In Favor of Same Sex Marriage

Gay Marriage

Whether to allow same-sex marriage or not is a hotly debated topic in many Western countries at the present time. Belgium, Canada, Spain and the Netherlands have recently legalized it. Should same-sex couples, committed to a long-term monogamous relationship, be allowed to marry? Many people feel that the answer to this question should be a firm: No!

The arguments they put forth against same-sex marriage usually include the following:

marriage is a fundamental and unchangeable institution, marriage is traditionally between persons of opposite sex, if same-sex marriages are recognized then bigamous, polygamous, incestuous marriages and marriages with animals must be recognized too, same-sex couples can't have children, society has an interest in promoting marriage as the environment for procreation and child-rearing, same-sex parenting is less good for children than the parenting found in traditional family units, same-sex parenting may bias children towards a homosexual lifestyle, same-sex relationships are less stable and less faithful than opposite-sex relationships, allowing same-sex marriages will damage the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage, marriage is defined by scripture and tradition as involving a man and a woman, and finally, marriage between one man and one woman is a religious sacrament. This essay will refute these contentions with valid arguments to the contrary.

It is simply not true that marriage is an unchangeable institution. Not only do different societies differ in their institutions of marriage, but even in Western society marriage has changed a great deal. Perhaps the biggest change is that marriage is now a partnership of equals, which was not the case originally. Marriage has changed in its make-up in many ways: the age at which people marry, the racial mix now possible, the gender roles and responsibilities within the marriage etc. The concepts that revolve around the idea of marriage have change radically over the years, so to draw a line now would seem artificial and illogical.

Marriage may well be traditionally between members of the opposite sex, and this may be the 'norm' but this does not necessarily mean that opposite-sex marriages are the best or the only form of acceptable permanent partnership. If definitions of marriage are in flux, and this is hardly debatable, then this argument lacks any logical force. Shouldn't societies be able to extend the scope of marriage if a majority of its members want to do so?

Many feel that if same-sex marriages are recognized then bigamous, polygamous, incestuous marriages, and marriages with animals must be recognized. This argument however has no merit at all; there are plenty of reasons for rejecting these other types of marriage that don't apply to same-sex marriages: polygamous marriages exploit women, incestuous marriages risk producing children with damaged health, giving incest a seal of approval weakens a taboo that is vital for preserving the family as a safe place for children. Anyway, this is a "red herring" argument; nobody is actually arguing for the legalization of any of these forms of marriage (except for a small group in favor of polygamy), so there's no danger of having to recognize them.

Some have argued that procreation is an essential element of marriage, and usually bring up this point in the context of arguing against same-sex marriage. But when you look at it in detail, the argument that same-sex marriage should be banned because same-sex couples can't have children is not a very good argument. After all, the primary purpose of marriage is no longer to have children; other purposes are now seen as equally or more important. Morover there are other important factors to consider in this regard: society does not make having children a requirement of marriage (and would be universally condemned if it tried); society does not insist that those who want to marry demonstrate that they can and will have children; heterosexuals who cannot have children are allowed to marry; heterosexuals who don't want to have children are allowed to marry; and finally, infertility is not a ground for divorce, which it would be if this contention had any logic behind it.

Many religious people of various faiths bring forward arguments about morality and tradition which should preclude same-sex marriages. However, banning same-sex marriage mixes Church and State, and the separation of Church and State is a formal constitutional principle. To keep these two institutions separate, the nature and conditions for secular marriage must not include religion-based moral elements. Those who want to ban same-sex marriage are actually using the state to apply a religious morality to citizens, and this is entirely unconstitutional.

Many have argued that allowing same-sex marriages will damage the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage. But if you examine the issue carefully it is difficult to construct any scenario in which allowing people of the same sex to marry does any damage at all to marriage, although there is no way of predicting what the long-term effect will be on the survival of the institution of marriage, and its role in ensuring the stability of society. Allowing people of the same sex to marry does, of course, change the institution of marriage, but that's not the same as damaging it. This argument treats marriage like a "club" that will become less attractive if we allow homosexuals to become members of it. However, marriage isn't that sort of institution; it doesn't matter how many people, or what sort of people get married - they don't affect the situation of any of the others who get married.