Introduction
As of today, 25 countries have legalized same-sex marriage (The independent 2017). There are many countries that have yet to follow suit. This leaves me pondering, what affect would same-sex marriage have on society and are the people against it actually valid in their reasoning? While the right to marriage and equality for all is the main defense for those pro same-sex marriage (Morgan S 2017). Those against the cause propose that it could harm children if they are brought up by two parents of the same sex (Somerville M 2017). They also propose that it could change traditional views of marriage, therefore redefining our laws and practices (Australian Marriage Forum 2017). I intend to explore these issues, I can draw from perspectives in Singapore, where I live, where it is illegal to be a homosexual and even more so to marry someone of the same gender. Additionally, I have family in Australia, where same-sex marriage was recently legalized. Globally I can look at countries in the middle east where traditional laws are still prominent, and I can look at America where it was recently legalized despite strong opposition.
Issues
When exploring the topic of homosexuality, one can find many arguments for those for and against, however, when narrowing the search to same-sex marriage I found that these two key issues arose. The impact on Traditional beliefs and the Impact on children.
Traditional beliefs
This leads me to the issue of traditional beliefs. Marriage affirms the equal value of men and women and promotes the welfare of children (Rivers 2013). This is from the UK parliament and is therefore valid as it comes from a government source. The ability to marry was created primarily for procreation. Therefore, redefining marriage in genderless terms breaks the critical conceptual link between marriage and procreation (Carroll J 2015). The man-woman definition conveys and reinforces that marriage is centred primarily on procreation and children, which man-woman couples are uniquely capable of producing naturally (Carrol J 2015). Carroll is a professor, this source is reliable as he is a professor, although it is dated. To summarise, the most basic message conveyed by the institution of marriage across all societies is that it is where procreation occurs, ultimately we have created marriage to ensure that procreation will occur in a stable environment in which a mother and father figure are constantly present. If we look back to the bible, we can see that Adam and Eve were indeed man and women.
From the perspective of those against same-sex marriage, the issue is how changing the definition of marriage under the law would also change the social institution of marriage and therefore results in a renewal of marriage laws across the globe. This could cause confusion in the recognition of marriage in foreign countries, marriage certificates may be acknowledged in some countries but not in others.
However an alternate perspective suggests that millennials in western and European countries are viewing marriage differently to how it was originally labelled and therefore marriage has begun to change by itself. An American article says that millennials have begun to redefine marriage as “reparation, a symbolic capstone, and a personal reward, not a gateway to adult privileges and responsibilities”(Avare H 2017). Therefore the dated opinion of Carol J can be considered as irrelevant compared to what we now think of marriage. Recently my cousin in Australia got married, she is thirty and had already been living with her boyfriend for three years, this demonstrates that even before marriage she had adopted the responsibilities that Carrol J associated with marriage. When I asked her why she decided to marry her boyfriend she stated that she wanted the title of being husband and wife, this relates back to Professor Helen Avare’s view that millennials are viewing marriage as a personal reward rather than a gateway to procreation and adult privileges (such as living together).
A recent study by the Pew Research Centre demonstrates the importance of marriage for millennials vs Generation X in America. From a list of reasons on the purpose of marriage offered in the survey questionnaire, 88% of young adults say love is why they marry, followed by making a lifelong commitment (76%). Fewer than half (49%) of Millennials say that having children is a very important reason for getting married, and less than 27% think financial stability is the reason. And among adults who are 65 years or older, 60% think that having children is a very important reason for getting married (Wang, W. and Taylor, P 2011). These statistics, although dated, demonstrate that millennials no longer view marriage as those from generation X did. For millennials, marriage is reminiscent of love, commitment and companionship. For those from Generation X marriage was about having children and creating financial stability. Due to this research if we allow same-sex individuals to marry we can conclude that although it may redefine the prior principles for marriage (procreation) millennials from the western world have already begun redefine marriage.
These statistics however, are based on western countries. I do not think that we can say the same for countries in Asia and the Middle east. Taiwan is currently the only country in Asia that allows same-sex marriage (Jennings R 2017). This demonstrates that these highly traditional countries have not been exposed to the redefinition of marriage as westerners have. In countries like Kazakhstan bride kidnapping and non-consent marriage is still legal, one in five girls are kidnapped for marriage in Kazakhstan (Taylor L 2017). I believe that we cannot apply what we have seen in western countries because of Asia and the middle east’s strongly traditional laws. Similarly in Singapore it is illegal to be gay full stop, A study from 2014 found that 78.2 percent of Singaporeans felt sexual relations between two adults was “always” or “almost always” wrong (Institute of Policy Studies 2014). Although dated, I believe that it is hard to redefine laws in such highly traditional countries where residence are not in favour of changing.
Impact on children
This leads me to the psychological impact on children if they are raised by those of the same-sex. We can argue that if a child isn’t raised by both a male and a female then they could end up with psychological problems. Many say that it is unfair to deliberately rid a child of their genetic identity (Somerville M 2017). Australian-born ethicist Professor Margaret Somerville condemns the deliberate destruction of a child’s biological identity. I grew up with a Singaporean who was adopted, he never expressed unhappiness due to the fact that he did not know his biological parents, therefore I do not believe that this is true. In addition this is the professors opinion not fact. A source from America agrees with Somerville and proposes some statistics that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison (Sprigg P 2008). While these statistics are dated, more recent sources disagree with this and state that children that grow up with same-sex parents are not affected (Matthew R 2017). This source is from a psychiatrist in Australia and is therefore a strong source, it is also more relevant than Sprigg 2008. However these two sources are from different countries and therefore cannot be compared.
From a bigger picture there is evidence that if same-sex marriage is legalized then children will grow up in a non-discriminatory environment and therefore be more happy and open to people with differences (Davies A 2017). In places like Russia where homosexual discrimination is highly prominent, children who grow up there are more likely to experience discrimination, leading to psychological disorders, even if they are not homosexual(Friedman M 2014). This suggests that the problem is not the need for both a mother and father that will affect a child but the environment that they are raised in. Therefore the legalisation of same-sex marriage could have a positive effect on children by creating a positive environment in which they can grow up in.
Courses of action
To prevent the change of traditional beliefs another type of marriage could be introduced, for example we have civil unions, catholic marriage, Muslim marriage, Jewish marriage, Hindu marriage. Therefore it will not be entirely alien to add another type of marriage that can be based on millennials view of marriage. In countries like America where same-sex marriage was recently legalised those who have religious views of marriage are being forced to redefine them (Messener T 2011). I think that this is unfair.
I believe that this can be prevented by creating a separate marriage in which same-sex couples can marry, this will not redefine marriage fully as other types of religious marriage will still exist. This new marriage could be similar to a civil union. In countries like Singapore they can chose to recognise the marriage certificate or not, but with a new type of marriage that is based off love and commitment instead of procreation and economic benefits I believe that it will not change any religious views of marriage. Rather it would be more of a binding or a label than a union for procreation as religious people view marriage.
To make sure that children of same-sex marriage grow up without discrimination so that they can have a healthy life we can educate students in school about same-sex marriage so that it does not seem like such an anomaly and therefore not a target of bullying. As I stated, it is not the fact that a child does not have both a mother and father that will impact them negatively but the environment that they are raised in. If the child is raised in a safe environment in which those around them have learnt to accept homosexuality then the child will grow up happy.
The school I go to in Singapore, AIS, teaches homosexuality in health classes in addition to heterosexual relationships, this has made my school a non-discriminatory environment as we are all educated and do not see homosexuality as something alien. If children grow up without the knowledge of homosexual relationships then they may bully a child who has two parents of the same-sex, it is only natural for children to make fun of something they are not used to. Therefore if we make sure that schools teach both homosexual and heterosexual relationships in health class then discrimination will be less prominent and as a result children of same-sex couples will grow up no different to those of heterosexual couples.
Conclusion
In conclusion, my opinion on the topic of same-sex marriage has stayed the same, however I have come to understand alternate perspectives due to my research. Same-sex marriage does impact society, whether it be negatively or positively. I think that it’s true that by legalizing homosexual marriage society will change, but I think that it will create a more positive atmosphere as a whole. If we create a world in which we are open to differences and accept people for who they are then I believe that same-sex marriage will have changed society by making it better.
However, I also learnt about the perspective of those who are against same-sex marriage, we cannot say that the legalization of same-sex marriage will please everyone, for some people it goes against their core beliefs. As seen, millennials are already starting to change the way we view marriage and bringing with it a whole new purpose in which we can say that we marry primarily for love. Therefore, I conclude that same sex marriage does impact society by redefining our traditional views on marriage and by making society a more accepting place for our future children. However, I believe, that as a result of my research, eventually the impact with lessen with the evolution of today’s youth.