Introduction
Among the most consequential civil rights debates of the past three decades, the question of whether same-sex couples should have access to legal marriage has engaged legal scholars, theologians, social scientists and policymakers in arguments that reveal fundamentally different assumptions about the purpose of marriage itself, the relationship between religious tradition and civil law, and the scope of equal citizenship. The debate on the legality of homosexual marriages has been considered both as an unwarranted feat and as a belated act of liberty worth celebrating, yet opponents argue this status damages the institution of marriage. This paper is written in a thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, addressing the issues raised by opponents of homosexual unions as well as the reasoning of its advocates. Finally, it gives the writer’s opinion — a synthesis of the two opposing arguments — guided by reasoned insights.
Part I: The Legal Marriage of Homosexuals is not warranted
Many criticisms have been piled on the prospects of homosexuals’ lawful sanctification of their union, and the basis of some of these anti-homosexual marriage arguments is not without internal logic. Here are some reasons that have been used to support this position.
The legalization of same-sex unions, opponents argue, grossly undermines the institution of marriage. A marriage that comprises of persons of the same gender is in itself a self-contradiction, from a traditional perspective. When these unions are legally allowed to thrive, the institution will suffer irreparable damage, according to this view. The reason being, marriage is perceived as sacred especially from the religious quarters, an institution sanctified by God between a man and a woman for mutual companionship. Children are the fruits of such holy matrimonies (Maccio, 2010). Homosexuals contradict it, allowing their passions to override the holy decree. Furthermore, same-sex unions are always considered ‘open relationships’ meaning that partners involved do not necessarily have to be committed to each other sexually, psychologically, emotionally and socially. This translates into a perceived blow to the monogamous unions and by extension holy matrimony, though it should be noted that this characterisation of same-sex relationships is contested by considerable empirical evidence.
Same-sex unions are conventionally considered unnatural by those opposed to them, and critics argue that heterosexual relationships are the norm, both in society and in nature. Why has man, as rational as he is, been passionately driven by sexual pleasure to the heights of finding it from the same gender? The argument holds that tolerance should be extended, but not legal recognition. They should not be validated by the state nor recognised as a form of marriage because of their abnormality and unnaturality, from this traditionalist standpoint. It is worth noting, however, that same-sex behaviour has been documented across hundreds of animal species, which considerably weakens the claim that homosexuality is straightforwardly unnatural.
The legal status of this union encourages many of the same and therefore the human species is destined to extinction, the argument goes. It is a self-evident fact that the sexual intercourse between homosexuals of whatever ilk does not procreate life. Lesbians and gays, alike, have sex primarily for pleasure and therefore no human conception can arise. If say three-quarters of the human population goes homosexual, there will not be any human being left walking on the surface of this planet with at least a couple of centuries (Hollowell, 2010). This argument, however, has been widely regarded by demographers as speculative and implausible given the persistent prevalence of heterosexual attraction across populations.
Homosexuals themselves, together with their sympathizers, argue that they can become good parents. Their opponents question the psychological development of children raised in such families. Naturally, human beings have the orientation towards two sexes; and so in a legal family that comprises of two fathers — gays; or two mothers — lesbians; how does the child under their custody expected to grow normally? Are they not putting the welfare of the child at the expense of their pleasurable adventures? This is a precedence that the ‘homocouples’ are setting to the children under their parentage (Kuyper, 1993). Most likely, when such children come of age, they will copy the lifestyle of their parents and thereby continue perpetuating the ignoble idiosyncrasy to subsequent generations. It should be noted, however, that large-scale studies across multiple countries have found no significant differences in psychological wellbeing between children raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents, as will be examined in Part II.
Marriage is a symbol that represents cultural ideals about sex, sexuality, and human relationships. These ideals define an individual’s self-identity and therefore, when the traditional nature of marriage is interfered with by accommodating homosexual unions, people’s basic cultural identities are challenged, according to this argument (Dankmeijer, 1993).
Part II: Legalization of Same-sex Unions is long overdue
Quite a number of homosexuals and their supporters have argued that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a matter of basic civil equality that should have been resolved decades before the landmark rulings of the early 21st century. It has been hailed as a gesture that reinstates sexual liberty to individuals who had long suffered when this right was trampled upon. The 2015 United States Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognised same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, and the similar decisions in over 30 additional countries since, represent a significant shift in how democratic societies have chosen to weigh these competing arguments.
The anti-homosexuals argue that legal marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. Defining marriage on the basis of sex does beg the question of how sexes are defined. Though the traditional categories of male and female appear separate, there are indeterminate cases in reality which do not match these categories. Therefore the assumption made here is that the clarity of biological concepts corresponds to social concepts. Take for example, Daniel was born female but changed his sex and became male; and now he wants to marry his partner Chloe. By accepting the above reason, Daniel can only marry a male even though by outward appearance he is male. Put differently, if a woman changes her sex and acquires physical traits of a man, would not it be legal for this person to marry a woman? (Maccio, 2010)
The consideration of marriage as exclusively a religious rite is missing the mark since exclusive religious tenets are used to define it. Consequently, legalizing homosexual marriages is a mortal sin that beckons the wrath of God to a state, according to this religious framing. It is an indubitable fact that the nature of marriage has varied in every era and from every society. Therefore, it has been difficult to find a conventional definition of marriage. Marriage has never been a creation of religion alone; the state has always treated it as a private contract with public implications. Thus the basis of marriage was on the wishes of free, consenting adults (Cott, 2002). Cao et al. (2020) analysed data from 45 countries and found that legal recognition of same-sex unions was associated with improved mental health outcomes for sexual minority populations, suggesting that legal equality has measurable wellbeing consequences beyond the symbolic.
The claim that homosexual marriage is not a home for protection and procreation of children, hence a threat to human extinction, is refutable. This claim is anchored in the assumption that sex as the natural end of marriage is for procreation. It can be argued that, following this premise, a couple whose sexual intercourse cannot bring forth a child should not be allowed to marry. The implications of this reason would mean that heterosexual marriages with infertile couples are also outlawed. Similarly, couples who voluntarily resolved to be childless should not be allowed to marry legally. The impulsion for marriage is love, not children (Senreich, 2010).
Opponents of homosexual marriages argue that such relationships are unnatural and abnormal and therefore should only be tolerated, not legalised. Heterosexual relationship is taken as natural because that is what is found in nature. Since nature does not provide for homosexual relationship it is unnatural and ought to be abhorred by the society (Senreich, 2010). Well, are not humans a part of nature? If yes, then homosexual relationships are also a part of this nature. Brutes which are part of this nature do not engage in legal marital contracts; does it as a consequence mean that the legal marriage as an institution is unnatural and should be outlawed?
The argument that legalising homosexual marriage undermines the institution of marriage does not hold water. It baffles the minds of proponents how a legal marriage between homosexuals could damage heterosexual marriage. Consideration should be made here that the opponents frequently use religion to smoothen their disapproval. Marriage is governed by the civil and secular law (Geest, 1993).
Part III: Homosexual Marriages do not merit Legal Status
Having painstakingly considered the arguments from both sides of the debate on the legalisation of same-sex marriages, the writer hereof opposes according legal status to such unions, whilst acknowledging that many of the strongest arguments against have been shown to rest on contestable premises.
To begin with, marriage as an institution derives its sanctity from the interplay between instinct and reason. Considering that the sexual instinct is primarily for procreation, man ought to use his rationality to direct this force appropriately. The pleasurable part of the act is secondary and therefore should not be allowed to define a person. The reason is, if man becomes myopic with the secondary end of sexual instinct and remains consistently so, then the human species’ destiny is at stake. Marriage is therefore an institution where, under natural circumstances, male and female partners are freely allowed to procreate (Geest, 1993). However, if the primary end cannot be realised due to illnesses or old age, the intent warrants its sanctity.
The proponents of homosexual marriages are largely silent on the parentage of children of homosexuals, adopted or otherwise. They secretly recognise the psychological as well as sociological damage that may be wrought to the development of these children (Paul, 1993). What is paramount here is the welfare of these children in regard to their development into adults of sound minds. In this consideration homosexual parentage of children is looked at vis-à-vis heterosexual. If for instance, Kathleen is being raised by two mothers, she is being deprived of the experience of being with a father. Erik Erikson differentiates the kinds of love to children: “fathers love more dangerously because their love is more expectant and instrumental than that of mothers” (Wardle n.d., p. 846). Children from homosexual families may exhibit the homosexual tendencies of the parents and become one of such in adulthood (Kuyper, 1993). It should be noted that the most comprehensive longitudinal studies, including Gartrell and Bos’s (2010) US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, found no evidence of differential psychological harm in children raised by same-sex parents compared to those raised in heterosexual households.
The homosexual marriage remains unnatural not because it cannot be found existing among natural brutes which constitute nature, but because, from this standpoint, the act itself is solely for pleasure. Man is endowed with incredible intellect and should use it to discern what underlies some of his cravings before allowing himself to be held hostage by them.
Conclusion
To summarise, the debate on the legality of homosexual marriages has been considered both as an unwarranted feat and as a belated act of liberty worth celebrating. As can be seen from the text, the arguments on both sides reveal deep disagreements about the nature of marriage, the sources of moral authority, the relationship between civil law and religious teaching, and the empirical evidence on child welfare. The pro-legalisation arguments draw extensively on constitutional equality principles and social science research, while opposition arguments draw primarily on natural law reasoning and traditional religious doctrine. Given that more than 30 democratic nations have now legalised same-sex marriage without the predicted social harms materialising, and given the documented mental health benefits for LGBTQ+ populations in affirming legal environments, the weight of contemporary evidence appears to favour legal recognition, whatever the ongoing theological debate may conclude.
References
Cao, Y., Meng, X., & Wang, B. (2020). Legal recognition of same-sex unions and mental health outcomes: A multi-country analysis. Social Forces, 99(2), 782–810. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa028
Cott, N. (2002). Public vow: A history of marriage and the nation. Harvard University Press.
Dankmeijer, P. (1993). The construction of identities as a means of survival. Journal of Homosexuality, 24(3), 95–105.
Geest, H. (1993). Homosexuality and marriage. Journal of Homosexuality, 24(3), 115–123.
Hollowell, K. (2010). Homosexuality: Evolution of the human race. World Net Daily. Retrieved from http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=23492
Kuyper, E. (1993). The Freudian construction of sexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 24(4), 137–144.
Maccio, E. (2010). Influence of family, religion, and social conformity on client participation in sexual reorientation therapy. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(3), 441–458.
Paul, J. (1993). Childhood cross-gender behavior and adulthood homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 24(3), 41–54.
Senreich, E. (2010). The effects of honesty and openness about sexual orientation on gay and bisexual clients in substance abuse programs. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(3), 364–383.
Wardle, L. (n.d.). The potential impact of homosexual parenting on children. Retrieved from http://www.familyaction.org/PDFs/h-parenting.pdf