institution of marriage has been understood as the complete spiritual and bodily communion of one man and one woman.” [ 18 ] [ 109 ] In upholding gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee on Nov. 6, 2014, 6th US District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote that “marriage has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had been adopted by all governments and major religions of the world.” [ 117 ] In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that “the institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” [ 49 ] Privileges available to couples in civil unions and domestic partnerships can include health insurance benefits, inheritance without a will, the ability to file state taxes jointly, and hospital visitation rights. [ 155 ] [ 156 ] New laws could enshrine other benefits for civil unions and domestic partnerships that would benefit same-sex couple as well as heterosexual couples who do not want to get married. 2016 presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina stated that civil unions are adequate as an equivalent to marriage: “Benefits are being bestowed to gay couples [in civil unions]… I believe we need to respect those who believe that the word marriage has a spiritual foundation… Why can’t we respect and tolerate that while at the same time saying government cannot bestow benefits unequally.” [ 157 ] 43rd US President George W. Bush expressed his support for same-sex civil unions while in office: “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so… I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others.” [158] Read More

Con 2 Marriage is for procreation. Same sex couples should be prohibited from marriage because they cannot produce children together. The purpose of marriage should not shift away from producing and raising children to adult gratification. [ 19 ] A California Supreme Court ruling from 1859 stated that “the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation.” [ 90 ] Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Bertrand Russell stated that “it is through children alone that sexual relations become important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” [ 91 ] Court papers filed in July 2014 by attorneys defending Arizona’s gay marriage ban stated that “the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their father… Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father.” [ 98 ] Contrary to the pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex couples cannot have children or don’t want them, even in those cases there is still the potential to produce children. Seemingly infertile heterosexual couples sometimes produce children, and medical advances may allow others to procreate in the future. Heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children are still biologically capable of having them, and may change their minds. [ 98 ] Read More

Con 3 Gay marriage has accelerated the assimilation of gays into mainstream heterosexual culture to the detriment of the homosexual community. The gay community has created its own vibrant culture. By reducing the differences in opportunities and experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this unique culture may cease to exist. Lesbian activist M.V. Lee Badgett, PhD, Director of the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, stated that for many gay activists “marriage means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture.” [14] Paula Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women’s Studies, wrote in 1989, “Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships.” [15] Read More

Con 4 Marriage is an outmoded, oppressive institution that should have been weakened, not expanded. LGBT activist collective Against Equality stated, “Gay marriage apes hetero privilege… [and] increases economic inequality by perpetuating a system which deems married beings more worthy of the basics like health care and economic rights.” [ 84 ] The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, “We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.” [ 16 ] Queer activist Anders Zanichkowsky stated in June 2013 that the then campaign for gay marriage “intentionally and maliciously erases and excludes so many queer people and cultures, particularly trans and gender non-conforming people, poor queer people, and queer people in non-traditional families… marriage thinks non-married people are deviant and not truly deserving of civil rights.” [ 127 ] Read More

Con 5 Gay marriage is contrary to the word of God and is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Bible, in Leviticus 18:22, states: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination,” thus condemning homosexual relationships. [ 120 ] The Catholic Church, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage. [ 119 ] According to a July 31, 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage “was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman.” [ 54 ] Pope Benedict stated in Jan. 2012 that gay marriage threatened “the future of humanity itself.” [ 145 ] Two orthodox Jewish groups, the Orthodox Agudath Israel of America and the Orthodox Union, also oppose gay marriage, as does mainstream Islam. [ 13 ] [ 119 ] In Islamic tradition, several hadiths (passages attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) condemn gay and lesbian relationships, including the sayings “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Sihaq [lesbian sex] of women is zina [illegitimate sexual intercourse].” [ 121 ] Read More

Con 6 Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and, therefore, same sex marriage is immoral and unnatural. J. Matt Barber, Associate Dean for Online Programs at Liberty University School of Law, stated, “Every individual engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, who has adopted a homosexual identity, they know, intuitively, that what they’re doing is immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive, yet they thirst for that affirmation.” [ 149 ] A 2003 set of guidelines signed by Pope John Paul II stated: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.” [ 147 ] Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee stated that gay marriage is “inconsistent with nature and nature’s law.” [ 148 ] J. Matt Barber, Associate Dean for Online Programs at Liberty University School of Law, stated, “Every individual engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, who has adopted a homosexual identity, they know, intuitively, that what they’re doing is immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive, yet they thirst for that affirmation.” [ 149 ] A 2003 set of guidelines signed by Pope John Paul II stated: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family… Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.” [ 147 ] Read More

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Gay Marriage – Pros & Cons
• Pro & Con Quotes
• History of Gay Marriage
• Did You Know?
• Gay Marriage around the World
• Gay Marriage Timeline
• State-by-State History of Banning and Legalizing Gay Marriage
• Gay Marriage in the US Supreme Court: Obergefell v. Hodges

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

The best argument against same-sex marriage

FILIPINOS, SPORTING #LoveWins hashtags and slapping rainbows onto their Facebook profile pictures, have been swept up in the euphoria over the US Supreme Court decision declaring same-sex marriage a fundamental human right. Law professors are heartened to see Justice Anthony Kennedy’s poetic Obergefell decision shared in social media. However, we must also read the powerful dissents and ask why we might prefer that our unelected justices decide this sensitive issue instead of our elected legislators.

Inquirer 2bu quoted teenagers opining that anyone with the capacity to love deserves to have his/her chosen relationship validated. Obergefell’s logic is equally simple. Forget “substantive due process,” “decisional privacy” and “equal protection.” It takes the simple premise that human liberty necessarily goes beyond physical liberty, and includes an unwritten right to make fundamental life choices. Choosing a life partner is one such fundamental choice and the decision of two people to formalize their relationship must be accorded utmost dignity.

The typical arguments against this simple idea are so intellectually discredited that Obergefell no longer discussed them. (My Philippine Law Journal article “Marriage through another lens,” 81 PHIL. L.J. 789 [2006], tried applying them to bisexual and transgender Filipinos.)

One cannot solely invoke religious doctrine, even if thinly veiled as secular “morality.” Religious groups may confront this issue but not impose their choices on others. Their often vindictive tone contrasts sharply with Kennedy’s, and increasingly alienates millennials who revel in individuality. Those criticized as religious zealots should at least strive to be up-to-date, more sophisticated religious zealots.

The most common argument, procreation, is also the easiest to refute. Philippine Family Code author Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy wrote: “The [Code] Committee believes that marriage … may also be only for companionship, as when parties past the age of procreation still get married.”

Another argument reduces marriage to a series of economic benefits and suggests a “domestic partnership” system to govern same-sex couples’ property and other rights. This parallels having separate schools for white and black children and claiming they are equal because both have schools. It implies that some relationships so lack dignity that they must be called something else.

Protecting the “traditional” definition of marriage is too subjective. Obergefell reminds that traditional definitions evolve and once prohibited interracial and accepted arranged marriages, and “it is unrealistic to conclude that an opposite-sex couple would choose not to marry simply because same-sex couples may do so.”

Recent last-ditch arguments alleged harm to children. No party to Obergefell contested that same-sex couples may build nurturing families after adopting or tapping medical advances to produce babies with related DNA. Prohibiting same-sex marriage harms children by making such families unstable, as only one parent may legally adopt and have rights in relation to a child.

With all these discredited, the Obergefell dissents simply raised that marriage is so central a social institution that it is better redefined by democratic process than unelected judges. Proponents may consider opponents homophobic, bigoted, narrow-minded religious zealots, but none of these disqualifies one from being a citizen. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that proponents should have relied on how popular opinion was rapidly shifting in their favor than ending all debate by court order.

Justice Antonin Scalia decried how the US Constitution was turned into a “fortune cookie” in a “judicial Putsch” that declared a radical unwritten right. Roberts cautioned that the first cases to use similar doctrine upheld slavery and struck down labor regulations in the name of laissez faire economics. Although invoking human rights is not subject to an election, it is wise to consult society in defining these, and Obergefell stressed the lengthy public debates the United States experienced at every level.

One thus asks why an instant judicial solution is more appealing than backing Akbayan Rep. Barry Gutierrez’s proposed same-sex marriage bill. The Philippines has not had serious public debate given how we recently focused on reproductive health, and our high court has not even explicitly recognized “decisional privacy.” Further, the petition to legalize same-sex marriage recently filed at our high court is blatantly deficient.

The petition (like the anti-RH petitions) does not even identify a client. There is no actual Filipino same-sex couple, unlike the real Mr. Obergefell who sought to be named the spouse on his partner’s death certificate after their deathbed wedding. This violates the most basic rule that judicial power may only be used in an “actual case” and the high court should have instantly thrown out the no-case petition (like the anti-RH petitions). The petition also has glaring errors (like the anti-RH petitions). It invoked the Philippine privacy decision Ople vs Torres, which involved information in government databases and has nothing to do with the “decisional privacy” of US same-sex marriage debates. Even liberals should be hard-pressed to support this lest they be intellectually inconsistent and validate the anti-RH petitions’ worst features.

Any citizen lacking the patience to back Gutierrez’s bill has every right to short-circuit democracy by seeking an order from unelected judges. One hopes our high court insists that it be sought properly.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

React: [email protected] , Twitter @oscarfbtan, facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES OF SAME SEX MARRIAGES IN INDIA

This article on issues & challenges of same sex marriages in India is written by Ahona Pal from Symbiosis Law School, Noida.

INTRODUCTION

Marriage is a socially and ritually recognised institution, traditionally between a man and a woman. Marriage is an integral part of every person’s life. It is through marriage that the human race has propagated future generations. Marriage is the most important institution of human society. [1] It is a universal phenomenon and has been the backbone of human civilisation.  We can say that the Marriage is as old as the institution of the family. Both these institutions are vital for the society. [2]

Family depends upon the Marriage. Marriage regulates sex life of human beings, thereby giving them a chance to procreate, thus aiding the survival of human race. Marriage creates new social relationships and reciprocal rights between the spouses. It establishes the rights and the status of the children when they are born. Each society recognises certain procedures for creating such relationship and rights. [3] The society prescribes rules for prohibitions, preferences and prescriptions in deciding marriage. It is this institution through which a man sustains the continuity of his race and attains satisfaction in a socially recognised manner. Sociologists and anthropologists have given definitions of marriage. Some of the important definitions are given below.

Edward Westermark says [4] “Marriage is a relation of one or more men to one or more women which is recognised by custom or law and involves certain rights and duties both in the case of the parties entering the union and in the case of the children born of it.

As B. Malinowski [5] defines, “Marriage is a contract for the production and maintenance of children”.

According to H.M. Johnson [6] , “Marriage is a stable relationship in which a man and a woman are socially permitted without loss of standing in the community, to have children”.

Ira L. Reiss [7] writes, “Marriage is a socially accepted union of individuals in husband and wife roles, with the key function of legitimating of parenthood”.

William J. Goode [8] , the famous family sociologist has tried to combine the two objectives of marriage i.e. to regulate sex life and to recognize the newborn.

Although different thinkers have tried to provide definition of marriage, but there is no universally acceptable definition of marriage. There seems to be, however, a consensus that marriage involves several criteria that are found to exist cross-culturally and throughout time. For example, Hindu marriage has three main objectives such as Dharma, Progeny and Sexual Pleasure. Individual happiness has been given the least importance. It is considered to be sacrament, a spiritual union between a man and a woman in the social status of husband and wife. Marriage is cultural specific. The rules and regulations differ from one culture to another. The above discussion helps us to conclude that the boundaries of marriage are not always precise and clearly defined. It is, however, very important institution for the society as it helps in replacement of old and dying population. Let us now consider two contradicting point of views on what marriage is [9] :

Conjugal View [10] : Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.

Revisionist View [11] : Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable.

Same-sex marriage is also known as gay marriage. It is the marriage between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity. Legal recognition of same-sex marriage or the possibility to perform a same-sex marriage is sometimes referred to as marriage equality or equal marriage, particularly by supporters. The legalization of same-sex marriage is characterized as “redefining marriage” by many opponents. The first laws enabling same-sex marriage in modern times were enacted during the first decade of the 21st century. And as of 28 June 2014, sixteen countries like Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay and several sub-national jurisdictions including parts of Mexico and the United States  allow same-sex couples to marry. Polls in various countries show that there is rising support for legally recognizing same-sex marriage across race, ethnicity, age, religion, political affiliation, and socioeconomic status.

RIGHT TO MARRY

Marriage is one of the universal social institutions established by the human society to control and regulate the life of man [12] . It is a cornerstone of a society. It is in the family that children learn to become citizens; it is in the family that children learn about relationships; it is in the family that children learn about what is expected of them in society, how to act and how to be [13] . Central to the nuclear family is the traditional idea of marriage, consisting of one man and one woman in a monogamous and permanent relationship. We need to promote and protect marriage to secure a healthier society. Marriage has legitimate recognition to get united. Society accepts union of two souls because primary object of marriage is to beget and bear offspring, and to them until they are able to take care of themselves [14] . Right of all members of family like Right to Respect for private and family life, Right to marry and found family, is foundation of justice, freedom and peace.The definition of marriage can be looked at from a legal perspective. A legal dictionary defines marriage as “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.” [15] Legally, marriage is a binding contract between the two parties that joins together their possessions, income, and lives. According to the Hindu Law Marriage is a body for the performance of religious duties. It is deemed as a holy union in Hindu Law. It is also considered to be an union of flesh to flesh and blood to blood. It is a religious sacrament and not a civil contract.The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Sec.5 provides right to marry under statutory condition.

According to the Muslim law, the Quran states “every person must marry”. Quran asserts that marriage is the only way to satisfy one’s desire. Marriage (nikah) is defined to be a contract which has for its object the procreation and the legalizing of children. The right to marry is a component of right to life under art 21 of Constitution of India which says, “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. In the context of right to marry, a mention may be made of a few Indian cases. Person who suffering from venereal disease, even prior to the marriage cannot be said to have any right to marry so long as he is not fully cured of disease.

Mr.’X’ v. Hospital ‘Z’ [16] : The Court had rested its decision on the facts of the case that it was open to the hospital or the doctor concerned to reveal such information to persons related to the girl whom he intended to marry and she had a right to know about the H.I.V. positive status of the appellant. If that was so, there was no need for the Court to go further and declare in general as to what rights and obligations arise in such context as to right to privacy or confidentiality or whether such persons are entitled to be married or not or in the event such persons marry, they would commit an offence under law or whether such right is suspended during the period of illness. Therefore, all those observations made by the Court in the aforesaid matter were unnecessary, particularly when there was no consideration of the matter after notice to all the parties concerned. In that view of the matter, court held that the observations made by this Court, except to the extent of holding as stated earlier that the appellant’s right was not affected in any manner in revealing his HIV positive status to the relatives of his finance, are uncalled for. We dispose of these applications with these observations.

Right to marriage is provided under human right charter that to under the heading of” Right to have family”.In Indian Constitution this right not expressly mentions.But it is interpreted under Art 21 Right to Marry is universal right. It is available to all persons but whether it includes same sex marriage. Marriage right is recognised at international level but in India there is no special law for marriage right .marriage right is mentioned under various covenant but it does not include person of same sex marriage. Indian constitution provides for right to marry but it is not fundamental right.

Caste system has been a rigid part of Indian customs since ages. It is an evil that has made the rules and regulations of the Hindu tradition biased and unfair. [17] Discrimination based on the caste system has ruined the society and created differences among the people belonging to different castes. [18] Marriage is a sacred institution especially in context of Indian customs. Even when the world has become so advanced there are people who follow strict caste rules. Marriages in the Hindu society are caste driven; inter-caste marriages are considered to be a sin and are not approved by the elders. [19] There are various reasons because of the Hindu society flinch away from inter-caste marriages like fear of the societal norms and social standing, loss of reputation, cultural difference, backward superstitions, torture that the family and the couple has to face at the hands of the society, etc. The ill-effects of not approving the inter-caste marriages are manifold. It hampers the growth of the society, create fissures among different social groups and castes and poses a threat to the national unity. There have been various instances where couples in inter-case marriges have been driven to commit suicide or killed in the name of honour-killings. [20]

In a landmark judgment [21] , the Supreme Court viewed the right to marry as a component of right to life under Art 21 of Indian Constitution the court observed that: “This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste marriage”.Both the parents in the case were adults and so free to marry of their choice. ’There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under Hindu marriage Act or any other law’.

Inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste-system. The India Human Development Survey (IHDS), conducted by the National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER) and the University of Maryland, reported that Just five per cent of Indians had married a person from a different caste. When married women aged between 15 and 49 were asked if theirs was an inter-caste marriage, just 5.4 percent said yes, the proportion being marginally higher for urban over rural India. [22] Unlike a caste, a religion is a way of life. A religion has far deeper and broader effects on how you lead your life, how you think, how you perceive others etc. than castes. The challenges of inter-religious couples are therefore a lot more complex, running a lot deeper.The social stigma attached to people marrying outside their religion is more scandalous than an inter-caste one.

Indian society is a conservative one. Even in contemporary times when the corners of the whole world are expanding, people hesitate to establish lifelong relations with people or their castes and religions. In such a scenario where the minute issue of caste is such a taboo, accepting same sex marriages becomes all the more difficult. A society where people are killed in the name mixing caste or religion, same sex marriages are inconceivable.

SAME SEX MARRIAGES AROUND THE WORLD

When it comes to LGBT rights, there is still a very real struggle for equality. In many countries, it is shameful to be anything but heterosexual. Members of the LGBT community often have to prove their worth and value in the workplace, and in society as a whole. The outlook for them is a bit brighter in the US and a few other countries, but there’s still much work to be done before the LGBT community is respected all over the world. [23]

USA: In the United States, same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges [24] that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, overruling Baker v. Nelson [25] . The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. [26]

UK: The legislation to allow same-sex marriage in England and Wales was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in July 2013 and came into force on 13 March 2014, and the first same-sex marriages took place on 29 March 2014. [27] Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in Scotland was passed by the Scottish Parliament in February 2014 and took effect on 16 December 2014. [28] The first same-sex marriage ceremonies occurred on 16 December 2014 for same-sex couples previously in civil partnerships. The first same-sex marriage ceremonies for couples not in a civil partnership occurred on 31 December 2014. [29] The Northern Ireland Executive has stated that it does not intend to introduce legislation allowing for same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. Same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions are treated as civil partnerships. [30]

South Africa: Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Africa since the Civil Union Act came into force on 30 November 2006. [31] The decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Minister of  Home Affairs v Fourie [32] on 1 December 2005 extended the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex spouses—as the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equal protection before the law to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation—and gave Parliament one year to rectify the inequality in the marriage statutes. [33] On 14 November 2006, the National Assembly passed a law allowing same-sex couples to legally marry 230 to 41, which was subsequently approved by the National Council of Provinces on 28 November in a 36 to 11 vote, and the law came into effect two days later. [34] South Africa was the fifth country, the first (and only, as of June 2015) in Africa, the first in the southern hemisphere, the first republic and the second outside Europe to legalise same-sex marriage. [35]

Australia: Same-sex unions are treated as de facto unions under the Australian federal law, though each Australian state and territory is entitled to create their own laws with respect to same-sex relationship registers and same-sex partnership schemes. [36] Same-sex couples are prevented from marrying by the definition of marriage contained within the federal Marriage Act (1961), as amended in 2004 by the Howard Government.

LAW AND HOMOSEXUALITY IN INDIA

The last century witnessed major changes in the conception of homosexuality.Since 1974, homosexuality ceased to be considered an abnormal behavior and was removed from the classification of mental disorder. It was also decriminalized in different countries. Since then various states across the globe enacted anti-discriminatory or equal opportunity laws and policies to protect the rights of gays and lesbians. In 1994, South Africa became the first nation to constitutionally safeguard the rights of lesbians and gays. Canada, France, Luxembourg, Holland, Slovenia, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and NewZealand also have similar laws.The US Supreme Court ordered that no state could pass legislation that discriminated against homosexuals [37] . In India, so far no such progressive changes have taken place and the homosexuals remain victims of violence in different forms supported by the state and society. There is no explicit mention of homosexuality or homophilia in any of the statute books of India. A person cannot be prosecuted for being a homosexual or homophilic. But the sexual act of sodomy is a criminal offence. The major provisions of criminalisation of same-sex acts if found in Section 377 of theIndian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860.Section 377 of IPC reads:

Of Unnatural Offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute carnal intercourse necessary of the offence described in this section.

This provision of the I.P.C. is based on the centuries-old misconception that sodomy and homosexuality is one and the same thing. A homosexual man is viewed as a ‘type of person’ who has only anal intercourse with his partner. However, the emotional attachments, fantasies and affectionate and erotic desire are not been given due consideration. Thus, de jure, it is an attempt to criminalise sodomy while de facto it is an attempt to criminalise and stigmatise homosexuality. Hence conventionally homosexuality is bought as an offence under the IPC. In1987, Tarulata/Tarun Kumar underwent a female to male sex change operation and married Lila in 1989. Lila’s father filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court saying that it is a lesbian relationship and that the marriage be annulled. The petition contends that ‘Tarun Kumar possesses neither the male organ nor any natural mechanism of cohabitation, sexual intercourse and procreation of children’. Adoption of any unnatural mechanisms does not create manhood and as such Tarun Kumar is not a male. The petition called for criminal action underSec. 377 and the case is now pending in Gujarat High Court [38] .

In a judgment [39] the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a man had homosexual relations with a boy with the consent of the boy. The Supreme Court in 1983observed that: ‘the offence is one under Sec. 377, IPC which implies sexual perversity. No force appears to have been used neither omissions of permissive society nor the fact that in some countries homosexuality has ceased to be an offence, has influenced our thinking’. Considering the consent of the boy, theSupreme Court reduced the sentence from 3 years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. The Indian Constitution states that ‘there shall be no discrimination on the basis of the sex of a person’ which is a Fundamental Right of the citizens, ‘The term’sex’ although refers to the biological sex of a person as male or female, is broad enough to include sexual orientation also in the present context,Section 292 of IPC refers to obscenity and there is ample scope to include homosexuality under this section.

Despite the existence of alternative marriage systems and customs, the conventional definition of a family includes a man and a woman along with their resultant children. This definition is based on the notion of compulsory heterosexuality and homophobia. There is no legislation at present in India where same-sex couples could register as domestic partnership or civic contract unions. In a small village Angaar in Gujarat, among the Kutchi community a ritualistic transgender marriage is performed during the time of Holi festival. This wedding which is being celebrated every year, for the past 150 years is unusual because Ishaak, the bridegroom and Ishaak Ali the bride are both men.

A human rights activist.group ABVA filed a Public Interest Litigation in theDelhi High Court. The petition challenges the constitutional validity of Sec. 377of IPC and advocates supply of condoms to jail inmates, with a plea to restrain the authorities from segregating or isolating prisoners with homosexual orientations or those suffering from HIV/AIDS [40] . The petition urges that Sec. 377 is obsolete and must be struck down as beingunconstitutional on the grounds that Right for Privacy is part and parcel of theFundamental Rights of life and liberty under Article 21 of the constitution andrecognised by the 1948 International Convention on Human Rights; Sec. 377 is aviolation of Article 14 of the constitution since it discriminates persons on thebasis of their sexual orientation; having been enacted in 1860, Sec. 377 is archaic,absurd and implemented by the British in all its colonies, including India, butnow been repealed in England, the country of origin. The point of argument in this case is more from asexual health perspective and less from the gay right perspective.

In National Legal Services Authority v Union of India [41] , the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the right to equality and other fundamental rights required state recognition of hijras and transgenders as a third gender for the purposes of public health, welfare, reservations in education and employment, etc. [42] The Court observed that even though Section 377 was facially gender neutral, it had a disproportionate impact on certain communities. Sec. 377 begins with the words “whoever voluntarily..” which implies that both men and women can be imprisoned under this act.

RELIGIOUS STANDING OF SAME SEX MARRIAGES

There is enough Hindu literature available that speaks volumes about the stand of Hinduism on homesexuality, and as an extension on same sex marriages. Homosexuality has an ancient history in India. Ancient texts like Rig-Veda whichdates back around 1500 BC and sculptures and vestiges depict sexual actsbetween women as revelations of a feminine world where sexuality was based on pleasure and fertility. The description of homosexual acts in theKamasutra, sculptures of the temple at Khajuraho, the character of ‘Sikhandi’ in Mahabharata, evidences ofsodomy in the Tantric rituals are some historical evidences of same-sexrelationships. However, these experiences started losing their significance with the advent ofVedic Brahmanism and, later on, of British Colonialism. The Manusmriti provides harsh punishments for females having sexual relations with a girl, proving the existance of such relationsduring the period. However, both sexual systems coexisted, despite fluctuations in relative repression andfreedom, until British Colonialism when the destruction of images of homosexualexpression and sexual expression in general became more systematic and blatant.

Islamic Shari’ah law is extracted from both the Qur’an and Muhammad’s Sunnah. Homosexuality under this law, is not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God.In the case of homosexuality, how it is dealt with differs between the four mainline schools of Sunni jurisprudence today, but what they all agree upon is that homosexuality is worthy of a severe penalty.Muhammad himself had stated, “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” He even went so far as to condemn the “appearance” of homosexuality, when he cursed effeminate men and masculine women and ordered his followers to “Turn them out of your houses.” This ruling on homosexuals was naturally adopted by his later successors. Even by moderate Muslims homosexuality is seen as something that is vile and unacceptable.

Christianity

There has been a great debate going on in the Christian world regarding the position of homosexuality. One line condemns the idea as a whole, whereas the other line says homosexuals should be accepted so that they can find a higher calling in God and change their ways. The split in thought has occured after modern Western nations have started legalising homosexuality. However, traditionally, homosexuality has been condemned by Christianity.

ISSUES & CHALLENGES OF SAME SEX MARRIAGES

The issue of homosexual conduct to this fore in recent legal and political debate for three main reasons, which are as follows [43] :

(i) Liberalisation of the law (in the UK, by the Sexual Offences Act, 1967 as amended in 2000 and some other countries by a similar legislation) has brought with it a change in social attitudes, so that the stigma attached to the homosexuality has to a greater extent disappeared.

(ii) Campaigns for lesbian and gay rights especially in the US have taken on an increasingly radical character, arguing for an end to all forms of discrimination against homosexuality, and even for the legalisation of same sex marriages.

(iii) The outbreak of HIV/AIDS which has been spread in the western countries to a great extent by homosexual activity between males, has led to accusations and counter-accusations, often of a bitter kind on Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as Canada in allowing same sex marriages.

Same sex acts are punishable by death in nine countries around the world.Present legal status of same sex marriage in India Homosexual intercourse was a criminal offence in India until 2009 under Section 377 of the Penal Code. This made it an offence for a person to voluntarily have carnal intercourse against the order of nature. Whilst convictions under this section were rare, with no convictions at all for homosexual intercourse in the twenty years to 2009, Human Rights Watch have said that the law was used to harass, HIV/AIDS prevention activists, as well as sex workers, men who have sex with men, and other LGBT groups. The group documents arrests in Lucknow of four men in 2006 and another four in 2001. The People Union for Civil Liberties has published two reports of the rights violations faced by sexual minorities and, in particular, transsexuals in India.

Apart from the harsh legal scenario, homosexuals face social stigma as well. Same sex marriages are still unimaginable as any instance ofsexual relations between a couple of the same sex draws hatred and disgust. There is an entrenched system of dowry in the Indian culture to protect which the system of same sex marriages are discouraged. If both parties are male, or, if both parties are females, who would pay dowry to whom will be a big question. Moreover, same sex relations are considered to be unnatural or against the course of nature. The Indian society is steeped in tradition and this reflects on the legal system as regards inter-personal relationships. Intimacy of any sort is not approved of unless it is legitimized in the form of marriage where socially approved sexual access takes place.

The social order in our Country is religion based which views procreation as an obligation for the execution of various religious ceremonies.

Additionally our society is very community oriented and individualism is not encouraged in the least, any expression of homosexuality is seen as an attempt to renounce tradition and promote individualism, thereby posing a threat to the order in Indian society. It is opined that if homosexual marriages are legalized it will destroy the concept of a traditional family and the sanctity of marriage will be lost.It must not be forgotten that the Indian society is patriarchal in nature and the fact that certain women and men have different choices, which is not sanctioned by the ‘order’, frightens them in a way

A TIME FOR CHANGE

Gay and lesbian rights activists from various parts of the countries were protesting for their rights and for decriminalizing the homosexual conduct. There is a big debate in our country too- whether it should be legalized or not.

Arguments against Decrimilisation of Homosexuality [44]

This is more of a religious debate than a political one. A large number of people, especially in India are opposing it, as they say, it is unnatural, uncouth and immoral.  Those people who are opposing it their arguments are based on religious and natural law belief. Some people don’t consider them as natural because they do not produce kids. Is it sacred if gay marriage is allowed God created Adam and Eve, we never find statements in Genesis about Adam and Steve. Why break God’s law by allowing gay marriage If nature wanted same-sex people to live together, there would only be one sex rather than different sexes. Our society is based on opposite sex marriage. If gay marriage is OK, then why can’t I marry my cousin, or my sister, or my cat. Don’t I have the same rights as gays or are they now above the rest of us. Don’t forget that the law is specific on this. It was created to keep the fabric of society together. It goes against the laws of the land that have been used for hundreds of years and were based on the basis of the commandments.

Arguments in favour ofDecriminalising Homosexuality [45]

(1)  It violates right to liberty guaranteed under Article-21 of the Indian Constitution which covers private consensual sexual relations. The fundamental right to liberty (under Article-21) prohibits the state from interfering with the private personal activities of the individual. The concept of privacy is so broad that no comprehensive and all encompassing definition of the term can be given. In the case National Coalition For Gay AndLesbian Equality V. Ministry of Justice [46] , the South African court held that Privacy recognizes that we all have a right to a sphere of private intimacy and autonomy which allows us to establish and nurture human relationships without interference from the outside community. Even at the international level, the right to privacy has been recognized in the favour of lesbians and a gay man.

(2)  Criminalization of homosexual conduct is unreasonable and arbitrary. Infringement of, the right to equal protection before law requires the determination of whether there is a rational and objective basis to the classification introduced. There should be a just and reasonable nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Section-377 of IPC, its legislative objective is to criminalize all the sexual activities which are against the order of nature, thus punishing the unnatural sex. Section-377 assumes that natural sexual act is that which is performed for procreation. Hence, it thereby labels all forms of non-procreative sexual act as unnatural. This gives a very narrow view to the distinction between the procreative and non-procreative sexual act. Hence, the legislative intent of creating a public code of sexual morality has no rational nexus with the classification created. Further, the very object of the section is vague, unreasonable, constitutes  discriminationarbitrary and based up on the stereotyped notion that sex is only for procreation. Now if this presumption is accepted is correct then, what justifies the policies of family planning and the use of the contraceptive devices.

(3) Section-377 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation which is forbidden under Article-15 of the Constitution. Article-15 prohibits discrimination on several grounds, which includes Sex. By prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, article-15 establishes that there is no standard behavioral pattern attached to the gender. The prohibition on non-procreative sexual acts imposed by section-377 prescribes traditional sexual relations upon men and women. In so doing the provision discriminates against the homosexuals on the basis of the constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

(4). Section-377 violates the enjoyment of civil laws and gay men and lesbians and leads to other adverse effects: Section-292 of IPC punishes Obscenity; the current definition of obscenity can lead it to incriminate the gay and lesbian writings. As male homosexuality is a criminal offence, the presumption is that it is something depraved and can corrupt the minds and bodies of the persons. In the prevailing atmosphere any writing about the lesbians and the gay men can be criminalized, as homosexuality is treated as something immoral or depraved.

The universal law of Human Rights states that social norms, tradition, custom or culture cannot be used to curb a person from asserting his fundamental and constitutional rights. If we were to accept the justification, given tous by cultural views, public policy and societal values, which are used to restrict a person’s right then there would have been no progressive legislation enacted in our Country. Sati, dowry, child marriage and infanticides are practices derived from cultural belief, but the Government still took steps to prevent them.On the basis of the whole discussion on the aspect of same sex marriage that is should it be legalized or not. This is more of a religious debate then a political one. Homosexuality is not an offence, it is just a way of pursuit of happiness, a way to achieve sexual happiness or desire. There is absolutely no reason, apart from blind prejudice, which prevents two gay people going through a civil ceremony which will give them the rights and securities which heterosexual couples enjoy. . Aren’t we living in an age which respects the individual’s right to choose Isn’t Indiasupposed to be the land of the free In our society people have branded homosexuals as queer. Yet homosexuality is not new nor is it against the Indian culture, it has always existed and with much lesser prosecution, that under Section-377 of the IPC, which is based on British Offences against the Persons Act.

What should be the right approach to deal with same sex marriages, the issues are quite vast and complex. However, the desirability and feasibility of such an approach remain to be ascertained. In any event there is a growing conviction that our present method of criminalizing the same sex sexual activity neither helps the homosexuals nor protects the society in general. We thus need to legitimate same sex marriages in order to move forward in the direction of human rights.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Puja Mondal, “Essay on Marriage: Meaning, Functions and Forms,” available at http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/marriage/essay-on-marriage-meaning-functions-and-forms/8592 (last accessed on August 19, 2015 at 8:37 P.M.)
• SherifGirgis, Robert P. George, et al , “What Is Marriage?,” Vol. 34, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy , 246
• AnuradhaParasar, “Homosexuality In India- The Invisible Conflict,” available at http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in/library/articles/legal%20education/Homosexuality%20in%20India%20-%20The%20invisible%20conflict.pdf (last accessed at August 20, 2015)
• VidhanMaheshwari, “Same Sex Marriage: Is It The Time For Legal Recognition,” available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/semar.htm (last accessed on August 20, 2015 at 2:32 A.M.)
• The Hindu Archives, available at http://www.thehindu.com/ (last accessed at 01.10.2015 at 8:43p.m.)

[1] Puja Mondal, “Essay on Marriage: Meaning, Functions and Forms,” available at http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/marriage/essay-on-marriage-meaning-functions-and-forms/8592 (last accessed on August 19, 2015 at 8:37 P.M.)

[9] SherifGirgis, Robert P. George, et al , “What Is Marriage?,” Vol. 34, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy , 246

[12] Prof.AnisaShaikh, “Right To Marry Under Right To Life: Panoramic View,” available at http://www.legalindia.com/right-to-marry-under-right-to-life-panoramic-view (last modified at January 12, 2012)

[13] Supra note 12

[16] AIR 1999 SC 495

[17] AnuragGupta,”Problems attached to Inter Caste Marriage,” available at http://blogs.matrimonialsindia.com/2010/04/14/problems-attached-to-inter-caste-marriage (last accessed at 1.10.15)

[21] Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2006 SC 2522

[22] RukminiS.,”Just 5% of Indian marriages are inter-caste: survey,” TheHindu , November 13, 2014

[23] “LGBT Rights Around The World #LGBT,” available at http://infographicworld.com/lgbt-rights-around-world/ (last accessed at 1.10.15)

[24] 576 U.S. 2015

[25] 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971)

[26] “Same-sex marriage in the United States,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States (last modified on 3 October 2015, at 01:53)

[27] “Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom ( last modified on 20 September 2015, at 21:09)

[31] “Same-sex marriage in South Africa,” available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_South_Africa ( last modified on 16 July 2015, at 04:13a.m.)

[32] [2005] ZACC 19

[33] Supra note 19

[36] “Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia,” available at | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia (last modified on 3 October 2015, at 04:24)

[37] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

[38] AnuradhaParasar, “Homosexuality In India- The Invisible Conflict,” available at http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in/library/articles/legal%20education/Homosexuality%20in%20India%20-%20The%20invisible%20conflict.pdf (last accessed at August 20, 2015)

[39] FazalRab Vs State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 323

[40] S upra note (7)

[41] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 400 of 2012 (‘NALSA’)

[42] ChintanChandrachud,”Limiting the impact of Section 377,” The Hindu ,December 12, 2014

[43] VidhanMaheshwari, “Same Sex Marriage: Is It The Time For Legal Recognition,” available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/semar.htm (last accessed on August 20, 2015 at 2:32 A.M.)

[44] Supra note 43

[45] Supra note 44

[46] (1998) (6) BCLR 726

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Smt. indrakali vs. ravi bhan prasad (2012), sampath kumar vs. enforcement officer madras , motor vehicle act, 1988, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

International Opportunities in Contract Drafting

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

Same-Sex Marriage in India: Legal Challenges, Societal Impact, and Government’s Stand | Sociology Optional for UPSC Civil Services Examination | Triumph IAS

Table of Contents

Same-Sex Marriage in India

(relevant for sociology optional for civil services examination), paper 1: social stratification of gender, marriage and its forms paper 2: vision and social change in india, law and social change.

The Supreme Court on 17.10.2023 refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India saying that it is a matter for the legislature to decide. However, all the judges on the bench agreed that the Union of India, as per its earlier statement, shall constitute a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in queer union, without legal recognition of their relationship as a “marriage”.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality as a way of life refers to individuals who have ‘come out’ and made associations with others of similar sexual tastes a key part of their lives.

Usually this involves belonging to subcultures in which same-sex activities are integrated into a distinct lifestyle. Such communities offer provide the possibility of collective political action to advance the rights and interests lesbians and gay men.

Government’s Stand Same Sex Marriage

• “Legislative understanding of marriage in the Indian statutory and personal law regime” only includes such unions existing between “biological” men and women.
• The government also argued that interfering with this prevailing societal understanding of marriage “would cause a complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws in the country and in accepted societal values.”

Argument In Favour of Same Sex Marriage

• Fundamentals rights : The right to legal recognition of same sex marriage upholds the fundamental rights of same sex couple i.e. their constitutional rights of equality and non discrimination and right to live life with dignity.
• Next logical step: after declaration of right to privacy as fundamental right in Puttaswammy Case and decriminalisation of homosexual relation, granting them civil and marriage rights is next logical step to uphold constitutional morality.
• Fluid identity of gender : biological gender is not absolute. Gender is more complex then only biological binary.
• Other civil and basic rights : legalising same sex marriage grants many other right like social security benefits, pension, parental rights , renting etc.
• Inclusivity and Diversity : it will create a more equal society and reduce stress and anxiety in such couple.

Argument Against Same Sex Marriage :

• Against societal values : the traditional definition of marriage involves heterosexual union. Homosexual marriage can create social havoc and fall of cultural values.
• Issue of adoption and surrogate kid: the kid associated with homosexual parents can face social stigma , discrimination and exclusion. It can hamper both material and emotional well being of kids.
• Religious sanctions : most of the religion see homosexuality as sin.
• State’s right : the right to regulate marriage and related aspects is legitimate right of government.
• Parliamentary legislation : the issue of same-sex marriage is a matter of legislative policy and that it is up to Parliament to decide whether or not to legalise it.
• Social acceptance : apart from government opposition overall society is not evolved to accept homosexual marriage. It is still considered as physical and metal disorder, which need treatment. It will create tension in social fabric.
• Awareness: It is highly required that people in society are made aware and sensitised about the equal right of LGBTQ+ community.
• Dialogue : There should be dialogue among religious leaders and LGBTQ+ community representative to clear misconception among traditional leaders about the community.

Even as one recognises that there exist some sound critiques of the institution of marriage within the LGBTQ+ community itself, the step towards the legal recognition of same-sex marriages and the larger campaign for marriage equality (as witnessed) would go a long way in opening societal horizons towards alternative ways of living together that are not bound by heteropatriarchal norms and standards.

Societal Collapse :-

It is the fall of complex human society characterized by the loss of cultural identity and of socio-economic complexity ( failure of state and the rise of violence)

Related Blogs …

To master these intricacies and fare well in the Sociology Optional Syllabus, aspiring sociologists might benefit from guidance by the Best Sociology Optional Teacher and participation in the Best Sociology Optional Coaching. These avenues provide comprehensive assistance, ensuring a solid understanding of sociology’s diverse methodologies and techniques.

Same-Sex Marriage, LGBTQ+ Rights, Legalization, Government’s Stand, Fundamental Rights, Societal Values, Adoption, Religious Sanctions, Dialogue, Sociological Analysis, Gender Socialization, Queer Theory, Societal Collapse, Same-Sex Marriage

Why Vikash Ranjan’s Classes for Sociology?

Proper guidance and assistance are required to learn the skill of interlinking current happenings with the conventional topics. VIKASH RANJAN SIR at TRIUMPH IAS guides students according to the Recent Trends of UPSC, making him the Best Sociology Teacher for Sociology Optional UPSC.

At Triumph IAS, the Best Sociology Optional Coaching platform, we not only provide the best study material and applied classes for Sociology for IAS but also conduct regular assignments and class tests to assess candidates’ writing skills and understanding of the subject.

Choose T he Best Sociology Optional Teacher for IAS Preparation?

At the beginning of the journey for Civil Services Examination preparation, many students face a pivotal decision – selecting their optional subject. Questions such as “ which optional subject is the best? ” and “ which optional subject is the most scoring? ” frequently come to mind. Choosing the right optional subject, like choosing the best sociology optional teacher , is a subjective yet vital step that requires a thoughtful decision based on facts. A misstep in this crucial decision can indeed prove disastrous.

Ever since the exam pattern was revamped in 2013, the UPSC has eliminated the need for a second optional subject. Now, candidates have to choose only one optional subject for the UPSC Mains , which has two papers of 250 marks each. One of the compelling choices for many has been the sociology optional. However, it’s strongly advised to decide on your optional subject for mains well ahead of time to get sufficient time to complete the syllabus. After all, most students score similarly in General Studies Papers; it’s the score in the optional subject & essay that contributes significantly to the final selection.

“ A sound strategy does not rely solely on the popular Opinion of toppers or famous YouTubers cum teachers. ”

It requires understanding one’s ability, interest, and the relevance of the subject, not just for the exam but also for life in general. Hence, when selecting the best sociology teacher, one must consider the usefulness of sociology optional coaching in General Studies, Essay, and Personality Test.

The choice of the optional subject should be based on objective criteria, such as the nature, scope, and size of the syllabus, uniformity and stability in the question pattern, relevance of the syllabic content in daily life in society, and the availability of study material and guidance. For example, choosing the best sociology optional coaching can ensure access to top-quality study materials and experienced teachers. Always remember, the approach of the UPSC optional subject differs from your academic studies of subjects. Therefore, before settling for sociology optional , you need to analyze the syllabus, previous years’ pattern, subject requirements (be it ideal, visionary, numerical, conceptual theoretical), and your comfort level with the subject.

This decision marks a critical point in your UPSC – CSE journey , potentially determining your success in a career in IAS/Civil Services. Therefore, it’s crucial to choose wisely, whether it’s the optional subject or the best sociology optional teacher . Always base your decision on accurate facts, and never let your emotional biases guide your choices. After all, the search for the best sociology optional coaching is about finding the perfect fit for your unique academic needs and aspirations.

Follow us :

🔎 https://www.instagram.com/triumphias

🔎 www.triumphias.com

🔎https://www.youtube.com/c/TriumphIAS

https://t.me/VikashRanjanSociology

Find More Blogs

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Same Sex Marriage

Definition of same sex marriage, same sex marriage debate, same sex marriage pros and cons, states with same sex marriage.

Same Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court

Good ridge v department of public health, windsor v united states, hollingsworth v perry, same sex marriage statistics, civil unions and domestic partnerships, civil union, domestic partnership, related legal terms and issues.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Cultural ideals of marriage and sexual partnership

Religious and secular expectations of marriage and sexuality.

• International
• United States
• The future of same-sex marriage
• Same-sex marriage around the world

same-sex marriage

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Pew Research Center - How people around the world view same-sex marriage
• Council on Foreign Relations - Marriage Equality: Global Comparisons
• LiveScience - Same sex marriage
• same-sex marriage - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

same-sex marriage , the practice of marriage between two men or between two women. Although same-sex marriage has been regulated through law, religion, and custom in most countries of the world, the legal and social responses have ranged from celebration on the one hand to criminalization on the other.

Some scholars, most notably the Yale professor and historian John Boswell (1947–94), have argued that same-sex unions were recognized by the Roman Catholic Church in medieval Europe, although others have disputed this claim. Scholars and the general public became increasingly interested in the issue during the late 20th century, a period when attitudes toward homosexuality and laws regulating homosexual behaviour were liberalized, particularly in western Europe and the United States.

The issue of same-sex marriage frequently sparked emotional and political clashes between supporters and opponents. By the early 21st century, several jurisdictions, both at the national and subnational levels, had legalized same-sex marriage; in other jurisdictions, constitutional measures were adopted to prevent same-sex marriages from being sanctioned, or laws were enacted that refused to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere. That the same act was evaluated so differently by various groups indicates its importance as a social issue in the early 21st century; it also demonstrates the extent to which cultural diversity persisted both within and among countries. For tables on same-sex marriage around the world, in the United States, and in Australia, see below .

Perhaps the earliest systematic analyses of marriage and kinship were conducted by the Swiss legal historian Johann Jakob Bachofen (1861) and the American ethnologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1871); by the mid-20th century an enormous variety of marriage and sexual customs across cultures had been documented by such scholars. Notably, they found that most cultures expressed an ideal form of marriage and an ideal set of marriage partners, while also practicing flexibility in the application of those ideals.

Among the more common forms so documented were common-law marriage ; morganatic marriage , in which titles and property do not pass to children; exchange marriage , in which a sister and a brother from one family marry a brother and a sister from another; and group marriages based on polygyny (co-wives) or polyandry (co-husbands). Ideal matches have included those between cross-cousins , between parallel cousins, to a group of sisters (in polygyny) or brothers (in polyandry), or between different age sets . In many cultures the exchange of some form of surety, such as bride service, bridewealth , or dowry , has been a traditional part of the marriage contract.

Cultures that openly accepted homosexuality, of which there were many, generally had nonmarital categories of partnership through which such bonds could be expressed and socially regulated. Conversely, other cultures essentially denied the existence of same-sex intimacy, or at least deemed it an unseemly topic for discussion of any sort.

Over time the historical and traditional cultures originally recorded by the likes of Bachofen and Morgan slowly succumbed to the homogenization imposed by colonialism. Although a multiplicity of marriage practices once existed, conquering nations typically forced local cultures to conform to colonial belief and administrative systems. Whether Egyptian, Vijayanagaran, Roman, Ottoman, Mongol, Chinese, European, or other, empires have long fostered (or, in some cases, imposed) the widespread adoption of a relatively small number of religious and legal systems. By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the perspectives of one or more of the world religions— Buddhism , Hinduism , Judaism , Islam , and Christianity —and their associated civil practices were often invoked during national discussions of same-sex marriage.

Perhaps because systems of religion and systems of civil authority often reflect and support each other, the countries that had reached consensus on the issue by the early 2000s tended to have a single dominant religious affiliation across the population; many such places had a single, state-sponsored religion. This was the case in both Iran, where a strong Muslim theocracy had criminalized same-sex intimacy, and Denmark , where the findings of a conference of Evangelical Lutheran bishops (representing the state religion) had helped smooth the way for the first national recognition of same-sex relationships through registered partnerships. In other cases, the cultural homogeneity supported by the dominant religion did not result in the application of doctrine to the civic realm but may nonetheless have fostered a smoother series of discussions among the citizenry: Belgium and Spain had legalized same-sex marriage, for instance, despite official opposition from their predominant religious institution, the Roman Catholic Church.

The existence of religious pluralities within a country seems to have had a less determinate effect on the outcome of same-sex marriage debates. In some such countries, including the United States , consensus on this issue was difficult to reach. On the other hand, the Netherlands —the first country to grant equal marriage rights to same-sex couples (2001)—was religiously diverse , as was Canada , which did so in 2005.

Most of the world religions have at some points in their histories opposed same-sex marriage for one or more of the following stated reasons: homosexual acts violate natural law or divine intentions and are therefore immoral; passages in sacred texts condemn homosexual acts; and religious tradition recognizes only the marriage of one man and one woman as valid. In the early 21st century, however, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism all spoke with more than one voice on this issue. Orthodox Judaism opposed same-sex marriage, while the Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative traditions allowed for it. Most Christian denominations opposed it, while the United Church of Christ , the United Church of Canada , and the Religious Society of Friends ( Quakers ) took a more favourable stand or allowed individual churches autonomy in the matter. The Unitarian Universalist churches and the gay-oriented Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches fully accepted same-sex marriage. Hinduism , without a sole leader or hierarchy , allowed some Hindus to accept the practice while others were virulently opposed. The three major schools of Buddhism —Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana—stressed the attainment of enlightenment as a basic theme; most Buddhist literature therefore viewed all marriage as a choice between the two individuals involved.

Sexuality is but one of many areas where religious and civic authority interact; definitions of the purpose of marriage is another. In one view, the purpose of marriage is to ensure successful procreation and child rearing. In another, marriage provides a—and perhaps “the”—fundamental building block of stable communities , with procreation as an incidental by-product. A third perspective holds that marriage is an instrument of societal domination and so is not desirable. A fourth is that relationships between consenting adults should not be regulated by the government. Although most religions subscribe to just one of these beliefs, it is not uncommon for two or more viewpoints to coexist within a given society.

Proponents of the first view believe that the primary goal of marriage is to provide a relatively uniform social institution through which to produce and raise children. In their view, because male and female are both necessary for procreation, the privileges of marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. In other words, partnerships involving sexual intimacy should have at least a notional potential for procreation. From this perspective, the movement to legally recognize same-sex marriage is a misguided attempt to deny the social, moral , and biological distinctions that foster the continued existence of society and so should be discouraged.

Because this view considers biological reproduction a sort of social obligation, its advocates tended to frame individuals’ legal and moral commitment to one another as a matter of genetic relatedness. In cases of inheritance or custody, for instance, they generally defined the parents’ legal duties to their biological children differently than those to their stepchildren. Among groups who feel strongly that same-sex marriage is problematic , there is also a tendency for the legal relationships of spouses, parents, and children to converge. Typically, these societies provide for the automatic inheritance of property between spouses, and between parents and children, and allow these close kin to co-own property without joint ownership contracts. In addition, such societies often allow close kin a variety of automatic privileges such as sponsoring immigration visas or making medical decisions for one another; for those with whom one shares no close kin relationship, these privileges typically require legal interventions. Such legal circumventions are usually more difficult for, and in some cases even prohibited to, same-sex couples.

In contrast to the procreative model of marriage, advocates of the legalization of same-sex marriage generally believed that committed partnerships involving sexual intimacy are valuable because they draw people together to a singular degree and in singular ways. In this view, such relationships are intrinsically worthy while also quite distinct from (though not incompatible with) activities associated with the bearing or raising of children. Sexual partnerships are one of a number of factors that bond adults together into stable household units. These households, in turn, form the foundation of a productive society—a society in which, albeit incidentally, children, elders, and others who may be relatively powerless are likely to be protected.

From this perspective, the devaluation of same-sex intimacy is immoral because it constitutes arbitrary and irrational discrimination , thereby damaging the community . Most same-sex marriage advocates further held that international human rights legislation provided a universal franchise to equal treatment under the law. Thus, prohibiting a specific group from the full rights of marriage was illegally discriminatory. For advocates of the community-benefit perspective, all the legal perquisites associated with heterosexual marriage should be available to any committed couple.

In contrast to these positions, self-identified “queer” theorists and activists sought to deconstruct the paired oppositional categories common in discussions of biology, gender, and sexuality (e.g., male-female, man-woman, gay-straight) and to replace these with categories or continua that they believed better reflect the actual practices of humanity. Queer advocates contended that marriage is an institution of “hetero-normality” that forces individuals into ill-fitting cultural categories and demonizes those who refuse to accept those categories. For these reasons, they maintained that consensual intimacy between adults should not be regulated and that marriage should be disestablished as a cultural institution.

A fourth view, libertarianism , had different premises from queer theory but somewhat similar ramifications; it proposed that government powers should be strictly limited, generally to the tasks of maintaining civil order, infrastructure , and defense. For libertarians, marriage legislation of any sort—either the legalization or the prohibition of same-sex marriage—fell outside of the role of government and was unacceptable. As a result, many libertarians believed that marriage should be “privatized” (i.e., removed from government regulation) and that citizens should be able to form partnerships of their choosing.

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit for the Philippines and all things Filipino!

What is your stand in Same-Sex Marriage?

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

How Catholics around the world see same-sex marriage, homosexuality

Pope Francis made news recently by voicing his support for same-sex civil unions – legal arrangements that give gay and lesbian couples many of the same rights as married opposite-sex couples. The statement struck many observers as a shift for the Vatican – which in 2003 came out against any “legal recognition of homosexual unions” – even as Francis did not change his long-standing opposition to gay marriage .

Around the world, Catholics vary in their support for same-sex marriage and their acceptance of homosexuality in general, according to Pew Research Center surveys conducted in recent years. (The Center does not have recent survey data on views about civil unions.)

In the United States, about six-in-ten Catholics (61%) said in a 2019 survey that they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry. Same-sex marriage became legal across the U.S. following a Supreme Court ruling in 2015.

In Western Europe, large majorities of Catholics said in 2017 that they support legal same-sex marriage. That was the case in the Netherlands (92%), the United Kingdom (78%), France (74%) and Germany (70%).

In the wake of Pope Francis’ recent comment about same-sex civil unions, Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand what Catholics around the world think about legal recognition for same-sex couples and homosexuality in general. The data in this analysis comes from four different Pew Research Center surveys.

The views of Catholics in Western Europe about same-sex marriage come from a phone survey of 15 countries conducted from April to August 2017. Catholic samples were large enough for analysis in 11 of these countries: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The total sample size of Catholics across these countries was 10,027. Here are  the questions used , along with responses, and the survey’s  methodology . The Center’s survey of Slovakia – including 954 Catholic respondents – was fielded alongside the countries in Western Europe.

The views of Catholics in Central and Eastern Europe about same-sex marriage come from a survey conducted from June 2015 to July 2016 through face-to-face interviews in 18 countries. Catholic samples were large enough for analysis in nine of these countries: Belarus, Bosnia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine. The total sample size of Catholics across these countries was 6,375. Here are  the questions used , along with responses, and the survey’s  methodology .

The views of Catholics in the United States about same-sex marriage come from a phone survey conducted March 20 to 25, 2019. The sample size in this survey was 288 Catholics. Here are  the questions used , along with responses, and the survey’s  methodology .

Responses about whether society should be accepting of homosexuality came from a global survey conducted from May 13 to Aug. 14, 2019, across 22 of 34 countries where Catholic samples were large enough for analysis: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. The total sample size of Catholics across these countries was 10,394 of 24,444 respondents. The term “homosexuality,” while sometimes considered anachronistic in the current era, is the most applicable and easily translatable term to use when asking this question across societies and languages and has been used in other cross-national studies, including the World Values Survey . Here are  the questions used , along with responses, and the survey’s  methodology .

Same-sex marriage is legal in most of the Western European countries surveyed. In Switzerland and Italy – which allow civil unions but not marriage for gay couples – 76% and 57% of Catholics, respectively, said in 2017 that they support gay marriage.

On the other hand, in almost all of the Central and Eastern European countries surveyed by the Center in 2015 and 2016 , most Catholics oppose same-sex marriage. Nine-in-ten Catholics in Ukraine said same-sex marriage should be illegal, as did 66% of Catholics in Hungary and 62% of Catholics in Poland. Most nations in Central and Eastern Europe do not allow legal same-sex unions of any kind.

When it comes to Catholics’ views about homosexuality in general, a global survey conducted in 2019 also paints a mixed picture. (While the survey covered 34 countries, samples of Catholics were large enough to analyze in 22 of those countries.)

In the Americas, majorities of Catholics in several countries said society should be accepting of homosexuality. That was the case in Canada, where almost nine-in-ten Catholics (87%) took this view, as well as in Argentina (80%), the U.S. (76%), Mexico (72%) and Brazil (71%). Other countries around the world where most Catholics said society should be accepting of homosexuality included Spain (91%), Australia (81%), the Philippines (80%) and South Africa (62%).

In Eastern Europe, acceptance was weaker, with roughly half or fewer of Catholics saying that homosexuality should be accepted by society in Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania. (In Lithuania, however, 27% of Catholics did not respond to the question.)

In some of the other surveyed countries, including in Africa and the Middle East, large majorities of Catholics said homosexuality should not be accepted by society. That was the case in Nigeria (91%), Lebanon (84%) and Kenya (80%).

The global survey found that Catholics within many countries generally are as accepting as their non-Catholic compatriots of homosexuality. This is not true in all countries, though. In Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Mexico and the Philippines, Catholics are somewhat more likely than non-Catholics to say that homosexuality should be accepted by society. And in Poland, Catholics are less likely than non-Catholics to say homosexuality should be accepted by society.

The Catholic Church teaches that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and calls on gay people to practice “chastity,” though it also calls on Catholics to treat gay men and women with “respect, compassion and sensitivity.”

Jeff Diamant is a senior writer/editor focusing on religion at Pew Research Center .

Most Popular

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center