Pope (2004) says the Catholic Church has been the most consistent and outspoken party in condemning proposals by countries and regions around the world to recognize same-sex marriage legally. According to them, marriage in this context refers to the exclusive and consensual union of spouses sanctioned by the state, which only terminated through a legal divorce. Their report focussed on a thorough analysis and critique of the Church’s moral arguments against same-sex marriage, as indicated in the documents issued by the pope and Episcopal magisterium. They argue that although the Church actively supports the strengthening of the marriage institution, it must not issue derogatory statements against gay people. The Church’s adamant stand against same-sex marriage demeans the value of those in committed gay partnerships and ignores their needs for social justice as well as the rights for gays and their families. The authors say at the time of their report, about one-fourth of the 600,000 same-sex couples staying together in the US raised children. Gay people often live in the same houses and jointly raise children. As such, they need healthcare insurance just like the rest. Similar to heterosexuals, homosexual partners also have different sexual behaviours and beliefs in the lifelong interpersonal commitment to marriage. As such, they settle in and commit to relationships with diverse practical interdependencies just like heterosexuals. Gay couples contribute to their neighbourhoods and generally aspire to become responsible members of society. Gay people are a significant and productive part of the community and, cohabiting partners merit legal recognition (Lopez, 2015).
In his book titled, ”Is It Wrong to Discriminate based on Homosexuality?”, Jordan (1995) argue that although heterosexual unions meet the threshold for state recognition in marriage, it is still not clear whether homosexual partners should receive similar credit. He discusses two theories to debate the marriage rights for homosexual couples. The approaches include the parity thesis and difference thesis, which support and conflict the rights to marriage for same-sex couples, respectively. Regarding the parity thesis, the author says homosexual practices between two consenting adults inflict harm on no one. And, respecting people’s privacy and choices in harmless sexual acts improves individual freedom, which ought to be maximized. Discriminating gay people based on their homosexuality denies those personal choices and privacy that curtails individual liberties. Allowing same-sex marriage does not, in any way, force heterosexuals to engage in homosexual acts. Since homosexuality brings pleasure to gay people and does not harm anyone, there is no moral credit for denying same-sex unions. Rejecting the proposals to sanction same-sex marriage will not make gays people vanish. Homosexual people will remain a part of society regardless of whether they get legal recognition or not. Thus, rejecting same-sex marriage only blocks that proportion of the community from fulfilling the dream of a lifelong commitment to a loving partner, which is shared by a majority of the community (Wyers, 1987). Sanctioning same-sex marriage will go a long way in disbanding the social stigma that presents same-sex partners as pervasive and immoral. Similar to heterosexuals, homosexual couples have common life goals and strive to be happy and create a better society. Therefore, denying them the right to marry as heterosexual partners is not only morally wrong but also contributes to social injustice (Mortensen, 2020).