The concept of a traditional family (a mother, a father and child/ren) is becoming obsolete and the pure examples of such families are not easy to find. One of the popular family forms of modern times is a single sex family. There are plenty of those who do not support such types of relations at all. However, several countries or state administrative units of lower rank officially acknowledge such marriages annually, which is a proof of the fact that the world community is continuously becoming more tolerant en masse. The present research is an attempt to find arguments supporting the practice of same sex marriages.
Approaches to single-sex relations are, probably, one of the most controversial in the modern society. There are furious and zealous arguments against and defensive counter-strike reasons for. The only fact everyone should bear in mind is that homosexuality is not a disease. Unconventional sexual orientation might have been called a mental disorder back in the 19th century, but has the world community in general and psychiatry in particular not advanced ever since? As Maia Spotts notices, the advantage of science is in being unbiased and independent from any moral considerations. The results of research of the American Psychiatric Association revealed that generally “the implications of being mentally deranged were ignored” (Spotts, 2010). It means that homosexuals were considered to be normal members of society in terms of psychology. The witch hunt began in 1970’s and brought forth the establishment of gay activist movement.
Same-sex relations and marriage are a political issue. The attitude towards a country will be different based on whether such marriages are legitimized or not. A country might even lose some of its economic partners if they are against its LGBT policy. According to democratic regulations, the decision rests with the citizens, but lobbying also plays a great role. In such a way, one of the recent victories of single-sex marriage proponents is the acknowledgement of the voter-approved Proposition 8 as unconstitutional by the court of appeals in California on February 7, 2012. It was an event of a considerable social resonance (Gumbel, 2012). Half a year earlier from the date the same step was taken by New York (making it the largest state to pass the single-sex law) and a couple of days later – by Washington. Now there are seven states in the USA which have legalized same sex marriages. Taking into consideration the fact that the first legal acknowledgement of such marriages at the state level took place in Massachusetts in 2004, one may conclude that LGBT movement has gained rapidness and became widespread, and at the same time the commotion in society related to this topic is unprecedented. The beneficial effects of new legislation in the pioneering same sex marriage state reveal themselves in the lowest nation-wide divorce rate: statistics supports that the divorce figures are approximately 20% lower than in the rest of the country. One must keep in mind that permission for such action stays in accordance with the laws granting personal freedoms.
The point of marriage is starting a family. What concerns the problems of family structure, particularly the pioneering United Stated with its notorious 50% divorce rate completely ruins the conventional statistics. As a result of such a large amount of one-parent families causing pain to adults as well as to kids there arises a logical question: would it not be better if a child is brought up surrounded by a loving and caring pair of parents, whoever they may be? Researches show a significant discrepancy in emotional and social well-being of children growing up in full and one-parent families (Angel & Angel, 1993). Moreover, the effects extend to physical side: children who live with one parent have poorer health than those living with two parents (Bramlett & Blumberg).
One of the forms of participation of single sex couples in family-creating is adoption. Taylor Gandossy claims that the difficulties for homosexual couples in contrast to heterosexual ones are presented by insufficient legislation including absence of both relevant laws and court decisions in many American states, and a small share of them have implicit or explicit prohibitions regarding the issue. The author continues by maintaining that the intricate bureaucratic and social inspection procedure of adoption for homosexual couples is reinforced by the psychological results in case of approval for adoption or foster care: such parents face blatant opposition and disapproval of society which is hard to bear regarding the unconventional sexual orientation as it is (Gandossy, 2007). But the main factor is wish, and this statement might be proved by official statistics. Kelly Kennedy states that in spite of discriminatory rules in many states the number of gay couples who adopt children have increased by almost three times over the past decade, in accordance with the social analysis of recent population trends. Adoption officials call such advancement “stratospheric”. Moreover, adoption possibilities are not limited by the US borders: there is a range of other countries in the world allowing adoption for foreigners, and gay couples should turn for help to those acknowledging the legitimacy of their relations. Everything considered, there are no gender distinctions and restrictions in being good parents, thus, sexual orientation is not the key factor here.
Opponents of gay marriages are concerned with the way gay propaganda might influence gender identity of their children. Any directed dissemination of information is a negative phenomenon. However, the adversaries of homosexual relations have decided to turn the latter into Pandora box from which all the evils of obscenity, offensiveness and distortion stem. They refuse to see that are plenty of other factors that can lead the young generation astray. Same sex marriage is simply a way of life. If it brings any social benefits, it has a full-fledged right to exist.