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

In this age of globalisation, marriage is only a religious or merely sentimental, emotional type of personal domestic relationship. Consequently, there is no compelling reason for the state to value one as more significant than any other. However, in reality, it does not seem to suggest so for the social value of same-sex marriage. It is a highly controversial issue on whether it should be allowed or whether it is practical at all.

Economically, this perhaps would be the most significant reason for same-sex marriage to be practical. Especially in this age of globalization where countries are functionally integrated and interdependent, legalizing same-sex marriage would most probably bring millions of dollars worth of revenue into city and state coffers. New York Comptroller, Bill Thompson, estimates legalization of gay marriage would result in a boost of $142 million to the city and $184 million to the state in the first three years following the enactment of such a law. This is due to spending by both in and out-of-state couples as well as their guests, coupled with the fact that New York is a major tourist destination with 44 million foreign and American tourists each year according to New York City Statistics. Furthermore, due to the legalisation, it is highly lucrative for Economically More Developed Countries as not only homosexual foreign talents would be induced to contribute to the economy by working for the state, they would be attracted to migrate there. In this way, same-sex mariage is practical for the growth of the economy.

Socially, it is practical to remove discrimination from marriage laws so no family is treated as second-class and so marriage itself is resilient and relevant enough to meet the challenges of the new century. Apparently, marriage has changed to reflect changing social values, and should change again if it is to reflect society’s growing understanding and acceptance of same-sex relationships in the age of globalisation. Still, marriage remains important in modern Australia, not because it is unchanging, but precisely because it has kept pace with social change. Furthermore, countries where same-sex couples can marry, like Canada, Belgium or Spain, prove the point. After a long decline, the number of heterosexual couples marrying in those countries has increased, in part because allowing same-sex couples to wed has made marriage a more relevant and contemporary institution. Ending discrimination benefits couples and marriage itself. Most importantly, it benefits the society.

Looking from the perspective of children, there seems to be no difference between how heterosexual and homosexual couples raise them. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Decades of research has shown same-sex relationships are as enduring as those of heterosexuals are just as important in providing support and care, and that children raised by same-sex couples are as well-adjusted as their peers. Hence, gays are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else. So why not allow partners in same-sex relationships both legal equality and an opportunity to officially celebrate and affirm their union?

However, same-sex marriage is impractical in this age of globalization. In the long term, there are repercussions on the country’s social order. Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code states that any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years. If the law is abolished, legalizing gay marriages will open the door to all kinds of insane behaviours. It would be difficult to draw the line on the identities of marriage partners. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license. It would be overwhelming a bisexual wish to marry a homosexual. Consequently, there might be cases of strikes and movements in a bid to legitimise all types of marriages. Certainly, this is not ideal for the security and stability of the country. Inevitably, the economy would be adversely affected due to turned off investors.

Culture is what marks us as human; it is what distinguishes us and allows us to distinguish ourselves from other animals and, in this age of globalisation, from intelligent machines. In establishing a societal-cultural paradigm all human societies have focused on the two great events of every human life: birth and death. Marriage is a central part of the culture in a secular society — values, attitudes, beliefs — that surrounds birth. Hence, the legal recognition of marriage is important. Same-sex marriage would damage the reproductive symbolism of marriage – the inherent procreativity. Although there are new reproductive technoscience which opens up unprecedented modes of transmission of life, without it, we would have no means of delivering life through sexual reproduction, as compared, for example, through asexual replication (cloning). Hence, same-sex marriage would unavoidably change and eliminate this function of marriage.

In the final analysis, people should accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to give social and public recognition to an intimate relationship between two people, and, therefore, to exclude same-sex couples is discrimination. Furthermore, everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, have human rights. As long as the union of two parties is legal, and would increase the social welfare in the long term, same-sex marriage is considered practical. However, it does take into account which country the issue is dealing with as different nations have different sets of cultural values and beliefs which would affect people’s acceptance of same-sex marriages. The fact that many are not willing to accept this same-sex marriage as their perception of gay relationships being immoral and unnatural says more about them than it does about gay marriage.