Same Sex Marriage and Ethics
Sexual Morality

Matters of sex may appear innate, but it has been demonstrated over time that sex has evolved over the ages, just like other aspects of life. Studies show that orientations, sexual identities, and the knowledge of physiology have been shaped by historical forces. As opposed to being intrinsic, human sexuality is influenced by a range of factors, including the food one eats, social class, family systems, and psychological theories. As opposed to being segregated and split into small privacies of people's lives, sexuality has also influenced people's lives in turn. Indeed, it has had a strong influence on governance systems to worship styles. When mass society developed in the course of the war, it gave rise to liberal sexual culture. Democracy took root after the war and made governments more accountable to the people they controlled on social and political matters. Consequently, changes in sexual morality occurred fast (Primoratz, 2013).

The concept of sexual morality emerged from the church, community, family, the state, and the individual. Nevertheless, as is demonstrated by the history of sexuality, the major changes resonate through the individual and make it more confusing to tell whether the social changes start when the individual's sexuality ends (Primoratz, 2013). Same-sex marriage is defined as a union that involves two people of the same sex living together and assumes a family formation. In short, it is, ideally, marriage between people of the same sex. It is consummated via civil ceremony or even in a religious setup. The idea of same-sex marriage entails lots of moral, religious, and legal intrigues and debates across the globe. The moral standing of such unions has been hotly debated and even contested in some quarters. Those who criticize same-sex marriages brand it as an unnatural and immoral act. Those who support, on the other hand, insist that there is nothing immoral about the whole arrangement because it is covered by the doctrine of human rights. What is interesting is that it is still widely unknown to many people that the issue of same-sex marriage is not new to humanity. The practice was common during the early Roman Empire (Koppelman, 2014).

The debate on whether same-sex marriage is morally acceptable has erupted in the 21st century. There are cultures in the west which believe that marriage between people of the same sex is morally defensible and should be legal. The same advocates have used the human rights argument to champion for the same and encourage it across the globe. Developing countries have, however, been widely opposed to the phenomenon. Various religious groups have also vehemently opposed the practice in their communities and elsewhere. The argument is the same old stand that the practice is unnatural, immoral, and against God's design of things. This paper supports the thinking that same-sex marriages are not defensible morally. It additionally attempts to show that the practice is not entirely a western born phenomenon but that it has been in existence for long, even in some African settings, albeit in subtle forms (Ellison, 2012).

Same-sex Marriage

Marriage between people of the same sex triggers moral questions. The concept of sexual morality is still hotly contested in ethical discussions. At the core of the debates are questions such as "at what point and circumstances are sexual activity permissible and acceptable?", "who should one engage in sexual activity with?" for what reason should one engage in sex?", "which body parts should be involved in sexual activity?" and "for how long is one supposed to engage in sexual activity?" From a philosophical viewpoint, responses to these questions could be derived from Kantian, situationalsm, Thomistic natural law, and deontologism, among others. Nevertheless, this paper intends to deal with the moral concerns raised and dismissed by critics and advocates of same-sex marriage practice (Ellison, 2012).

One of the commonest objections raised against the practice of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, in general, is that it is not natural. The phrase "unnatural" has been analyzed in three perspectives by James Rachels and Start Rachels (2012). To begin with, they argue that a human trait could be considered unnatural if it is not found in most people....…lineage (Akpan, 2017).

Furthermore, I think that same-sex marriages between females are promiscuous. It is also unfortunate that the wives of such female husbands consider themselves as freer, socially, compared to those bound in marriage to male husbands. Such wives are usually not limited to one sexual partner as the case in heterosexual marriages. Such a scenario is a clear immoral setup. While it may also be natural to sympathize with women without children having to procure wives, the immorality cannot be swept under the carpet. Therefore, I think that allowing same-sex marriage even among females for the sake of procreation and perpetuation of lineage is an immoral engagement. Such practices are also likely to encourage the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Hence, they should be discouraged (Akpan, 2017).

Conclusion

The difference between same-sex marriages as practiced in the western world and Africa has been highlighted. In the western sphere, homosexual marriage is popular. The practice is fired by the human rights fad, that it is a fundamental human right to do what one wants with their body. In the latter case, same-sex marriage is not based on sexual satisfaction but an alternative of ensuring continuity of a lineage and for procreation. This paper posits that although gays may have developed feelings for which they love, and would want an attachment with those they love, it is still immoral to go on and do so because it is unnatural and hence unacceptable. The human rights fad of the right to marry is a misinterpretation of what was originally meant. The misinterpretation is considered an elixir by the author. Same-sex marriage should not be packaged beautifully through the argument of the so-called fundamental rights, to convince the world to adopt it when the content is bitter and undesirable. It should, therefore, not be made a global trend and practice because it is anomie. The practice in some Sub-Saharan regions should also be discouraged because it is still immoral, irrespective of the intention of wanting to perpetuate a lineage, ensuring procreation and providing a chance for childless women to have children.…