One of the subjects that send big waves of controversy among people of various communities in recent times is same sex marriage; whether people of the same sex should be legally allowed to bond with the bounds of marriage; and what impact such a condition has upon societies. Of course, opinions definitely vary, and there are as many viewpoints as people out there. However, there are two principle camps of opinion. Those that believe marriage should only be legal among heterosexuals for religious, societal, and psychology-related reasons, and those that consider it completely regressive to think marriage is a woman-man privilege only. No matter how progressive societies choose to be -or are allowed to become-, same sex marriage sends out unwanted messages and should be better kept out of any legislative frame.
Implication on Child Development
One of the reasons why same-sex marriage is bad for societies is because it deprives children of healthy growth. They need role models that can only come from the ideal family-structure of a mother-father family, rather than same-sex parenting. Children need to grow up in a family environment where they can relate to both a same-sex parent and an opposite-sex parent, so they themselves can experience successful romantic and social relationships as they grow up (Hansen). Advocates of same-sex marriage support that all children need is just love. But, research suggests that a child raised in a same-sex household is more likely to be sexually confused and experiment on sex; and, although homosexual couples can clearly give as much love and nurture to a child as heterosexual couples, love is not enough to raise a balanced child (Hansen). Moreover, extensive research consistently shows that children that grow up in the traditional type of family are more likely to excel physically, psychologically, and mentally, compared to children of any other kind of family configuration (Hansen). Furthermore, the role of a father is significant to a child’s development. A 20-year longitudinal study review has revealed that fathers reduce the psychological problems in girls and behavioural problems in boys, decrease juvenile delinquency, and enhance cognitive development (Hansen). Having said that; the genetically-determined differences between a woman and a man make parenting unique, which means that a mother cannot interchange with a father and vice versa (Hansen). In same-sex families, children will have either two mothers or two fathers, so in each case, they will be missing the other parent.
Impact on Traditional Marriage
Some people fear that legally recognizing same-sex marriages will have an impact on traditional marriage. Advocates of same-sex marriages believe that the traditional marriage can peacefully co-exist with same-sex marriage. To people of faith, changing the norms and the traditional way things were done so far, as well as the law, will create a conflict inside them. This includes unreligious people as well (Jackson). The aforementioned groups of people teach their children at home about the societal and spiritual reasons why they should believe in traditional marriage. However, public schools teach children that there are other forms of equally accepted marriages, including between same-sex couples. According to Bishop Harry Jackson, as hosted in CNN, “These kinds of ill-advised social experiments may produce a host of unexpected consequences [and the degradation of the nuclear family]”. He continues by mentioning the significance of the birth father’s presence and the results his absence can bring to the stability and growth of the next generation of children. Justifying this position, he includes findings from studies which have concluded that early onset of puberty in girls is directly linked to health problems, such a depression, social problems, increased rates of teenage pregnancies, and alcohol consumption (Jackson). In families with a father present and appropriate involvement in the growing up of children, girls reach puberty at a later and more mature age (Jackson).
Marriage and Religion
Marriage at its Essence
Many people ask: Does the way we define marriage really matter? The answer comes from Stanton and Maier (2004), who write in their book Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting that all societies have specific parameters, when it comes to marriage, that people living in them should abide by (22). There is no such thing as suit yourself to family matters, nor should there be. In the book, it is mentioned “God has weaved marriage into human nature so that it serves two primary purposes throughout all societies” (Stanton and Maier 22). These purposes include the fact that marriage brings two adults, a male and a female, together into a committed domestic and sexual relationship, in which sexuality is regulated and is channeled into socially productive ways (Stanton and Maier 22). Secondly, marriage provides children with the means, so to benefit from both their parents in unique and distinctive ways. These two aspects are believed to help build strong human communities, as they shape the social norms and family for societies (Stanton and Maier 23). This is not the case with same-sex relationships that mainly address the emotional needs and personal desires of those involved. The purpose of marriage, as social thinker and political scientist James Wilson clarifies, is to make the family secure, rather than bring the family in complete redefinition (Stanton and Maiers 23). As he continues, the marriage is not as fundamental social reality as a family, so baptizing anything as marriage does not necessarily make it a family (Stanton and Maiers 23).
A marriage is believed to be a commitment between two people that love each other. So, if this is a marriage, why are homosexual couples denied the right to marry? Maybe it is because, marriage is much more than a commitment. For example, parents commit themselves to their children; friends commit themselves to each other; soldiers commit themselves to one another, but no one calls it marriage (Stanton and Maiers 24). It is not less that the things already mentioned, but a lot more. Marriage is built on the paradox that men and women are designed with particular variations, and that it is these differences that coordinate in marriage and complete one another (Stanton and Maiers 24). This gender complementarity allows people become something far larger than themselves. This is what marriage is all about.
Most relationships are not state-regulated, so why should marriage be? It is unimaginable living in a world where the state sets the terms of people’s relationships, starting with friendships. (Gigis et al.). Yet, other relationships, such as marriage and working relationships require regulation. Why so? Because they affect the common good (Girgis et al.). Marriages have a definite structure, unlike friendships, and societies depend on families that are built on solid foundations, meaning strong marriages, to produce healthy children that will become tomorrow’s conscientious citizens (Girgis et al.). As they grow up, children benefit from the combination of the maternal and paternal love, and the parental exclusive love for one another. Like previously mentioned, marriage is more than an emotional union of two people. It is something greater that lacks essential elements when performed among people of the same sex.
Same-sex marriages affect the entire societal structure and call societies to change laws that have been there for 200-plus years. In order to do so, people need to be convinced that it is for the best. However, until now, the gay community has not made the argument, according to Rick Santorum, a former US senator, author, and senior fellow at the Ethics Public Policy Centre (Masci). In his interview, in Pew Research, he mentions that there is no evidence on the beneficial effects of same-sex marriages on societies. The gay community has no studies or information of any sort that support there would be no adverse impact on heterosexual marriages and children. As a means to demonstrate the importance of considering any effects such decision might have on societies, he states “we have laws in this country that say before you go out, and you put in a bridge across a creek, you have to go out and see whether what you’re doing is disturbing the landscape there” (Masci). To him, any consideration to have the homosexual couples already living together legally married for the children’s welfare, is clearly out of the question. Once people get away from the model passed on to them from generation to generation, and get into other options, they just devalue what they want to value; In this case, a man and a woman raising a family within a marriage (Masci). And people devalue, they get less of what they want to value, and when they get less, societies suffer.
Opposing viewpoints suggest that same-sex marriages are actually useful for the society and that they have interesting (and advantageous) supporting points to demonstrate.
Positive Health Implications
Legal recognition of same-sex marriage has brought significant public health implications. Reports in the medical literature suggest that the health status of the at-risk community of homosexuals is considerably improved with better access to health care that derives from marriage equality (Buffie). Of course, better healthcare access means lower mortality rates. A study conducted by Hatzenbuehler et al. (2010) among over 34,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual participants concluded that there are many adverse health effects, primarily in the field of psychological health, that relate to the marriage-equality policies. They surveyed participants before and after 14 US states had approved constitutional amendments that were only favoring marriages between people of the opposite sex. The survey had shown that participants showed remarkably higher rates of psychiatric disorders, right after the announcement of the constitutional amendments (Hatzenbuehler et al.). This is translated into a profound 248 percent increase in anxiety disorder, and increase in alcohol use disorder, psychiatric comorbidity, and mood disorder by 42 percent, 36 percent, and 36 percent respectively (Hatzenbuehler et al.). In states where such amendments were not introduced, the control group of gay people, lesbians, and bisexuals, did not show any significant psychiatric disorder. In the opposite case, meaning when same-sex marriages were accepted both legally and (even partially) socially, like in the state of Massachusetts, those involved in the marriage reported feeling more committed to their partner (72 percent), and more like part of their community (70 percent), while children from same-sex families reported feeling much happier (93 percent) (Buffie). Thinking of the bigger picture here, putting people under so much stress, which in turns generates a series of serious psychiatric health implications cannot be beneficial for society. In fact, having psychiatrically-disordered members in the community will be put the society under constant threat that some suppressed and stressed individual might snap. If this happens, he/she could become a carrier of many harm that could as well lead to the tragedies everybody sees and hears on the news every now and then.
Economic Benefits
Restricting same sex marriages cost societies on an economic level. Setting aside that uninsured adults run a 40 percent greater risk of dying than the insured counterparts (Ponce, et al.), societies are more economically burdened when people of the same sex are not allowed to marry. In the state of California alone, partnered gay men and lesbians have about 40 percent less likelihood to receive employer-sponsored dependent coverage, compared to heterosexual employees (Ponce, et al.). Moreover, heterosexually married workers receive dependent benefits, but the federal government classify benefits received by same-sex spouses as taxable earned income (Ponce, et al.). Such restrictive treatment pushes the costs to the public domain and men with HIV depending upon public insurance, out of their inability to have access to any affordable insurance (Ponce, et al.)
Marriage as a Relationship with Many Dimensions
Trying to analyze marriage, one can see that marriage is multi-dimensioned relationship. It is a personal commitment and a decision of life-significance to many; it is a social statement so significant that most married people decorate their hand with a symbol of their marriage; it is a relationship between a couple and the state, and a legal gateway to a number of benefits and protections, as well as responsibilities (Wolfson). If marriage is all the aforementioned, nothings separates couples between homosexual and heterosexual partners. If societies have given firm fights for civil rights, then it should not be moving with two speeds. If a couple of homosexuals is not married, and one of the two dies, the other partner is not eligible for bereavement leave; child support and shared property have no way to be handled in case of a breakup/divorce; they are not allowed to take medical leaves if a family member needs care; when in emergency medical decisions the homosexual partner is not counted as next of kin; they do not have inheritance rights or joint car/home insurance; cannot file joint tax returns or have tax benefits, and the list goes on (Wolfson). With all that in mind, human rights are been trespassed, which is something that will need to be fixed somehow, if societies want to consider themselves as just.
Finally, over time, family life has undergone various changes that communities had to adjust to. For example, the once dominant perception of the male-breadwinner lifestyle has given its place to a new lifestyle where both parents work, in most households (Edgell). The dual-earner family is now a fact, at times when homosexual couples claim their right to have a legally married family life (Edgell). With increased pluralism in the family life of recent times, it is just a matter of time before societies adjust to the new challenge and come out of it (relatively) unharmed.
Conclusion
Family has always been an essential aspect in people’s lives. It is perhaps the most significant relationship they experience and the one that they heavily rely on to be happy and produce equally happy children, and future conscientious citizens. A family is best organized and developed/flourished within the bounds of marriage. A marriage, however, is not just a commitment between two people to love and care for one another and their off springs that they bring to life, one way of another. It is something much larger and greater than two people getting together. It is a gender complementarity that drives people become something far greater than themselves, which is something that cannot be experienced among homosexual couples.
Significant attention is also given to how same-sex marriages affect children. Research has shown that children are better off within families where both the mother and the father are present. The role of a father in the child’s development is highlighted, as it is evidenced that girls who enter puberty at an early age are more prone to many harm than those that live puberty at a more mature age. With a father who takes part in the child’s life, puberty can occur at a more mature age. Also, children need to relate to both the same-sex parent and the opposite-sex parent, so to be balanced and have healthy social and romantic relationships as they grow up.
On the other hand, if societies want to consider themselves as fair, they need to accept differentially and give people of the same sex the right to live in a legal marriage. Facts show that when homosexual couples are not given equal marriage-related rights with their heterosexual married counterparts, they suffer psychological disorders and distress. Lastly, there are also economic benefits from opening legislature to same-sex marriages, that societies could benefit from.
It seems that same-sex marriages will be an everlasting debate that will put institutions and societies into a test. A test that only time can tell.
Works Cited:
Buffie, William (2011). “Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage”. Am J Public Health. 2011 June; 101(6): 986–990. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300112
Edgell, Penny (2005). “Religion and Family in a Changing Society”. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691086750
Ekwo, Emmanuel (2010). “Homosexuality: Explaining the Zeitgeist”. AuthorHouse Publications. ISBN-978-1-4520-4761-4 (sc)
Girgis, Sherif, Anderson, Rryan, and George, Robert (2013). “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense”. Encounter Books. ISBN 1594036233, 9781594036231
Jackson, Hary (2010). “Same-sex marriage will hurt families, society”. CNN News. Web. June 7, 2014 < http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/07/jackson.same.sex.marriage/>
Hansen, Trayce (2012). “Same-Sex Marriage Is Harmful to Children”. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. June 6, 2014 < http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&jsid=0a4f51743413fd178feec681daf55caf&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010014234&u=viva2_tcc&zid=a9764475de34e422c34761f9631ce865>
Hatzenbuehler ML, McLaughlin K, Keyes K, Hasin D. (2010). “The impact of institutional discrimination on psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: a prospective study”. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100(3):452–459
Masci, David (2008). “An Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage: An Interview with Rick Santorum”. Pew Research. Web. June 7, 2014 < http://www.pewforum.org/2008/04/24/an-argument-against-same-sex-marriage-an-interview-with-rick-santorum/>
Ponce N, Cochran S, Pizer J, Mays V. (2010). “The effects of unequal access to health insurance for same-sex couples in California”. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29(8):1539–1548 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0583. Epub 2010 Jun 24.
Stanton, Glenn and Maiers, Bill (2004). “Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting”. IVP Books. 4th printing edition (September 9, 2004). ISBN-10: 0830832742
WebBible Online. Genesis Chapter 1. The Christian Answers Network. Web. June 6, 2014 <http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/gen1.html#27>
Wolfson, Evan (2007). “Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry”. Simon and Schuster. ISBN-0-7432-6458-4
