Arguments For and Against Same-Sex Marriage Examined

Introduction: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Whether to allow same-sex marriage is a hotly debated topic in many Western countries. 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 commonly put forth against same-sex marriage include the following: marriage is a fundamental and unchangeable institution; marriage is traditionally between persons of the opposite sex; if same-sex marriages are recognized, then bigamous, polygamous, incestuous marriages and marriages with animals must be recognized too; same-sex couples cannot have children; society has an interest in promoting marriage as the environment for procreation and child-rearing; same-sex parenting is less beneficial for children than parenting found in traditional family units; same-sex parenting may bias children toward 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 each of these contentions in turn.

Is Marriage an Unchangeable Institution?

It is simply not true that marriage is an unchangeable institution. Not only do different societies differ in their marriage institutions, but even within Western society marriage has changed a great deal over time. Perhaps the biggest change is that marriage is now a partnership of equals — which was not the case originally. Marriage has evolved in many ways: the age at which people marry, the racial mix now possible, and the gender roles and responsibilities within marriage have all shifted considerably. The concepts revolving around marriage have changed radically over the centuries, so drawing a firm line at this moment in history would seem both artificial and illogical.

Marriage may well be traditionally between members of the opposite sex, and this may be the prevailing norm, but this does not necessarily mean that opposite-sex marriages are the best or the only acceptable form of 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 their members wish to do so?

Many argue that if same-sex marriages are recognized, then bigamous, polygamous, incestuous marriages, and marriages with animals must be recognized as well. This argument has no merit. There are clear reasons for rejecting those other forms of union that simply do not apply to same-sex marriages: polygamous marriages exploit women; incestuous marriages risk producing children with serious health problems; and legitimizing incest weakens a taboo that is vital for preserving the family as a safe environment for children. In any case, this is a "red herring" argument — nobody is actually advocating the legalization of these other forms of marriage (with the exception of a small group in favor of polygamy), so there is no genuine danger of having to recognize them.

Procreation, Parenting, and the Purpose of Marriage

Some argue that procreation is an essential element of marriage, and raise this point in the context of opposing same-sex unions. However, the argument that same-sex marriage should be banned because same-sex couples cannot have children is not persuasive on close examination. The primary purpose of marriage is no longer understood to be procreation; other purposes are now seen as equally or more important. Several additional considerations undermine this objection: 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 wish to marry demonstrate that they can or will have children; heterosexuals who cannot have children are permitted to marry; heterosexuals who do not want children are permitted to marry; and infertility is not a ground for divorce — which it would have to be if this argument had any internal logic.

There also appears to be no valid reason to prefer heterosexual parenting over same-sex parenting on empirical grounds. Research has not demonstrated any meaningful difference in the psychological or emotional health of children raised in same-sex versus opposite-sex households. Similarly, there is little or no evidence that long-term committed same-sex relationships are any less stable than their heterosexual counterparts. Arguments claiming that same-sex parenting produces a bias toward homosexuality in children have likewise not been substantiated by the available research literature.

Conclusion

There appears to be no valid reason to prefer heterosexual parenting over same-sex parenting: research has not shown any difference in the psychological or emotional health between these groups of children. Moreover, there is little or no evidence that long-term committed same-sex relationships are any less stable than their heterosexual counterparts. Similarly, arguments stating that same-sex marriage represents a threat to the fabric of society are more colorful than logical, resting on vague terminology and emotional rhetoric. Taken together, the various objections to same-sex marriage fail to withstand scrutiny, and no compelling reason emerges to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Works Cited

"The Case for Gay Marriage." The Economist, 26 Feb. 2004.

"Same-Sex Marriage." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation.