Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

Same-sex marriage, which is termed a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family, has been a controversal issue for the longest time now. Despite there being a long history of same-sex unions around the world, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions, many people of this era still find same-sex marriages unacceptable. Certain reasons to justify their objections include religious and social issues. Globalisation refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres. Therefore, same-sex marriages might cause problems in our globalised world.

State-recognized same-sex marriage is a relatively new phenomenon in Western society. Although this has allowed many gay couples to fulfill their desire to marry, it has generated negative response from the public. After a year into the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, fifty percent of respondents said they opposed recognizing same-sex marriages from Massachusetts ''as legal in all fifty states," and forty-six percent favored it. The respondents also said they disapproved of ''gay and lesbian couples being allowed to get married" by fifty percent to thirty-seven percent. Forty-six percent of respondents backed civil unions that would give gay couples ''some, but not all, of the legal rights of married couples" while forty-one percent said they were opposed. Also, following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that allowed same-sex marriages as of May 17, 2004, a shocking number of states in America have moved towards banning same-sex marriages. This shows that people cannot accept same-sex marriages, even in our globalised world. This unacceptance will escalate into riots and demonstrations by the people if nothing is being done to address this problem, and it will lead to social and economic problems.

In contrast with the negative feedback from the public about same-sex marriage, the legalization of same-sex marriages can be a good thing as well. Reports and studies have completely contradicted the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage. The study by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had legalised same-sex marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down. In addition, Massachusetts has had the lowest divorce rate of any state in the union for some time now. In 2004 the Massachusetts divorce rate, at 2.2 per 1,000 residents per year, was considerably lower than the US national average rate for that year, 3.8 per 1,000. After legalising same sex marriage, Massachusetts showed a more rapid decline in divorce rates. On the other hand, the average divorce rate for states that have taken aggressive action against same sex marriage, for 2004 and 2005, increased by 1.75%. Evidently, states which have passed both state laws and also state constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage, lag dramatically in terms of divorce rate improvement when compared to same sex marriage friendly states. Arguably, same-sex marriages might prove to increase our standard of living in this globalised world.

Then again, same-sex marriages brings about the problem of being unable to procreate. In Anderson et al. v. King County in which several same-sex couples argued that the state of Washington's version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, the Washington Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the law was constitutional. Writing in the majority opinion, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in 2006:
“The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children's biological parents.”
However, being unable to procreate is not a justifiable reason to ban same-sex marriages. What about heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce? Why are they allowed to get married then? Furthermore, it is unfair to generalise and say that children are better off when they are “reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents”. Would it further a child’s well-being if his family was a broken one? Of course not.

To sum everything up, I believe that same-sex marriage is a practical consideration in this age of globalisation. There are undoubtably pros and cons when it comes to this issue, but I believe that the pros outweigh the cons. I doubt that homosexuality is a question of choice, just as proponents of 377 claim. Therefore, there is no reason to condemn homosexuals. They deserve the same human rights heterosexuals enjoy.