Why We Should Allow Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: Sociology
Pages: 2
Words: 504
Reading time:
2 min

There is evident recognition of equal rights in support of every human being, either in a straight or of a gay relationship. The issue of equality ends when one starts to argue for gay marriages. There are sharp critics against gay marriages because people have a massive misunderstanding of homosexuality and the meaning of marriage. To most people, homosexuality means a lack of serious commitment and promiscuity. Like heterosexuals, gay people value family, societal safety, law and are good contributors to social growth as good citizens. Still, people fail to recognize that gay people take total commitment to relationships to make lives better in the community. By denying the legality of same-sex marriages, we might be hindering social development.

Like most straight marriages, gays show commitment to one partner and discourage promiscuity, thus preventing the increase of sexually transmitted diseases. In line with Bidstrup, homosexuality might have practices linkable to straight marriages because the relationship is about commitment to love or affection and not about sexual perversion. This can also be a social benefit. There exist mutual appeals, friendliness, and a feeling of appreciation that critics fail to notice. Like in opposite-sex marriages, sex is only one form of expressing affection to each other. There is equally an argument that being gay is more profound compared to simple sexual affiliation Bidstrup. The gay relationship presents individuals’ core identity, just like being of a different race among the majority. The heterosexuals fail to understand and appreciate gay relations mainly because it is a situation where the victimized are the minority.

In some instances, same-sex marriages can support life through other measures in place of procreation. Today there are technological or scientific means of supporting the transmission of life. This is a form of cultural dynamism over the years, which poses a possibility of a change in support of same-sex marriages. Today’s marriage is a commitment concerning union in support of life, thus the need to consider gay commitment further improvement.

The definition of marriage as an institution between people of the opposite sex rarely produces supportive arguments to deny gay people the right to marry. A similar description of marriage, such as ‘an act meant to support procreation’, lacks well-built arguments. What would happen to barren individuals, a couple who cannot procreate or who opt not to breed? Is it fair to allow such cases but deny same-sex marriages would on the same note? If children were a top priority in considering these types of relationships, then the law should not allow child molesters into relationships right to have children.

If the definition of marriage is coexistence in support for transmission of human life, then procreation is presently not crucial because the technoscience supports life. If the religious beliefs stipulated marriage to ensure continuity of life, then gay relationships can support the notion and uplift humanity. They can raise children reasonably like those in straight relationships, if not better.