The problem with same sex marriage
Same-sex marriage legislation shows that policy can lead public notion
Same-sex marriage legislation, passed 10 years ago today, was a masterclass in building consensus for a contentious policy.
On 17 July , the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Proceed gained royal assent, granting same-sex couples in England and Wales the right to marry. It was a landmark moment for LGBT+ rights.
The journey to passing legislation on same-sex marriage was long and at times contentious. Labour had made significant strides in the early s – revoking Section 28 that had prohibited local authorities from “promoting homosexuality” and introducing civil partnerships that gave same-sex couples comparable legal rights to married couples – but Gordon Brown as prime minister opposed same-sex marriage on the grounds that marriage was “intimately bound up with questions of religious freedom”.14
But even once Brown left office in new legislation looked far from inevitable. None of the main parties’ election manifestos that year had committed to introducing same-sex marriage. Despite LGBT+ rights g
The Morality of Same Sex Marriage: How Not to Globalize a Cultural Anomie
Abstract
The question of the morality of same-sex marriage has become quite prevalent in the 21st century. Some western cultures believe that same-sex marriage is morally defensible and can be legalized. Using the human right fad and political might, they subtly engineer the globalization of this phenomenon. This move has been strongly opposed mostly by ‘developing’ nations and some churches across nations. The argument of such group is that same-sex marriage is immoral, unnatural and ungodly. This paper defends the thesis that same-sex marriage cannot morally be defended successfully. It shows that same-sex marriage is not exclusively a western phenomenon but has been in rehearse for a long time even in some African cultures; though in some subtle way. It argues that in whatever way it is practiced same-sex marriage is a cultural anomie: and more or less an elixir and alibi, aimed at concealing immorality. The paper concludes that it is wrong for some cultures to attempt a globalization of this cultur
Why people oppose same-sex marriage
Why undertake opponents of same-sex marriage really oppose it?
A UCLA psychology research published online today in the journal Psychological Science concludes that many people believe gay men and women are more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals, which they may fear could threaten their own marriages and their way of life.
“Many people who object same-sex marriage are uncomfortable with casual sex and feel threatened by sexual promiscuity,” said David Pinsof, a UCLA graduate student of psychology and lead author of the study.
Such people often join at a younger age, possess more children and believe in traditional gender roles in which men are the breadwinners and women are housewives.
“Sexual promiscuity may be threatening to these people because it provides more temptations for spouses to cheat on one another,” Pinsof said. “On the other hand, for people who are comfortable with women being more economically independent, marrying at a later age and having more sexual partners, sexual promiscuity is not as much
The Challenges of Saying ‘I do’ for same-sex couples: The Human Rights Centre submits a Third Party Intervention in transnational same-sex marriage case
By Claire Poppelwell-Scevak (PhD Researcher at the Human Rights Centre, Ghent University) and Sarah Den Haese (PhD Researcher at the Human Rights Centre, Ghent University)
The Human Rights Centre of Ghent University[1] (Belgium) recently submitted a third party intervention (TPI) before the European Court of Human Rights in the communicated case of Szypuła v. Poland and Urbanik and Alonso Rodriguez v. Poland. The issue is the restrictive marriage eligibility measures in Poland that prevent Polish nationals who are in a same-sex relationship from enjoying their right to marry abroad in countries which allow for same-sex marriage (in these two cases, Spain). In our submission, we debate that this case raises crucial issues under the right to marry (Article 12 ECHR), taken alone and in conjunction with the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 ECHR), providing the Court with an important opportunity to clarify the s