A review of the research examining the impact of marriage denial on the health and wellbeing of gay men and lesbians conceded that marriage equality is a profoundly complex and nuanced issue. I believe this is a more coherent and less divisive formula for advancing same-sex marriage. Indeed, many opponents do regard homosexuality as immoral or sinful. Drawing conclusions Same-sex marriage has already been legalised in 23 countries around the worldinhabited by more than million people. Widescale research suggests that members of the LGBTQ community generally experience worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. Equality before the law, freedom of choice, non-discrimination, human rights.
However, most studies have found that on these metrics there is no difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents.
Australia's heated same-sex marriage debate
Recently I was the contributing "Voice in the Wilderness" on RN's God Forbid program - a segment dedicated, at least nominally, to opinions that receive less frequent coverage in the mainstream media. But this doesn't mean conservatives don't have a case that deserves to be addressed. They matter both for how the public discussion is conducted, and the consequences this has for how we understand our future political challenges. There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. The segment and its format called for something sharp, short and, hopefully, provocative.
This reasoning, one might say, could constitute a more conservative case for same-sex marriage: It does a disservice to the profound cultural change that has taken place in our societies, which have made same-sex marriage possible - a change that supporters of same-sex marriage ought unambiguously to embrace. It depends on a certain conception of the telos of marriage - it's purpose and point. Sandel proposes that marriage can better be thought of as an honorific institution. It was not binding, but a parliamentary majority for change following the vote was all but assured and had the advantage of bringing an enhanced democratic legitimacy to the outcome.