According to the Equality Network (2013), there should be legal recognition for same-sex marriage and, all couples should be allowed to marry regardless of their gender. In a past survey of LGBT persons, 85% supported the need for that change as 53% were positive that legalizing same-sex marriage should be accorded top priority. The report discusses the various reasons for its stance on key themes. Foremost, it addresses the issue of civil partnership, saying it seeks to prevent same-sex partners from marriage. Granting same-sex couples civil partnership does not amount to marriage; instead, it constitutes inequality. The report cites examples of discriminatory situations whereby many same-sex couples have been denied similar rights and treatments to married heterosexual partners. Such cases included gay couples referred to as ”not really married,” hospitals declining to recognize civil partners as next of kin. Such discriminatory treatments are partly due to the prejudice of civil partnerships on marriage. Civil partnership promotes segregation against same-sex couples, which often exhibits in the forms of bullying and hate crimes. Discrimination affects not only couples but also their children. The report estimates that about 20% of same-sex couples have kids, either from past mixed-sex relationships, adoption, or assisted conception.
Further, it points out that multiple studies show kids do as well with two same-sex parents as with two opposite-sex parents. Introducing same-sex marriage would help with reducing such kinds of prejudice by recognizing homosexual people and other same-sex couples as equal members of society. That will consequently promote the self-esteem, safety, health, and overall wellbeing of same-sex partners (Van Der Geest, 1993).
It is wrong for any religious or humanist to solemnize the relationships between same-sex couples. Freedom of religion advocates respecting the rights of the institutions that wish to celebrate same-sex unions as well as the rights of the partners that want religious bodies to approve same-sex marriage. It also emphasizes respecting the rights of those religious organizations that disapprove of same-sex marriage and refuses to perform them. However, no religious institution bears the right to impose its views regarding same-sex marriage on the other. Marriage predates any religious belief, and therefore, no religion should possess a veto over marriage arrangements. While the definitions and impacts of marriage have enormously changed over the past years, introducing same-sex marriage will not in any way, alter the legal propositions for state-sanctioned mixed-sex unions (Nussbaum, 2009). Same-sex marriage has continued to garner strong support, especially among the young population. In terms of public opinion, many political parties across the globe are advocating the introduction of same-sex marriage. For example, in their 2011 Holyrood manifestos, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Green Party included pledges to enact laws that allow same-sex marriage (Equality Network, 2013). Introducing same-sex marriage will promote not only equality but also the respect for human rights across the world. Besides, there is no evidence from the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage to suggest the negative consequences of those unions. In a past study that sought to determine the public health implications of same-sex marriage, Buffie (2011) found out that the social and legal recognition of same-sex marriage positively impacts the health status and overall wellbeing of the community.
Despite the above propositions of legal recognition for gay marriage, multiple counter-arguments reject same-sex unions. In ”What’s Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage,” Kennedy & Newcombe (2004) strive to prove that homosexuality and marriage between gay couples are morally wrong based on the Scriptures, past case studies, and statistics. They offer a Christian response to the issue of same-sex marriage, asserting that the Bible clearly says marriage is between a man and a woman, and homosexuality is a sinful act. The authors argue that although today’s culture stipulates, it is politically incorrect to condemn homosexuality, culture is not responsible for determining what is wrong and right. In their opinions, only one authority, which is God can do that and, it is up to Christians to uphold the teachings of the Scriptures. They say the legal recognition of same-sex marriage encourages homosexuality, which is not only morally wrong but also taints the holy institution of marriage. Same-sex marriage negates the Biblical teachings that define marriage as the sacred matrimony between one man and one woman. Rajczi (2008) echoes similar sentiments that legalizing homosexuality goes against societal moral standards.
According to Koppelman (2014), most opponents of same-sex marriage argue based on defending the family, saying the legal recognition of such unions would undermine the institution of the family. The tolerance to homosexuality and same-sex unions by the society prejudices heterosexual families. The report gives an example of a past survey that established about half of the American population is against same-sex marriage. The study also found out that two-fifths of the people consider homosexuality as morally wrong. Maggie Gallager says allowing same-sex marriage equals to affirming that children do not need fathers and mothers, and that marriage is not concerned with babies. In her view, the state’s endorsement of gay marriage would impact increased poverty and depression resulting from kids growing without mothers and fathers (Lister, 2015). In a separate report, Boonin (1999) says a majority of the public disagree with homosexuality, citing it perverts moral behavior. Homosexuals are highly likely to commit other immoral acts as child molestation and infidelity. Some studies cite evidence suggesting children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to experience sexual and gender-related disorders. Others also claim legalizing same-sex unions would hinder the procreative role of marriage and undermine the element of paternal commitment (Family Research Council, 2020).
Conclusion
The above discussion clearly shows widely divided opinions on whether states and territories around the world should legally recognize same-sex marriage. However, it also establishes a significant improvement in the attitudes and reforms towards homosexuality and same-sex unions. Many countries have already enacted laws, and several others are considering granting gay couples the right to marry (Felter & Renwick, 2019). While opponents of same-sex marriage cite moral issues and other consequential implications, most of the arguments lack the backing of credible evidence. The public has a right to criticize same-sex marriages, but such criticism should not amount to acts of discrimination against homosexuals. The legal recognition of same-sex marriage will promote equality and respect to human rights as well as boost the safety and self-esteem of homosexual couples and other same-sex partners facing more significant risks of discrimination. Despite their different sexual behaviors, homosexual couples stay together, raise children, commit to lifelong relationships, and make valuable contributions to society as heterosexual partners. Thus, the legal recognition of gay marriage should be a priority for every state and territory in the modern world.