essay about disadvantage of same sex marriage

• Arts & Humanities
• Business, Law & Society
• Science, Health & Technology
• University News
• Services for Journalists
• Services for Faculty
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

The problem with same-sex marriage

Mar 21, 2014    |   For more information, contact Corey Allen

Gay couples could face economic trouble if they tie the knot, says UBC law prof

While same-sex marriage affirms important equality rights for gays and lesbians, it can also lead to unforeseen consequences, says Susan Boyd, a professor of family law at the University of British Columbia. She offers a feminist critique of the institution.

What are the disadvantages of same-sex marriage?

Marriage is more than just a contract between two individuals. It plays a regulatory role in our lives and is a state system for organizing and allocating rights, responsibilities and public resources. Married low-income couples that live near the poverty line may face economic disadvantages because they often lose their entitlement to state benefits since their individual incomes are combined. Entitlement to student loans or social assistance can be lost when a couple is legally recognized. Proponents of marriage typically only talk about the benefits that marriage will bring, but not the penalties.

Are there any legal issues that are particular to same-sex marriages?

Once legally married, same-sex spouses in Canada have the same legal rights and duties that arise for opposite-sex spouses. Although it was not clear at the outset, it is now clear that same-sex married couples can divorce under the same terms as opposite-sex couples. For example, it is now clear that “adultery” includes same-sex acts as well as opposite-sex acts. There may still be some lack of clarity about legal parenthood status for same-sex parents.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for almost 10 years, so where is the debate headed?

We need to shake up the extent to which legally recognized marriages or common-law relationships are used to regulate benefits. We over-romanticize the institution of marriage and this shifts attention away from more important matters, like ensuring individuals have the right to social entitlements and benefits, regardless of whether their relationship is legally recognized or not.

Why do we need a critical look at the institution of marriage?

Strategies that promote marriage as a primary social and legal institution reinforce the notion that those who live in other ways, such as unmarried or single adults, are somehow inferior. People come to see marriage as the preferred sphere in which to raise children, which suggests that children born into unmarried or single parent homes are disadvantaged from the get-go.

Boyd, Chair in Feminist Legal Studies at the UBC Faculty of Law, offers a feminist critique of same-sex marriage in a recently published paper, Marriage is More than Just a Piece of Paper: Feminist Critiques of Same Sex Marriage

Find other stories about: Faculty of Law , same-sex marriage , Susan Boyd

Corey Allen UBC Public Affairs Tel: 604.822.2644 Cell: 604.209.3048 Email: [email protected] @coreyallenubc

Find UBC Experts

An information source that gives journalists access to UBC’s expertise.

Tweets by @ubcnews

Same-Sex Marriage Disadvantages: Fighting The System

Unfortunately, people in same-sex marriages may be put at a disadvantage. Upon hearing someone is in a same-sex marriage, some individuals may choose to discriminate against them. It is typically unlawful for individuals or businesses to discriminate against a same-sex couple. Everyone who wishes to be in a same-sex marriage has the right to be, but, they should know their rights to protect themselves from same-sex marriage disadvantages. Knowing one’s rights as a same-sex couple allows them to protect themselves and take legal action against discrimination.

Refusal of Services: A Disadvantage of Same-Sex Marriage

Upon hearing that customers are in a same-sex marriage or relationship, some businesses may refuse service or discriminate against them. California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits any company from participating in illegal discrimination against all people where the discrimination is based partly on an individual’s sex, gender, and sexual orientation. This act includes discriminating against same-sex couples. Essentially, it is illegal for private and public California businesses to discriminate against couples because of their sexual orientation . Examples of companies that fall under this law include the following:

• Restaurants
• Retail and grocery stores

However, it is worth noting that under California Business and Professions Code 125.6 , sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic. This code applies to individuals who are licensed to render services. In essence, a business’s ability and right to refuse services depends on whether or not the company demands licensure to provide services or if it is a public business establishment, such as those listed above.

Hate Crimes and Same-Sex Marriage

Same-sex marriage disadvantages may include hate crimes . The California Office of the Attorney General states that a hate crime is a display of violence motivated by the aggressor’s displeasure with the victim’s protected social group. Protected social groups include sexual orientation. In some instances, attackers may target people in a same-sex marriage and put them at a disadvantage or higher risk for hate crimes.

If you and your partner are the victims of a hate crime, it is best to:

• Contact law enforcement
• Seek medical attention, if necessary.
• Remember essential details of what the attacker said and did
• Make a note of any evidence that may be helpful
• If possible, contact a lawyer and file suit or petition for a restraining order

Employment Discrimination and Same Sex Marriage

In some instances, an employer may discriminate against someone if they find out an employee is in a same-sex marriage. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, and discriminating against someone for being in a same-sex marriage falls under this category. This law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because they complained about discrimination or filed a charge of discrimination. Thus, while employers may choose to discriminate against those in the LGBTQ+ community, there is legal recourse for same-sex marriage disadvantages a couple suffers.

Title VII prohibits discriminatory actions towards protected groups, including the following activities:

• Work training
• Work assignments
• Job transfer
• Overtime pay
• Retirement plans
• Leave and benefits
• Use of company facilities

Suppose an employer has discriminated against someone for being in a same-sex marriage using any above methods. Then, it may be in one’s interest to contact a lawyer and file a lawsuit to recover damages. Complaints under Title II of the Civil Rights Act are the responsibility of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Department of Justice can prosecute its enforcement and perform investigations. There are legal actions of recourse for same-sex marriage disadvantages in the workplace!

If the employer has a religious affiliation, it may be more challenging to prove that they are discriminating against a current or prospective employee for being in a same-sex marriage. The difficulty is that they can argue that same-sex marriage is against their religious beliefs. However, if they deny employee employment benefits because of their same-sex marriage, it is more simple to prove against Title VII.

Some may ask if it is lawful for an employer to make disparaging comments about one’s same-sex marriage. In some instances, this may be illegal, but it depends on the nature of the words. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states that simple teasing or isolated incidents may not be prohibited. However, the law does prohibit harassment, so if the disparaging comments are frequent and create a hostile work environment or result from an adverse employment decision, it should be banned.

Housing Discrimination and Same-Sex Marriage

Upon finding out their tenants are a same-sex couple, a landlord might be discriminative. It is unlawful for landlords to deny someone housing because of their sexual orientation, and because of this, prospective tenants of the same sex fall under this umbrella.

California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibit those involved in the housing business from discriminating against prospective or current tenants or homeowners because of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Acts of discrimination may include some of the following:

• Refusal to sell, rent or lease a space
• Refusal to negotiate
• Cancellation or termination of a sale or rental agreement
• Offering inferior terms and conditions
• Refusal to make reasonable accommodations
• Retaliation against an individual for filing a complaint
• Overly restrictive rules

If a landlord indicates that they will not rent their property to a same-sex couple, there may be grounds to file a lawsuit. It is best to contact a lawyer and figure out the best path forward.

While there are specific criteria that agencies or birth parents may look for in prospective parents, California adoption agencies cannot discriminate against same-sex couples. In adoptions where the birth parents are involved, California Family Code 8801 stipulates that the child’s birth parents shall make the selection of prospective adoptive parents, and they may consider factors such as:

• Length of marriage
• Criminal history
• Home environment

While they may take in the above factors, it is unlawful for birth parents to discriminate against same-sex couples. Suppose one believes that an agency or couple is denying them adoption privileges because they are in a same-sex marriage. If so, it would be in their best interest to contact an attorney and file a suit.

However, unfortunately, some countries do not allow same-sex parents to adopt in international adoptions. If you are considering adoption, it is in your interest to talk with an attorney and see what options are available.

Contact Pride Legal

If you or a loved one are suffering from same-sex marriage disadvantages, we invite you to contact us at Pride Legal  for legal counseling or any further questions. To protect your rights,  hire someone who understands them .

View All News

Connection denied by Geolocation Setting.

Reason: Blocked country: Russia

The connection was denied because this country is blocked in the Geolocation settings.

Please contact your administrator for assistance.

What You Lose When You Gain a Spouse

What if marriage is not the social good that so many believe and want it to be?

In America today, it’s easy to believe that marriage is a social good—that our lives and our communities are better when more people get and stay married. There have, of course, been massive changes to the institution over the past few generations, leading the occasional cultural critic to ask: Is marriage becoming obsolete? But few of these people seem genuinely interested in the answer .

More often the question functions as a kind of rhetorical sleight of hand, a way of stirring up moral panic about changing family values or speculating about whether society has become too cynical for love. In popular culture, the sentiment still prevails that marriage makes us happy and divorce leaves us lonely, and that never getting married at all is a fundamental failure of belonging.

Recommended Reading

Marriage Proposals Are Stupid

How Friendships Change in Adulthood

The Long Goodbye to Saturn’s Rings

But speculation about whether or not marriage is obsolete overlooks a more important question: What is lost by making marriage the most central relationship in a culture?

For me, this is a personal question as much as it is a social and political one. When my partner, Mark, and I talk about whether or not we want to get married, friends tend to assume that we are trying to decide whether or not we are “serious” about our relationship. But I’m not expressing doubts about my relationship; I’m doubting the institution itself.

While marriage is often seen as an essential step in a successful life, the Pew Research Center reports that only about half of Americans over age 18 are married. This is down from 72 percent in 1960. One obvious reason for this shift is that, on average, people are getting married much later in life than they were just a few decades earlier. In the United States, the median age for first marriage rose to an all-time high in 2018: 30 for men and 28 for women. While a majority of Americans expect to marry eventually, 14 percent of never-married adults say they don’t plan to marry at all , and another 27 percent aren’t sure whether marriage is for them . When people bemoan the demise of marriage, these are the kinds of data they often cite. It’s true that marriage is not as popular as it was a few generations ago, but Americans still marry more than people in the vast majority of other Western countries, and divorce more than any other country.

There is good reason to believe the institution isn’t going anywhere. As the sociologist Andrew Cherlin points out , just two years after the Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015, a full 61 percent of cohabiting same-sex couples were married. This is an extraordinarily high rate of participation. Cherlin believes that while some of these couples may have married to take advantage of the legal rights and benefits newly available to them, most see marriage as “a public marker of their successful union.” As Cherlin puts it , in America today, getting married is still “the most prestigious way to live your life.”

Andrew Cherlin: Marriage has become a trophy

This prestige can make it particularly difficult to think critically about the institution—especially when coupled with the idea that vows might save you from the existential loneliness of being human. When my friends cite the benefits of marriage, they often point to an intangible sense of belonging and security: Being married just “feels different.”

In his majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges , Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.” This notion—that marriage is the best answer to the deep human desire for connection and belonging—is incredibly seductive. When I think about getting married, I can feel its undertow. But research suggests that, whatever its benefits, marriage also comes with a cost.

As Chekhov put it , “If you’re afraid of loneliness, don’t marry.” He might have been on to something. In a review of two national surveys, the sociologists Natalia Sarkisian of Boston College and Naomi Gerstel of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst found that marriage actually weakens other social ties. Compared with those who stay single, married folks are less likely to visit or call parents and siblings—and less inclined to offer them emotional support or pragmatic help with things such as chores and transportation. They are also less likely to hang out with friends and neighbors.

Single people, by contrast, are far more connected to the social world around them. On average, they provide more care for their siblings and aging parents. They have more friends. They are more likely to offer help to neighbors and ask for it in return. This is especially true for those who have always been single, shattering the myth of the spinster cat lady entirely. Single women in particular are more politically engaged—attending rallies and fundraising for causes that are important to them—than married women. (These trends persist, but are weaker, for single people who were previously married. Cohabiting couples were underrepresented in the data and excluded from the study.)

Sarkisian and Gerstel wondered whether some of these effects could be explained by the demands of caring for small children. Maybe married parents just don’t have any extra time or energy to offer neighbors and friends. But once they examined the data further, they found that those who were married without children were the most isolated. The researchers suggest that one potential explanation for this is that these couples tend to have more time and money—and thus need less help from family and friends, and are then less likely to offer it in return. The autonomy of successful married life can leave spouses cut off from their communities. Having children may slightly soften the isolating effects of marriage, because parents often turn to others for help.

The sociologists found that, for the most part, these trends couldn’t be explained away by structural differences in the lives of married versus unmarried people. They hold true across racial groups and even when researchers control for age and socioeconomic status. So it isn’t the circumstances of married life that isolate—it’s marriage itself.

When I came across Sarkisian and Gerstel’s research, I wasn’t surprised by the data—but I was surprised that no one seemed to be talking about the isolation of modern romantic commitment. Many couples who live together but aren’t married are likely to experience at least some of the costs and benefits associated with marriage. The expectations that come with living with a serious partner, married or not, can enforce the norms that create social isolation. In the months after Mark moved into my apartment, I enjoyed the coziness of our shared domestic life. I liked having another person to help walk the dog and shop for groceries. I loved getting into bed with him every night.

But when I looked at my life, I was surprised by how it seemed to have contracted. I didn’t go out as much. I got fewer invitations for after-work beers. Even my own parents seemed to call less often. When invitations did arrive, they were addressed to us both. We hadn’t even discussed marriage yet, but already it seemed everyone had tacitly agreed that our step toward each other necessitated a step away from friendship and community. I was happy in our home, but that happiness was twinned with a sense of loneliness I hadn’t expected.

When I thought about getting married, I imagined it would only isolate us further. Marriage has social and institutional power that cohabitation does not; it confers more prestige, and it prescribes more powerful norms.

Social alienation is so fully integrated into the American ideology of marriage that it’s easy to overlook. Sarkisian and Gerstel point out that modern marriage comes with a cultural presumption of self-sufficiency. This is reflected in how young adults in the U.S. tend to postpone marriage until they can afford to live alone—rather than with family or roommates—and in the assumption that a married life should be one of total financial independence.

This idea of self-sufficiency is also reflected in weddings themselves, which tend to emphasize the individuals getting married rather than the larger community they belong to. On the website TheKnot.com , whose tagline is “Welcome to your day, your way,” you can take a quiz to help define “your wedding style.” There are pages and pages of “wedding inspo” so that every detail can be perfectly refined for a wedding that’s “totally you.” Admittedly, there is something appealing about the idea that a wedding might perfectly express the identities of the individuals involved, but this is a distinctively modern concept.

In his book The All-or-Nothing Marriage , the psychologist Eli Finkel examines how, over the past 200 years, American expectations of marriage have slowly climbed Maslow’s hierarchy of needs . Just a few generations ago, the ideal marriage was defined by love, cooperation, and a sense of belonging to a family and community. Today’s newlyweds, Finkel argues, want all that and prestige, autonomy, personal growth, and self-expression. A marriage is supposed to help the individuals within it become the best versions of themselves. This means that more and more, Americans turn to their spouses for needs they once expected an entire community to fulfill.

Read more: The wedding-industry bonanza, on full display

One way to think outside the monolith of the American marriage is to imagine a world without it. Implicit in the self-sufficiency of the American ideology of marriage is the assumption that care—everything from health care to financial support to self-development and career coaching—falls primarily to one person. Your spouse should make you soup when you’re sick and cover the rent when you go back to school to study for your dream job.

In his book The Marriage-Go-Round , Andrew Cherlin describes the marriage-based family as equivalent to a tall tree: Care and support pass up and down between generations, but more rarely do people branch out to give help or get it from their siblings, aunts and uncles, or cousins. And in different-sex relationships, especially once children are involved , the work of this care falls disproportionately to women. Without marriage, this care and support could be redistributed across networks of extended family, neighbors, and friends.

Regardless of this pruning of the tree of care, one of the main arguments in favor of marriage is that it’s still the best environment for raising children. But as Cherlin argues in The Marriage-Go-Round , what matters for children is “not simply the kind of family they live in but how stable that family is.” That stability may take the form of a two-parent family, or, as Cherlin points out, it might be the extended-family structures that are common in African American communities, for example. Given the frequency of divorce and remarriage or cohabitation, marriage provides only temporary stability for many families. If stability is what matters for kids, then stability, not marriage, should be the primary goal.

Of course, some would argue that, regardless of divorce statistics, marriage is a stabilizing force for relationships, that the commitment itself helps couples stay together when they otherwise might not. It’s true that marriages are less likely to end in breakup than are cohabiting relationships, but that might simply be because married people are a self-selected group whose relationships were already more committed. Many people anecdotally report that getting married deepens their sense of commitment, even when they didn’t expect it to.

But other studies have shown that it’s the level of commitment that matters to relationship satisfaction or the age at which the commitment is made —not a couple’s marital status. A further problem is that social norms surrounding marriage, divorce, and cohabitation have changed rapidly in the past few decades, so getting a reliable longitudinal data set is hard. And though divorce is certainly difficult, it’s not as though cohabiting unmarried couples can just walk away: Mark and I own property together and may someday have kids; beyond our own sense of commitment, we have a lot of incentives to stay together, and disentangling our lives would be hard, even without divorce.

The psychologist Bella DePaulo, who has spent her career studying single people, says she believes there are serious repercussions of putting marriage at the center of one’s life. “When the prevailing unquestioned narrative maintains that there is only one way to live a good and happy life, too many people end up miserable,” she says. The stigma attached to divorce or single life can make it difficult to end an unhealthy marriage or choose not to marry at all. DePaulo thinks people are hungry for a different story. She argues that an emphasis on marriage means people often overlook other meaningful relationships: deep friendships, roommates, chosen families, and wider networks of kin. These relationships are often important sources of intimacy and support.

In her 1991 book Families We Choose , the anthropologist Kath Weston wrote about the prominence of these sorts of chosen families in queer communities. These relationships, which were not shaped by legal or biological definitions of kinship, played a central role in queer lives, especially during the AIDS crisis. Importantly, the people Weston interviewed turned to alternative forms of family-making not simply because they were denied access to legal marriage, but also because many had been rejected by their families of origin. Still, the LGBTQ+ community continues to provide a model for intimacy and care beyond the bounds of the institution of marriage.

It is too early to tell how the legalization of same-sex marriage will affect queer communities in the generations to come. Abigail Ocobock, a sociologist at the University of Notre Dame, believes queer couples might be more resistant to the isolating effects of marriage, thanks to a long history of community reliance. But as Michael Yarbrough, the lead editor of the scholarly anthology Queer Families and Relationships: After Marriage Equality , said in an interview, though marriage has helped “both married and unmarried queer people feel more included,” some evidence suggests that “it also seems to be reducing people’s participation in LGBTQ community life.” Angela Jones, Yarbrough’s co-editor, believes marriage fails to support the most marginalized queer and trans people. In an email interview, she wrote, “It is queer liberation, not homonormative marriage that will cause radical changes to how we form, live, and find joy in our families and communities.”

Love is the marrow of life, and yet, so often people attempt to funnel it into the narrow channels prescribed by marriage and the nuclear family. And though this setup is seen as a cultural norm, it is not, in reality, the way most Americans are living their lives . The two-parents-plus-kids family represents only 20 percent of households in the U.S.; couples (both married and unmarried) without children are another 25 percent. But millions of Americans are living alone, with other unmarried adults, or as single parents with children. It’s worth considering what would happen if they lived in a culture that supported all intimate relationships with the same energy currently devoted to celebrating and supporting marriage.

Read more: How to save marriage in America

Governments, hospitals, insurance companies, and schools assume that marriage (and subsequently the nuclear family) is the primary unit of care. But of course love—and the care it necessitates—is much more far-reaching and unwieldy than that. What if you could share health-care benefits with your sister and her son? Or take paid leave to be with a close friend who had an operation? In a country with epidemic rates of loneliness, expanding our sense of what counts as meaningful love—and acknowledging and supporting relationships in all their forms—could have enormous benefits. Energy spent striving to prop up the insular institution of marriage could instead be spent working to support family stability in whatever form it takes.

When Mark and I talk about whether or not we want to get married, what we’re really asking is how we want to define our sense of family and community. What is the role of care in our lives? Whom are we offering it to, and where are we finding it? I don’t think choosing not to get married will save us from loneliness, but I think expanding our sense of what love looks like might. We’ve decided not to get married, for now, at least. I hope that might be a reminder to turn toward the people around us as often as we turn toward each other.

Evidence is clear on the benefits of legalising same-sex  marriage

PhD Candidate, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook University

Disclosure statement

Ryan Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

James Cook University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

Emotive arguments and questionable rhetoric often characterise debates over same-sex marriage. But few attempts have been made to dispassionately dissect the issue from an academic, science-based perspective.

Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the more robust, rigorous and reliable information that is publicly available, the better.

There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.

Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage.

Further reading: Conservatives prevail to hold back the tide on same-sex marriage

What does the research say?

Widescale research suggests that members of the LGBTQ community generally experience worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is possibly due to the stigmatisation they receive.

The mental health benefits of marriage generally are well-documented . In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognised that excluding sexual minorities from marriage was significantly contributing to the overall poor health among same-sex households compared to heterosexual households.

Converging lines of evidence also suggest that sexual orientation stigma and discrimination are at least associated with increased psychological distress and a generally decreased quality of life among lesbians and gay men.

A US study that surveyed more than 36,000 people aged 18-70 found lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals were far less psychologically distressed if they were in a legally recognised same-sex marriage than if they were not. Married heterosexuals were less distressed than either of these groups.

So, it would seem that being in a legally recognised same-sex marriage can at least partly overcome the substantial health disparity between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

The authors concluded by urging other researchers to consider same-sex marriage as a public health issue.

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. But, it argued that depriving lesbians and gay men the tangible (and intangible) benefits of marriage is not only an act of discrimination – it also:

disadvantages them by restricting their citizenship;

hinders their mental health, wellbeing, and social mobility; and

generally disenfranchises them from various cultural, legal, economic and political aspects of their lives.

Of further concern is research finding that in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents living in areas where gay marriage was allowed, living in areas where it was banned was associated with significantly higher rates of:

mood disorders (36% higher);

psychiatric comorbidity – that is, multiple mental health conditions (36% higher); and

anxiety disorders (248% higher).

But what about the kids?

Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that children raised in same-sex households perform worse on a variety of life outcome measures when compared to those raised in a heterosexual household. There is some merit to this argument.

In terms of education and general measures of success, the literature isn’t entirely unanimous. However, most studies have found that on these metrics there is no difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents.

In 2005, the American Psychological Association released a brief reviewing research on same-sex parenting. It unambiguously summed up its stance on the issue of whether or not same-sex parenting negatively impacts children:

Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.

Further reading: Same-sex couples and their children: what does the evidence tell us?

Drawing conclusions

Same-sex marriage has already been legalised in 23 countries around the world , inhabited by more than 760 million people.

Despite the above studies positively linking marriage with wellbeing, it may be premature to definitively assert causality .

But overall, the evidence is fairly clear. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing. The benefits accrue to society as a whole, whether you are in a same-sex relationship or not.

As the body of research in support of same-sex marriage continues to grow, the case in favour of it becomes stronger.

• Human rights
• Same-sex marriage
• Same-sex marriage plebiscite

Events Officer

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

School of Social Sciences – Public Policy and International Relations opportunities

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Challenges and Opportunities for Research on Same-Sex Relationships

Research on same-sex relationships has informed policy debates and legal decisions that greatly affect American families, yet the data and methods available to scholars studying same-sex relationships have been limited. In this article the authors review current approaches to studying same-sex relationships and significant challenges for this research. After exploring how researchers have dealt with these challenges in prior studies, the authors discuss promising strategies and methods to advance future research on same-sex relationships, with particular attention given to gendered contexts and dyadic research designs, quasi-experimental designs, and a relationship biography approach. Innovation and advances in the study of same-sex relationships will further theoretical and empirical knowledge in family studies more broadly and increase understanding of different-sex as well as same-sex relationships.

One of the most high-stakes debates in the United States today concerns whether and how same-sex relationships influence the health and well-being of individuals, families, and even society. Social scientists have conducted studies that compare same- and different-sex relationships across a range of outcomes (see reviews in Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007 ; Rothblum, 2009 ), and state and federal judiciaries have drawn on this evidence to make critical legal decisions that affect same-sex partners and their children (e.g., American Sociological Association, 2013 ; DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014 ; Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 ). Therefore, it is critical that family scholars develop a scientifically driven agenda to advance a coordinated and informed program of research in this area.

Advances in theory and research on marriage and family are inherently shaped by the changing contours of family life over time. For example, during the past decade, increases in the number of people who cohabit outside of marriage have been accompanied by vast improvement in the methods and data used to study cohabiting couples ( Kroeger & Smock, 2014 ). A number of factors point to similarly significant advances in data and research on same-sex relationships in the near future. First, the number of individuals in same-sex unions is significant; recent data from the U.S. Census indicate that about 650,000 same-sex couples reside in the United States, with 114,100 of those couples in legal marriages and another 108,600 in some other form of legally recognized partnership ( Gates, 2013b ). Second, the increasing number of states that legally recognize same-sex marriage (now at 19 states and the District of Columbia, and likely more by the time this article is published), and the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 suggest there will be many more legally married same-sex couples in the years ahead. Third, growing efforts by the federal government to identify same-sex couples in U.S. Census counts and national surveys (e.g., the National Health Interview Survey) and to fund research on sexual minority populations mean that researchers will have new sources of data with which to study same-sex relationships in the future.

We organize this article into three main sections. First, we provide a brief overview of current research and data on same-sex relationships, distinguishing between studies that examine individuals in same-sex relationships and those that examine same-sex couples (i.e., dyads). These two approaches are often conflated, yet they address different kinds of questions. For example, studies of individuals can assess the health benefits of being in a same-sex relationship by comparing individuals in same-sex relationships with individuals in other relationship statuses, whereas a focus on couples allows researchers to examine how same-sex partners compare with different-sex partners in influencing each other’s health. In the second section we consider common methodological challenges encountered in studies of same-sex relationships as well as strategies for addressing these challenges, with particular attention to identifying individuals in same-sex relationships and sample size concerns, addressing gender and sexual identity, recruiting respondents, and choosing comparison groups for studies of same-sex relationships. In the third section we discuss promising strategies for future research on same-sex relationships, with a focus on gendered relational contexts and dyadic research designs, quasi-experimental designs, and a relationship biography approach.

We hope that this article, by drawing on multiple perspectives and methods in the study of same-sex relationships, will advance future research on same-sex unions. Although we discuss details of specific studies, the present article is not intended to be a comprehensive review of research findings on same-sex relationships; our primary focus is on data concerns and methodological strategies. We refer readers to several outstanding reviews of research on same-sex relationships (see, e.g., Kurdek, 2005 ; Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ; Patterson, 2000 ; Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007 ; Rothblum, 2009 ).

Data and Methods: General Approaches

In the face of challenges to research on same-sex relationships, including the past failure of federally supported data collections to include measures that clearly identify same-sex relationships, scholars have been creative in data collection and methodological strategies for research. In most analyses that use probability samples and quantitative methods, social scientists analyze data from individuals in same-sex relationships (e.g., Joyner, Manning, & Bogle, 2013 ), but a number of nonprobability studies (qualitative and quantitative) include data from partners within couples (e.g., Moore, 2008 ; Totenhagen, Butler, & Ridley, 2012 ). Both approaches are essential to advancing our understanding of same-sex relationships.

Research on Individuals

Studies on individuals in same-sex relationships, especially those in which nationally representative data are used, have been essential in evaluating similarities and differences between individuals in same-sex relationships and different-sex relationships. For major data sets that can be used to study individuals in same-sex relationships, readers may turn to several overviews that address sample size and measures that are available to identify those in same-sex relationships (see Black, Gates, Sanders, & Taylor, 2000 ; Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; Gates & Badgett, 2006 ; Institute of Medicine, 2011 ). These data sets have produced information on the demographic characteristics ( Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; Gates, 2013b ) and the health and economic well-being of individuals in same-sex relationships ( Badgett, Durso, & Schneebaum, 2013 ; Denney, Gorman, & Barrera, 2013 ; Gonzales & Blewett, 2014 ; Liu, Reczek, & Brown, 2013 ). For example, Wight and colleagues ( Wight, LeBlanc, & Badgett, 2013 ) analyzed data from the California Health Interview Survey and found that being married was associated with lower levels of psychological distress for individuals in same-sex relationships as well as those in different-sex relationships. Given the decades of research showing the many benefits of marriage for men and women in different-sex relationships ( Waite, 1995 ), research on the possible benefits of marriage for individuals in same-sex relationships is an important endeavor. However, in contrast to research on different-sex partnerships, scholars lack longitudinal data from probability samples that enable analysis of the consequences of same-sex relationships for health outcomes over time.

Most probability samples used to study individuals in same-sex relationships have not been designed to assess relationship dynamics or other psychosocial variables (e.g., social support, stress) that influence relationships; thus, these data sets do not include measures that are most central to the study of close relationships, and they do not include measures specific to same-sex couples (e.g., minority stressors, legal policies) that may help explain any group differences that emerge. As a result, most qualitative and quantitative studies addressing questions about same-sex relationship dynamics have relied on smaller, nonprobability samples. Although these studies are limited in generalizability, a number of findings have been replicated across data sets (including longitudinal and cross-sectional qualitative and quantitative designs). For example, studies consistently indicate that same-sex partners share household labor more equally than do different-sex partners and that individuals in same- and different-sex relationships report similar levels of relationship satisfaction and conflict (see reviews in Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007 ; Peplau, Fingerhut, & Beals, 2004 ). One nationally representative longitudinal data set, How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST), includes a question about relationship quality, and is unique in that it oversamples Americans in same-sex couples ( Rosenfeld, Thomas, & Falcon, 2011 & 2014 ). The HCMST data make it possible to address questions about relationship stability over time, finding, for example, that same-sex and different-sex couples have similar break-up rates once marital status is taken into account ( Rosenfeld 2014 ).

Research on Same-Sex Couples

Data sets that include information from both partners in a relationship (i.e., dyadic data) allow researchers to look within relationships to compare partners’ behaviors, reports, and perceptions across a variety of outcomes. Therefore, dyadic data have been used to advance our understanding of same-sex partner dynamics. Researchers have analyzed dyadic data from same-sex partners using diverse methods, including surveys ( Rothblum, Balsam, & Solomon, 2011a ), in-depth interviews ( Reczek & Umberson, 2012 ), ethnographies ( Moore, 2008 ), and narrative analysis ( Rothblum, Balsam, & Solomon, 2011b ). A few nonprobability samples that include dyadic data have also incorporated a longitudinal design (e.g., Kurdek, 2006 ; Solomon, Rothblum, & Balsam, 2004 ).

In some dyadic studies data have been collected from both partners separately, focusing on points of overlap and differences between partners’ accounts, studying such issues as the symbolic meaning of legal unions for same-sex couples ( Reczek, Elliott, & Umberson, 2009 ; Rothblum et al., 2011b ), parenting experiences ( Goldberg, Kinkler, Richardson, & Downing, 2011 ), intimacy dynamics ( Umberson, Thomeer, & Lodge, in press ), interracial relationship dynamics ( Steinbugler, 2010 ), partners’ interactions around health behavior ( Reczek & Umberson, 2012 ), and relationship satisfaction and closeness ( Totenhagen et al., 2012 ). In contrast, other studies have collected data from partners simultaneously, through joint interviews, experiments, or ethnographic observations, focusing on interactions between partners or partners’ collective responses. For example, researchers have used observational methods to provide unique insights into same-sex couples’ conflict styles ( Gottman, 1993 ), division of household labor ( Moore, 2008 ), and coparenting interactions ( Farr & Patterson, 2013 ).

Challenges and Strategies for Studying Same-Sex Relationships

Although current data are characterized by several limitations, this is no reason to avoid the study of same-sex relationships. Indeed, it is important to triangulate a range of qualitative and quantitative research designs and sources of data in efforts to identify consistent patterns in same-sex relationships across studies and to draw on innovative strategies that add to our knowledge of same-sex relationships. In the sections that follow we point to some specific challenges to, advances in, and strategies for research on same-sex relationships.

Identifying Individuals in Same-Sex Relationships

Researchers must accurately identify people who are in same-sex relationships if they are to produce valid results and/or allow comparison of results across studies, both of which are necessary to inform sound public policy ( Bates & DeMaio, 2013 ; DiBennardo & Gates, 2014 ). In most nonprobability studies researchers have relied on volunteer samples and respondents’ self-identification as gay or lesbian. Such samples are more likely to include individuals who are open about their sexual orientation and socioeconomically privileged ( Gates & Badgett, 2006 ). Studies that rely on probability samples (e.g., the General Social Survey, the U.S. Census) raise different concerns because these samples were not originally designed to identify people in same-sex relationships and do not directly ask about the sexual orientation or sex of partners. As a result, to identify individuals in same-sex relationships researchers have juxtaposed information about sex of household head, relationship of head of household to other household members, and sex of those household members, a strategy that can result in substantial misidentification of individuals in same- and different-sex relationships (see discussions in Bates & DeMaio, 2013 , and DiBennardo & Gates, 2014 ; for strategies to adjust for misidentification, see Gates & Cook, 2011 ).

A particularly problematic approach for identifying individuals in same-sex relationships is the use of proxy reports . This approach assumes that children (or other proxies) have valid knowledge of other persons’ (e.g., parents’) sexual and relationship histories and is highly likely to produce invalid or biased results ( Perrin, Cohen, & Caren, 2013 ). For example, a recent study ( Regnerus, 2012 ), which purportedly showed adverse effects of same-sex parents on children, has been widely criticized for using retrospective proxy reports from adult children to identify a parent as having ever been involved in a same-sex relationship (for a critique, see Perrin et al., 2013 ). Although the findings from this study have been largely discredited ( Perrin et al., 2013 ), the results have been used as evidence in legal proceedings geared toward forestalling same-sex partners’ efforts to adopt children or legally marry (e.g., American Sociological Association, 2013 ; DeBoer v. Snyder, 2014 ; Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 ). This use of social science research highlights the importance of adhering to best practices for research on same-sex relationships (which several U.S.-based surveys are implementing), including directly asking respondents if they have a same-sex partner and allowing for multiple response options for union status (e.g., legal marriage, registered domestic partnership, civil union, cohabitation, and living-apart-together relationships; Bates & DeMaio, 2013 ; Festy, 2008 ).

Sample Size

An additional challenge is the small number of people in same-sex relationships, making it difficult to recruit substantial numbers of respondents and to achieve racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity in samples of persons in same-sex relationships ( Black et al., 2000 ; Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; for additional strategies, see Cheng & Powell, 2005 ). One strategy to deal with small samples of individuals in same-sex relationships has been to pool data across years or data sets to obtain a sufficient number of cases for analysis (e.g., Denney et al., 2013 ; Liu et al., 2013 ; Wienke & Hill, 2009 ). For example, using pooled data from the National Health Interview Survey, Liu and colleagues (2013) found that socioeconomic status suppressed the health disadvantage of same-sex cohabitors compared with different-sex married adults. Other studies have pooled data across different states to achieve larger and more representative samples, focusing especially on states with higher concentrations of same-sex couples. For example, Blosnich and Bossarte (2009) aggregated 3 years of state-level data from 24 states to compare rates and consequences of intimate partner violence) in same- and different-sex relationships and found that victims of intimate partner violence report poorer health outcomes regardless of sex of perpetrator.

Gender and Sexual Identity

Since the publication of Jessie Bernard’s (1982) classic work on “his” and “her” marriage, social scientists have identified gender as a driving predictor of relationship experiences ( Umberson, Chen, House, Hopkins, & Slaten, 1996 ). Studies of same- and different-sex relationships usually rely on self-reports of sex/gender that allow for one of two choices: male or female. But current scholarship highlights the need to go beyond the male–female binary to take into account transgender and transsexual identities by measuring sex assigned at birth and current sex or gender ( Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, 2014 ; Pfeffer, 2010 ) and to measure both gender identity (i.e., psychological sense of self) and gender presentation (i.e., external expressions, e.g., physical appearance, clothing choices, and deepness of voice; Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ). This approach pushes us to think about how gender identity and presentation might shape or modify relationship experiences of partners within same- and different-sex relationships. For example, gender identity may be more important than sex in driving housework (in)equality between partners in both same- and different-sex relationships. Scholars can further consider how these aspects of gender and sexuality may vary across diverse populations.

Similarly, studies need to include questions about multiple aspects of sexuality (e.g., desires, behavior, identity) in order to capture a fuller range of diversity. For example, this would allow for the examination of differences between people in same-sex relationships who identify as bisexual and those who identify as gay or lesbian; individuals in mixed-orientation marriages (e.g., bisexual men married to heterosexual women) may experience unique difficulties and relationship strategies ( Wolkomir, 2009 ). Failing to consider gender identity and presentation as well as sexual identity and orientation may also cause researchers to misidentify some same-sex relationships and overlook important sources of diversity among same- and different-sex relationships ( Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ). Attention to gender identity and presentation in future research will lead to a more nuanced understanding of gendered dynamics within different- as well as same-sex relationships.

Recruitment Challenges

Recruiting people for studies of same-sex relationships poses several unique challenges beyond typical recruitment concerns. In particular, because of past discrimination, people in same-sex relationships may not trust researchers to present research findings in fair and accurate ways, keep findings confidential and anonymous, or present findings in ways that will not stigmatize same-sex couples and bolster legislation that limits the rights of same-sex partners ( McCormack, 2014 ; Meyer & Wilson, 2009 ). Recruiting both partners in same-sex couples is even more challenging; even if one partner agrees to participate in a study, past experiences of discrimination or not being “out” may lead the other partner to avoid taking part in the study.

Past strategies have included working with community partners (e.g., local lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups) to help researchers establish trust and opportunities for recruitment, in particular when recruiting more targeted samples based on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status (e.g., Meyer & Wilson, 2009 ; Moore, 2008 ). Researchers also can take advantage of information regarding the geographic distribution of same-sex couples in the United States to collect data in areas with higher concentrations of same-sex couples and racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity ( Black et al., 2000 ; Gates, 2010 ). Online recruitment may also facilitate study participation; greater anonymity and ease of participation with online surveys compared to face-to-face data collection may increase the probability that individuals in same-sex unions and same-sex couples will participate in studies ( Meyer & Wilson, 2009 ; Riggle, Rostosky, & Reedy, 2005 ).

Comparison Group Challenges

Decisions about the definition and composition of comparison groups in studies that compare same-sex relationships to different-sex relationships are critical because same-sex couples are demographically distinct from different-sex couples; individuals in same-sex couples are younger, more educated, more likely to be employed, less likely to have children, and slightly more likely to be female than individuals in different-sex couples ( Gates, 2013b ). For example, researchers may erroneously conclude that relationship dynamics differ for same- and different-sex couples when it is in fact parental status differences between same- and different-sex couples that shape relationship dynamics. Three specific comparison group considerations that create unique challenges—and opportunities—for research on same-sex relationships include (a) a shifting legal landscape, (b) parental status, and (c) unpartnered individuals.

Shifting legal landscape

As legal options have expanded for same-sex couples, more studies have compared people in same-sex marriages and civil unions (or registered domestic partnerships) with people in different-sex married partnerships (e.g., Solomon et al., 2004 ). Yet because legal options vary across states and over time, the same statuses are not available to all same-sex couples. This shifting legal landscape introduces significant challenges, in particular for scholars who attempt to compare same-sex couples with different-sex couples, because most same-sex couples have not married (or even had the option of marrying), whereas most different-sex couples have had ample opportunity to marry.

One strategy for addressing this complexity is to collect data in states that legally acknowledge same-sex partnerships. For example, Rothblum and colleagues ( Rothblum et al., 2011a ; Solomon et al., 2004 ) contacted all couples who entered civil unions in Vermont in 2000–2001, and same-sex couples who agreed to participate then nominated their siblings in either different-sex marriages or noncivil union same-sex relationships for participation in the study. This design, which could be adapted for qualitative or quantitative studies, allowed the researchers to compare three types of couples and address potentially confounding variables (e.g., cohort, socioeconomic status, social networks) by matching same-sex couples in civil unions with network members who were similar on these background variables. Gates and Badgett (2006) argued that future research comparing different legal statuses and legal contexts across states will help us better understand what is potentially unique about marriage (e.g., whether there are health benefits associated with same-sex marriage compared to same-sex cohabitation).

A related challenge is that same-sex couples in legal unions may have cohabited for many years but been in a legal union for a short time because legal union status became available only recently. This limits investigation into the implications of same-sex marriage given that marriage is conflated with relationship duration. One strategy for dealing with this is to match same- and different-sex couples in the same legal status (e.g., marriage) on total relationship duration rather than the amount of time in their current status (e.g., cohabiting, married, or other legal status; Umberson et al., in press ). An additional complication is that historical changes in legal options for persons in same-sex relationships contribute to different relationship histories across successive birth cohorts, an issue we address later, in our discussion of relationship biography and directions for future research. Future studies might also consider whether access to legal marriage influences the stability and duration of same-sex relationships, perhaps using quasi-experimental methods (also discussed below).

Parental status and kinship systems

Individuals in same-sex relationships are nested within larger kinship systems, in particular those that include children and parents, and family dynamics may diverge from patterns found for individuals in different-sex relationships ( Ocobock, 2013 ; Patterson, 2000 ; Reczek, 2014 ). For example, some studies suggest that, compared with individuals in different-sex relationships, those in same-sex relationships experience more strain and less contact with their families of origin ( Rothblum, 2009 ). Marriage holds great symbolic significance that may alter how others, including family members, view and interact with individuals in same-sex unions ( Badgett, 2009 ). Past research shows that individuals in different-sex marriages are more involved with their family of origin than are those in different-sex cohabiting unions. Future research should further explore how the transition from cohabitation to marriage alters relationships with other family members (including relationships with families of origin) for those in same-sex unions ( Ocobock, 2013 ).

Although a full discussion of data and methodological issues concerning larger kinship systems is beyond the scope of this article (see Ocobock, 2013 ; Patterson, 2000 ), we focus on one aspect of kinship—parental status—to demonstrate some important comparison group considerations. Parental status varies for same- and different-sex couples and can confound differences between these two groups as well as within groups of same-sex couples (e.g., comparing men with men to women with women). Moreover, because having children contributes to relationship stability for different-sex couples, parental status differences between same- and different-sex couples could contribute to differences in relationship stability ( Joyner et al., 2013 ). Same-sex couples are less likely than different-sex couples to be raising children, although this distinction is diminishing, albeit modestly ( Gates, 2013b ). In 2010, about 19% of same-sex couples had children under age 18 in the home, compared with about 43% of different-sex couples ( Gates, 2013b ). Same-sex partners living with children are also more likely to be female than male and tend to be more economically disadvantaged and to be from racial minority groups than same-sex couples without children ( Gates, 2013a ). Pathways to parenthood are diverse among same-sex couples (e.g., surrogacy, adoption, biological child of one partner from previous relationship), and these pathways differ by age and cohort, gender, race, and socioeconomic status, all factors that may influence parenting experiences ( Brewster, Tillman, & Jokinen-Gordon, 2014 ; Gates & Badgett, 2006 ; Patterson & Tornello, 2010 ). For example, most gay fathers over age 50 had their children within the context of heterosexual marriage, whereas most gay fathers under age 50 became fathers through foster care or adoption ( Patterson & Tornello, 2010 ). A history of different-sex marriage and divorce may influence current relationship dynamics for individuals in same-sex unions.

One strategy for addressing parental status is to match same- and different-sex comparison groups on parental status so that parents are compared with parents and nonparents are compared with nonparents (e.g., Kurdek, 2004 ). This strategy has the advantage of reducing uncontrolled-variable bias owing to parental status (for quantitative studies) and yields unique insights into the experiences of same- and different-sex parents and/or nonparents (for qualitative and quantitative studies). A second strategy for quantitative researchers is to consider parental status as potentially confounding or moderating the effects of union status on selected outcomes. For example, Denney and colleagues (2013) found that parental status is an important moderator in understanding health disparities between women in same-sex and different-sex relationships, in that having children was associated with poorer health for women in same-sex relationships than for women in different-sex relationships.

We further recommend that social scientists understand—and embrace—the diverse ways that parental status varies across union types. It is impossible to fully eliminate uncontrolled-variable bias, and we know that same-sex partners who are parents differ in other important ways from different-sex partners, in particular in terms of sociodemographic characteristics. Moreover, many same-sex partners did not have the option of becoming parents because of barriers to adoption as well as a lack of access to or the prohibitive cost of reproductive technologies, and this unique history shapes their relationship experiences ( Brewster et al., 2014 ). In fact, attempting to “control away” the experience of parental status may mask differences in the lived experiences of same- and different-sex partners. Future research should take into account cohort differences in pathways to (and probability of) parenthood for same-sex partners, in particular in connection with intimate relationship experiences (also see Biblarz & Savci, 2010 ; Brewster et al., 2014 ; Goldberg, Smith, & Kashy, 2010 ; Patterson & Riskind, 2010 ). Researchers could also compare parenthood and relationship experiences in geographic regions that differ on attitudes toward same-sex relationships and families.

Unpartnered individuals

Very few studies have compared individuals in same-sex relationships with their unpartnered counterparts, that is, single men and women with similar attractions, behaviors, and identities. Yet the comparison of partnered to unpartnered persons has led to some of the most fundamental findings about different-sex relationships, showing, for example, that married and cohabiting different-sex partners are wealthier, healthier, and live longer than the unmarried ( Waite, 1995 ). Recent quantitative studies that have considered the unpartnered as a comparison group have found that those in same-sex relationships report better health than those who are widowed, divorced, or never married ( Denney et al., 2013 ; Liu et al., 2013 ). Unfortunately, owing to a lack of information on sexual identity/orientation in most available probability data, individuals in same- and different-sex relationships have been compared with unpartnered persons regardless of the unpartnered person’s sexual orientation or relationship history. Furthermore, studies that focus on sexual orientation and health seldom consider whether such associations differ for the unpartnered versus partnered. Given the substantial evidence that close social ties are central to health and quality of life ( Umberson & Montez, 2010 ), and the relative absence of research comparing individuals in same-sex partnerships to their unpartnered counterparts, research designs that compare those in same-sex relationships to the unpartnered will provide many opportunities for future research. Data collections that focus on individuals who transition between an unpartnered status to a same-sex relationship may be particularly fruitful. For example, given different levels of social recognition and stress exposure, researchers may find that relationship formation (and dissolution) affects individuals from same- and different-sex relationships in different ways.

Future Directions for Research on Same-Sex Relationships

We now turn to three strategies that may help catalyze current theoretical and analytical energy and innovation in research on same-sex relationships: (a) gendered relational contexts and dyadic data analysis, (b) quasi-experimental designs, and (c) the relationship biography approach.

Gendered Relational Contexts and Dyadic Data Analysis

Gender almost certainly plays an important role in shaping relationship dynamics for same-sex couples, but gender is often conflated with gendered relational contexts in studies that compare same- and different-sex couples. For example, women with men may experience their relationships very differently from women with women, and these different experiences may reflect the respondent’s own gender (typically viewed in terms of a gender binary) and/or the gendered context of their relationship (i.e., being a woman in relation to a woman or a woman in relation to a man). A gender-as-relational perspective ( C. West & Zimmerman, 2009 ) suggests a shift from the focus on gender to a focus on gendered relational contexts that differentiates (at least) four groups for comparison in qualitative and quantitative research: (a) men in relationships with men, (b) men in relationships with women, (c) women in relationships with women, and (d) women in relationships with men (see also Goldberg, 2013 ; Umberson, Thomeer, & Lodge, in press ). Indeed, some scholars argue that unbiased gender effects in quantitative studies of relationships cannot be estimated unless researchers include men and women in different- and same-sex couples so that effects for the four aforementioned groups can be estimated ( T. V. West, Popp, & Kenny, 2008 ). Similarly, others emphasize same-sex couples as an important counterfactual to different-sex couples in broadening our understanding of gender and relationships ( Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ; Joyner et al., 2013 ; Moore, 2008 ). For example, recent qualitative research has shown that although gender drives differences in the way individuals view emotional intimacy (with women desiring more permeable boundaries between partners in both same- and different-sex contexts), gendered relational contexts drive the types of emotion work that individuals do to promote intimacy in their relationships (with women with men and men with men doing more emotion work to sustain boundaries between partners; Umberson et al., in press ). A gender-as-relational perspective also draws on intersectionality research ( Collins, 1999 ) to emphasize that gendered interactions reflect more than the gender of each partner; instead, gendered experiences vary depending on other aspects of social location (e.g., the experience of gender may depend on gender identity).

Dyadic data analysis

Although quite a few nonprobability samples (qualitative and quantitative) include data from both partners in relationships, many of these studies have analyzed individuals rather than adopting methods that are designed to analyze dyadic data (for quantitative exceptions, see Clausell & Roisman, 2009 ; Parsons, Starks, Gamarel, & Grov, 2012 ; Totenhagen et al., 2012 ; for qualitative exceptions, see Moore, 2008 ; Reczek & Umberson, 2012 ; Umberson et al, in press ). Yet leading family scholars call for more research that analyzes dyadic-/couple-level data ( Carr & Springer, 2010 ). Dyadic data and methods provide a promising strategy for studying same- and different-sex couples across gendered relational contexts and for further considering how gender identity and presentation matter across and within these contexts. We now touch on some unique elements of dyadic data analysis for quantitative studies of same-sex couples, but we refer readers elsewhere for comprehensive guides to analyzing quantitative dyadic data, both in general ( Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006 ) and specifically for same-sex couples ( Smith, Sayer, & Goldberg, 2013 ), and for analyzing qualitative dyadic data ( Eisikovits & Koren, 2010 ).

Many approaches to analyzing dyadic data require that members of a dyad be distinguishable from each other ( Kenny et al., 2006 ). Studies that examine gender effects in different-sex couples can distinguish dyad members on the basis of sex of partner, but sex of partner cannot be used to distinguish between members of same-sex dyads. To estimate gender effects in multilevel models comparing same- and different-sex couples, researchers can use the factorial method developed by T. V. West and colleagues (2008) . This approach calls for the inclusion of three gender effects in a given model: (a) gender of respondent, (b) gender of partner, and (c) the interaction between gender of respondent and gender of partner. Goldberg and colleagues (2010) used this method to illustrate gendered dynamics of perceived parenting skills and relationship quality across same- and different-sex couples before and after adoption and found that both same- and different-sex parents experience a decline in relationship quality during the first years of parenting but that women experience steeper declines in love across relationship types.

Dyadic diary data

Dyadic diary methods may provide particular utility in advancing our understanding of gendered relational contexts. These methods involve the collection of data from both partners in a dyad, typically via short daily questionnaires, over a period of days or weeks ( Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013 ). This approach is ideal for examining relationship dynamics that unfold over short periods of time (e.g., the effect of daily stress levels on relationship conflict) and has been used extensively in the study of different-sex couples, in particular to examine gender differences in relationship experiences and consequences. Totenhagen et al. (2012) also used diary data to study men and women in same-sex couples and found that daily stress was significantly and negatively correlated with relationship closeness, relationship satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction in similar ways for men and women. Diary data collected from both partners in same- and different-sex contexts would make it possible for future studies to conduct longitudinal analyses of daily fluctuations in reciprocal relationship dynamics and outcomes as well as to consider whether and how these processes vary by gendered relationship context and are potentially moderated by gender identity and gender presentation.

Quasi-Experimental Designs

Quasi-experimental designs that test the effects of social policies on individuals and couples in same-sex relationships provide another promising research strategy. These designs provide a way to address questions of causal inference by looking at data across place (i.e., across state and national contexts) and over time—in particular, before and after the implementation of exclusionary (e.g., same-sex marriage bans) or inclusionary (e.g., legalization of same-sex marriage) policies ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012 ; Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, & Hasin, 2009 ; Hatzenbuehler, McLaughlin, Keyes, & Hasin, 2010 ; see Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002 , regarding quasi-experimental methods). This approach turns the methodological challenge of a constantly changing legal landscape into an exciting opportunity to consider how social policies influence relationships and how this influence may vary across age cohorts. For example, researchers might test the effects of policy implementation on relationship quality or marriage formation across age cohorts.

Quasi-experimental designs have not yet been applied to the study of same-sex relationship outcomes, but a number of recent studies point to the potential for innovation. Hatzenbuehler has been at the forefront of research using quasi-experimental designs to consider how same-sex marriage laws influence health care expenditures for sexual minority men ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012 ) and psychopathology in sexual minority populations ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2010 ). For example, he found that the effect of marriage policy change on health care use and costs was similar for gay and bisexual men who were unpartnered and those who were in same-sex relationships ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2012 ). He and his colleagues have noted that the challenges of a quasi-experimental approach include dealing with the constraints of measures available in existing data sets before and after policy implementation and the difficulty (or impossibility) of knowing when particular policies will be implemented, as well as limitations associated with lack of random assignment and changes other than policy shifts that occur during the same time period and may influence results ( Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009 , 2010 , 2012 ). One strategy for addressing the latter challenge is to test the plausibility of alternative explanations; for example, Hatzenbuehler et al. (2012) examined whether other co-occurring changes could explain their findings (e.g., changes in health care use among all Massachusetts residents). Future studies could also follow up on prior qualitative and quantitative data collections to compare individual and relationship experiences of interest (e.g., relationship satisfaction) before and after policy changes (e.g., repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act).

Quasi-experimental designs are also useful for identifying mechanisms (e.g., stress) that explain different outcomes across and within couples. Sexual minority populations face higher rates of stress, stigma, and discrimination both at the individual and institutional level, as described by Meyer’s (2003) minority stress model. Measures that tap into minority stress and discrimination could be incorporated in future studies as a way to better understand same-sex relationship dynamics and outcomes for individuals and dyads (see LeBlanc, Frost, & White, 2015 ). For example, Frost and Meyer (2009) found that higher levels of internalized homophobia were associated with worse relationship quality for lesbian, gay, and bisexual men and women. These associations could be evaluated before and after key policy changes. Moreover, this approach could use dyadic data to assess the effects of policy change on couples and individuals in same- and different-sex relationships ( LeBlanc et al., 2015 ).

Relationship Biography Approach

In closing, we suggest that a relationship biography approach —that is, focusing on temporal changes in relationship statuses and other components of relationship histories, such as relationship durations—be used as an organizing framework to drive future qualitative and quantitative research and studies of individuals as well as partner dyads. The life course perspective ( Elder, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2003 ) has been used to guide a relationship biography approach in studies of different-sex couples (e.g., Hughes & Waite, 2009 ) and could offer great utility in addressing key challenges of research on same-sex couples ( Institute of Medicine, 2011 ). In particular, a relationship biography approach could take into account the constantly changing legal landscape and relationship status options for same-sex couples, the varying amounts of time it would be possible to spend in those statuses (both over time and across geographic areas/states/nations), and cohort differences. A biographical approach would address these challenges by considering three things: (a) multiple relationship statuses over the life course; (b) duration of time in each relationship status; and (c) history of transitions into and out of relationships, as well as timing of those transitions in the life course. We further suggest that change in relationship quality over time be considered as a component of relationship biography. The biographical frame can be used with different theoretical approaches, is multidisciplinary in scope, urges multiple and intersecting research methods, and emphasizes diversity in life course experiences.

In considering an individual’s relationship biography over the life course, information on the legal status (e.g., civil union, registered domestic partnership) of each of his or her unions could be collected. Although the available evidence is mixed, some studies suggest that same-sex unions dissolve more quickly than do different-sex unions ( Lau, 2012 ). However, we do not yet have extensive biographical evidence about the duration of same-sex unions in the United States, or how access to marriage might influence relationship duration. By taking into account relationship duration and transitions out of significant relationships, future research could also address the predictors, experiences, and consequences of relationship dissolution through death or breakup, experiences that have not been adequately explored in past research on same-sex couples ( Gates & Badgett, 2006 ; Rothblum, 2009 ). A relationship biography approach could also take into account gender identity and sexual identity transitions. Prior qualitative research suggests that one partner’s gender transition has important implications for relationship dynamics (e.g., the division of labor) as well as relationship formation and dissolution ( Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, 2013 ; Pfeffer, 2010 ).

Relationship biography is fundamentally shaped by birth cohort, race/ethnicity, gender and transgender identity, social class, and former as well as current sexual orientation. Older cohorts of people in same-sex relationships, who formed their relationships in an era of significantly greater discrimination and no legal recognition for same-sex couples, may differ dramatically from younger cohorts ( LeBlanc et al., 2015 ; Patterson & Tornello, 2010 ). Unique historical backdrops result in different relationship histories (e.g., number of years cohabiting prior to marriage, shifts in sexual orientation, risk for HIV, and effects on relationship dynamics), parenting experiences, and, potentially, relationship quality for younger and older cohorts. Thus, age, period, and cohort variation are important to consider in future studies of same-sex relationships ( Gotta et al., 2011 ).

A biographical approach should incorporate information on relationship quality. Studies of different-sex couples show that relationship quality is linked to relationship duration and transitions, as well as mental and physical health ( Choi & Marks, 2013 ; Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu, & Needham, 2006 ). Currently, most national data sets that include information on relationship dynamics (e.g., the National Survey of Families and Households, the Health and Retirement Survey) do not include sufficient numbers of same-sex couples to allow valid statistical analysis. Incorporating relationship quality measures into representative data sets will contribute to a better understanding of the predictors and consequences of relationship quality for same-sex partnerships, the links between relationship quality and relationship duration and transitions, and relationship effects on psychological and physical well-being. A relationship biography can be obtained retrospectively in cross-sectional data collections or assessed longitudinally as relationships evolve over time. A relationship biography approach would benefit from including an unpartnered comparison group, taking into account previous relationship statuses. A biographical approach might also be used in future research to consider the impact of structural changes (in addition to personal or relationship changes), such as change in public policies or moving to/from a geographic area with laws/policies that support same-sex relationships.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health, see www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth ) provides a promising opportunity for studying same-sex relationship biographies in the future. This nationally representative study of adolescents (beginning in 1994) has followed respondents into young adulthood; respondents were, on average, age 28 in the most recent survey. Add Health includes measures of same-sex attraction, sexual identity, and histories of same- and different-sex relationships, allowing for detailed analysis of the lives of young adults. A biographical approach directs attention to relationship formation throughout the life course, and Add Health data may be useful for studies of relationship formation. For example, Ueno (2010) used Add Health data to incorporate the idea of life course transitions into a study of shifts in sexual orientation among adolescents over time and found that moving from different-sex relationships to same-sex relationships was correlated with worse mental health than continually dating same-sex partners. A focus on relationship transitions between same- and different-sex relationships over the life course builds on theoretical and empirical work on the fluidity of sexual attraction ( Diamond, 2008 ; Savin-Williams, Joyner, & Rieger, 2012 ). Bisexual patterns of sexual attraction and behavior (which are more common than exclusive same-sex sexuality) and transitions between same- and different-sex unions and the timing of those transitions are important, but understudied, research topics ( Biblarz & Savci, 2010 ) that could be addressed through a relationship biography lens. For example, future studies could consider the ages at which these transitions are most likely to occur, duration of same- and different-sex unions, relationship quality experiences, and effects on individual well-being. Men and women may differ in these relationship experiences; women seem to be more situationally dependent and fluid in their sexuality than are men ( Diamond, 2008 ; Savin-Williams et al., 2012 ).

Researchers have also used Add Health data to study same-sex romantic attraction and substance use ( Russell, Driscoll, & Truong, 2002 ), same-sex dating and mental health ( Ueno, 2010 ), and same-sex intimate partner violence ( Russell, Franz, & Driscoll, 2001 ). As respondents age, the Add Health project will become even more valuable to a relationship biography approach. For example, Meier and colleagues ( Meier, Hull, & Ortyl, 2009 ) compared relationship values of heterosexual youth with those of sexual minority youth; follow-up studies could assess whether these differences in values influence relationships throughout adulthood. Data for studying relationship biographies of older cohorts of same-sex couples are sorely lacking at the national level. Investigators certainly must continue to push for funding to include same-sex relationships in new and ongoing data collections. Scholars who have collected data from individuals in same-sex relationships in the past should also consider returning to their original respondents for longitudinal follow-up, as well as follow-up with respondents’ partners (e.g., Rothblum et al., 2011a ).

Research on same-sex relationships is in a period of intense discovery and enlightenment, and advances in the study of these relationships are sure to further our theoretical and empirical knowledge in family studies more broadly. Because of the diversity of same-sex couples and the increasing political and legal significance of who is in a same-sex relationship or family, it is essential to advance research that reflects professional and ethical standards as well as the diversity of same-sex couples ( Perrin, Cohen, & Caren, 2013 ). Decades of federally funded research have enriched the available data on different-sex couples, yet current longitudinal data on same-sex couples are comparable to those gained through research on different-sex couples 30 or more years ago. Investment in future data collections will be essential to advancing knowledge on same-sex couples. Although there is much that we can learn from data collections and methods used to study different-sex couples, we should not simply superimpose those procedures onto the study of same-sex couples. Indeed, as we have discussed, some research questions, measures, and sample composition issues are unique to the study of same-sex relationships and require novel approaches.

Most people yearn for and value an intimate relationship and, once established, a cohabiting, marital, or romantic union becomes a defining feature of their lives. Relationships inevitably go through ups and downs. At some points, partners impose stress on each other, and at other times they provide invaluable emotional support. Over the life course, relationships are formed, sustained, and inevitably ended through breakup or death, with profound effects on individuals and families. Family scholars must design studies that address same-sex partner dating and relationship formation as well as relationship losses and transitions throughout life, with all the vicissitudes therein. In this article we have identified contemporary challenges to research on same-sex relationships and suggested strategies for beginning to address those challenges in order to capture the fullness of lives as they are lived across diverse communities. We hope these strategies will inspire scholars to move the field forward in new and innovative ways.

Acknowledgments

We thank Justin Denney, Jennifer Glass, Mark Hatzenbuehler, Kara Joyner, Wendy Manning, Corinne Reczek, and Esther Rothblum for their helpful comments on this article. This research was supported, in part, by an Investigator in Health Policy Research Award to Debra Umberson from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Grant R21 AG044585, awarded to Debra Umberson in the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the National Institute on Aging; Grant 5 R24 HD042849, awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; and Grant F32 HD072616, awarded to Rhiannon A. Kroeger in the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

• American Sociological Association. Brief of amicus curiae American Sociological Association in support of respondent Kristin M. Perry and respondent Edith Schlain Windsor. Washington, DC: Author; 2013. Retrieved from www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/12144_307_Amicus_%20(C_%20Gottlieb)_ASA_Same-Sex_Marriage.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Badgett MVL. When gay people get married. New York: New York University Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Badgett MVL, Durso LE, Schneebaum A. New patterns of poverty in the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bates N, DeMaio TJ. Measuring same-sex relationships. Contexts. 2013; 12 :66–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard J. The future of marriage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biblarz TJ, Savci E. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 :480–497. [ Google Scholar ]
• Black D, Gates G, Sanders S, Taylor L. Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography. 2000; 37 :139–154. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blosnich JR, Bossarte RM. Comparisons of intimate partner violence among partners in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2009; 99 :2182–2184. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolger N, Laurenceau J. Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. New York: Guilford Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewster KL, Tillman KH, Jokinen-Gordon H. Demographic characteristics of lesbian parents in the United States. Population Research and Policy Review. 2014; 33 :503–526. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter C, Gates GJ. Gay and lesbian partnership: Evidence from California. Demography. 2008; 45 :573–590. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carr D, Springer KW. Advances in families and health research in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 :743–761. [ Google Scholar ]
• Center of Excellence for Transgender Health. Recommendations for inclusive data collection of trans people in HIV prevention, care, and services. 2014 Retrieved from http://transhealth.ucsf.edu/trans?page=lib-data-collection .
• Cheng S, Powell B. Small samples, big challenges: Studying atypical family forms. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005; 67 :926–935. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi H, Marks NF. Marital quality, socioeconomic status, and physical health. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2013; 75 :903–919. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clausell E, Roisman GI. Outness, Big Five personality traits, and same-sex relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2009; 26 :211–226. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collins PH. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeBoer v. Snyder , 973 F. Supp. 2d 757 (ED Mich. 2014).
• Denney JT, Gorman BK, Barrera CB. Families, resources, and adult health: Where do sexual minorities fit? Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2013; 54 :46–63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diamond LM. Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiBennardo R, Gates GJ. Research note: U.S. Census same-sex couple data: Adjustments to reduce measurement error and empirical implications. Population Research and Policy Review. 2014; 33 :603–614. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elder GH, Jr, Johnson MK, Crosnoe R. The emergence and development of life course theory. In: Mortimer JT, Shanahan MJ, editors. Handbook of the life course. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum; 2003. pp. 3–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisikovits Z, Koren C. Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2010; 20 :1642–1655. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farr RH, Patterson CJ. Coparenting among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development. 2013; 84 :1226–1240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Festy P. Enumerating same-sex couples in censuses and population registers. Demographic Research. 2008; 17 :339–368. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frost DM, Meyer IH. Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2009; 56 :97–109. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ. Geographic trends among same-sex couples in the US Census and the American Community Survey. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ. LGBT parenting in the United States. Los Angeles. The Williams Institute; 2013a. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ. Same-sex and different-sex couples in the American Community Survey: 2005–2011. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2013b. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ, Badgett MVL. Gay and lesbian families: A research agenda. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gates GJ, Cook AM. Census snapshot: 2010 methodology—Adjustment procedures for same-sex couple data. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE. “Doing” and “undoing” gender: The meaning and division of housework in same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory & Review. 2013; 5 :85–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE, Kinkler LA, Richardson HB, Downing JB. Lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples in open adoption arrangements: A qualitative study. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2011; 73 :502–518. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldberg AE, Smith JZ, Kashy DA. Preadoptive factors predicting lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples’ relationship quality across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010; 24 :221–232. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzales G, Blewett LA. National and state-specific health insurance disparities for adults in same-sex relationships. American Journal of Public Health. 2014; 104 :e95–e104. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gotta G, Green R, Rothblum E, Solomon S, Balsam K, Schwartz P. Heterosexual, lesbian, and gay male relationships: A comparison of couples in 1975 and 2000. Family Process. 2011; 50 :353–376. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottman JM. The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1993; 61 :6–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, Keyes KM, Hasin DS. State-level policies and psychiatric morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. American Journal of Public Health. 2009; 99 :2275–2281. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, McLaughlin KA, Keyes KM, Hasin DS. The impact of institutional discrimination of psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: A prospective study. American Journal of Public Health. 2010; 100 :452–459. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hatzenbuehler ML, O’Cleirigh C, Grasso C, Mayer K, Safren S, Bradford J. Effect of same-sex marriage laws on health care use and expenditures in sexual minority men: A quasi-natural experiment. American Journal of Public Health. 2012; 102 :285–291. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollingsworth v. Perry , 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013).
• Hughes ME, Waite LJ. Marital biography and health at mid-life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2009; 50 :344–358. doi: 10.1177/002214650905000307. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Medicine. The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2011. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joyner K, Manning W, Bogle R. Working Paper. Center for Family and Demographic Research; Bowling Green, OH: 2013. The stability and qualities of same-sex and different-sex couples in young adulthood. Retrieved from http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-BGSU-2013-002/PWP-BGSU-2013-002.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kroeger RA, Smock PJ. Cohabitation: Recent research and implications. In: Treas JK, Scott J, Richards M, editors. The Wiley-Blackwell companion to the sociology of families. 2. New York: Wiley-Blackwell; 2014. pp. 217–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004; 66 :880–900. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2005; 14 :251–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. Differences between partners from heterosexual, gay, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006; 68 :509–528. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00268.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lau CQ. The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation, and marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2012; 74 :973–988. [ Google Scholar ]
• LeBlanc AJ, Frost DM, White RG. Minority stress and stress proliferation among same-sex and other marginalized couples. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2015; 77 :xxx–xxx. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu H, Reczek C, Brown DC. Same-sex cohabitation and self-rated health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2013; 54 :25–45. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCormack M. Innovative sampling and participant recruitment in sexuality research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2014; 31 :475–481. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meier A, Hull KE, Ortyl TA. Young adult relationship values at the intersection of gender and sexuality. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009; 71 :510–25. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129 :674–697. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer IH, Wilson PA. Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2009; 56 :23–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore MR. Gendered power relations among women: A study of household decision making in Black, lesbian stepfamilies. American Sociological Review. 2008; 73 :335–356. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore MR, Stambolis-Ruhstorfer M. LGBT sexuality and families at the start of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology. 2013; 39 :491–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ocobock A. The power and limits of marriage: Married gay men’s family relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2013; 75 :91–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsons JT, Starks TJ, Gamarel KE, Grov C. Non-monogamy and sexual relationship quality among same-sex male couples. Journal of Family Psychology. 2012; 26 :669–677. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ. Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000; 62 :1052–1069. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ, Riskind RG. To be a parent: Issues in family formation among gay and lesbian adults. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2010; 6 :326–340. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson CJ, Tornello SL. Gay fathers’ pathways to parenthood: International perspectives. Journal of Family Research. 2010; 22 :103–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peplau LA, Fingerhut AW. The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58 :405–524. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peplau LA, Fingerhut AW, Beals KP. Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. In: Harvey JH, Wenzel A, Sprecher S, editors. Sexuality in the relationships of lesbians and gay men. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 349–369. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perrin AJ, Cohen PN, Caren N. Are children of parents who had same-sex relationships disadvantaged? A scientific evaluation of the no-differences hypothesis. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health. 2013; 17 :327–336. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfeffer CA. “Women’s work”? Women partners of transgender men doing housework and emotion work. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010; 72 :165–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reczek C. The intergenerational relationships of gay men and lesbian women. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2014 Advance online publication. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reczek C, Elliott S, Umberson D. Commitment without marriage: Union formation among long-term same-sex couples. Journal of Family Issues. 2009; 30 :738–756. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reczek C, Umberson D. Gender, health behavior, and intimate relationships: Lesbian, gay, and straight contexts. Social Science & Medicine. 2012; 74 :1783–1790. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Regnerus M. How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social Science Research. 2012; 41 :752–770. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riggle E, Rostosky SS, Reedy CS. Online surveys for BGLT research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Homosexuality. 2005; 49 :1–21. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld MJ. Couple Longevity in the Era of Same-Sex Marriage in the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2014; 76 :905–918. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld MJ, Thomas RJ, Falcon M. How Couples Meet and Stay Together, Waves 1, 2, and 3: Public version 3.04, plus wave 4 supplement version 1.02 [Computer files] Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries; 2011 & 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothblum ED. An overview of same-sex couples in relationships: A research area still at sea. In: Hope DA, editor. Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities. New York: Springer; 2009. pp. 113–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothblum ED, Balsam KF, Solomon SE. The longest “legal” U.S. same-sex couples reflect on their relationships. Journal of Social Issues. 2011a; 67 :302–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothblum ED, Balsam KF, Solomon SE. Narratives of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont: The impact of legalizing relationships on couples and on social policy. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 2011b; 8 :183–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ST, Driscoll AK, Truong N. Adolescent same-sex romantic attractions and relationships: Implications for substance use and abuse. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92 :198–202. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell ST, Franz BT, Driscoll AK. Same-sex romantic attraction and experiences of violence in adolescence. American Journal of Public Health. 2001; 91 :903–906. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savin-Williams RC, Joyner K, Rieger G. Prevalence and stability of self-reported sexual orientation identity during young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2012; 41 :103–110. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith JZ, Sayer AG, Goldberg AE. Multilevel modeling approaches to the study of LGBT-parent families: Methods for dyadic data analysis. In: Goldberg AE, Allen KR, editors. LGBT-parent families. New York: Springer; 2013. pp. 307–323. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon SE, Rothblum ED, Balsam KF. Pioneers in partnership: Lesbian and gay male couples in civil unions compared with those not in civil unions and married heterosexual siblings. Journal of Family Psychology. 2004; 18 :275–286. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinbugler AC. Beyond loving: Intimate racework in lesbian, gay, and straight interracial relationships. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Totenhagen CJ, Butler EA, Ridley CA. Daily stress, closeness, and satisfaction in gay and lesbian couples. Personal Relationships. 2012; 19 :219–233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ueno K. Same-sex experience and mental health during the transition between adolescence and young adulthood. Sociological Quarterly. 2010; 51 :484–510. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Chen MD, House JS, Hopkins K, Slaten E. The effect of social relationships on psychological well-being: Are men and women really so different? American Sociological Review. 1996; 61 :837–857. [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Montez JK. Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2010; 51 :S54–S66. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Thomeer MB, Lodge AC. Intimacy and emotion work in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family (in press) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Umberson D, Williams K, Powers DP, Liu H, Needham B. You make me sick: Marital quality and health over the life course. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2006; 47 :1–16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waite LJ. Does marriage matter? Demography. 1995; 32 :483–507. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West C, Zimmerman DH. Accounting for doing gender. Gender & Society. 2009; 23 :112–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• West TV, Popp D, Kenny DA. A guide for the estimation of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor–partner interdependence model approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2008; 34 :321–336. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wienke C, Hill GJ. Does the “marriage benefit” extend to partners in gay and lesbian relationships? Journal of Family Issues. 2009; 30 :259–289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wight RG, LeBlanc AJ, Badgett MVL. Same-sex legal marriage and psychological well-being: Findings from the California Health Interview Survey. American Journal of Public Health. 2013; 103 :339–346. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolkomir M. Making heteronormative reconciliations the story of romantic love, sexuality, and gender in mixed-orientation marriages. Gender & Society. 2009; 23 :494–519. [ Google Scholar ]

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Same Sex Marriage Essay for Students

Introduction

The same-sex marriage has sparked both emotional and political clashes between supporters and opponents for years. Although it has been regulated through law and religion in many countries around the world, legal and social responses often range from celebration to criminalisation of the pair.

Essay No - 1

Marriage equality – importance of same sex union.

Back in 2018, the Supreme Court of India passed a watershed judgement that was ordained to go down the archives of the country’s history. In spite of the majoritarian prejudices prevalent in India directed towards the LGBT community, the apex court revoked the draconian and out-dated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. 

This Section, in typically vague and diplomatic terms, belittled homosexuality and criminalised intercourse that goes against the “laws of nature”. It was incorporated into the Indian Penal Code under the British Raj in 1861, and it took the Indian judiciary system 70 years since independence, to abrogate the law and decriminalise homosexuality. 

Nonetheless, the landmark decision was met with euphoria from its proponents, especially the activists who fought for the cause for more than a decade, wrangling with society and courts to attain equality in the eyes of the law. Even though a marriage equality essay is far from sight in a time when it is legal to marry the person one loves irrespective of their gender identity or sex, the decision by Supreme Court portends its occurrence. 

Equality in Marriage

Equality in marriage is an idea, which propagates that all marriages notwithstanding whether it is a Sapphic marriage or gay marriage or heterogeneous matrimony are equal and should enjoy similar rights and status in society.

Unfortunately, our society’s construct is such that we grow up with the idea that only a man and woman can be bound in matrimony. And while doing so, we overlook the multitudes of individuals that associate with different sexual preferences and gender identities. 

While the western world marches toward inclusive societies, where individuals are treated as equals irrespective of their sexuality or gender, we still are in the embryonic stages towards such acceptance. 

If one searches for same-sex marriage essay or statistics, one will find that support for marriage equality in countries like the USA hovers above 60%, a data presented by Pew Research Center. And if one were to rummage through the same statistics for India, it is a dismal 18%, according to a poll by Mood of the Nation (MOTN) in 2019.

Importance of Same-Sex Marriage

Because no change is appreciated until it contributes to the betterment of society in one way or another, proponents of an inclusive society have long contested its importance in same-gender marriage essays and discourses.

We are an overpopulated country and encouragement of marriage equality and an increase in same-sex matrimonies would lead to lower population growth. At the same time, it might witness a growth in adoptions of orphans, which is a significant move towards a holistic society. 

And last but not the least it would be an encouraging shift towards adherence to the laws of human rights, which dictates that no human should live under discrimination, fear, or oppression. 

The seeds of prejudice prevalent in our society, however, will not change overnight. Our traditions and social construct are vastly different from those of western societies. A change in mindset is a process that might take decades and even centuries. 

Nonetheless, the change should begin somewhere. And awareness that every human is equal and their preferences and choices about who they love and marry should not be a ground for discrimination is quintessential to that change. 

Essay No - 2

Same-gender marriage: a threat or blessing for the reunion of two people.

Marriage or wedlock is the cultural union of two people for a lifetime. Considered an integral part of one’s life, it involves both legal and social formalities performed by the two families in concern. Besides, it also comprises regulations and obligations to be followed by the spouses and their children as well as their immediate family members.

However, there have been instances where marriage equality essays have been spoken of by many. These are instances where marriage between couples of the same gender is considered inappropriate. Nevertheless, the global society is evolving and people are coming out of the closet more often than ever before.

How Does the World Perceive?

Most communities are becoming liberal in terms of being more accepting in nature. People by and large are taking a stand to abide by their sexuality. It is no more a matter of shame that has to be kept hidden or shut behind the doors.

Multiple same sex marriage essay has come up sighting the incidents where the couple were accepted by their respective families. In addition, the act of legalization of same-sex marriage has been going on since the past two decades with great vigour.

Countries like the Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium had legalised it in the wake of the 2000s, while other countries such as Canada, South Africa, and Norway followed suit in the upcoming years.

The marriage equality essay has been in the limelight because more people are opening up about the benefits and importance of such marriages in today’s world. The reasons that have fuelled such a dramatic change can be listed below as -

People can be themselves and do not have to try hard to get accepted for who they are.

They are proud of both their individuality as well as sexuality and do not have to wear a mask.

They can plan for the future instead of having to succumb to societal pressure.

Same-sex couples now have the opportunity to live with their loved ones happily, without having to take cover. 

The spread of the same gender marriage essay has been a saviour for many who were not aware of the changes that are taking place all around the world. It has not only made the LGBTQ community aware but also encouraged them to evaluate themselves and take the plunge to raise their voices too. They can now take a stand for themselves and feel relieved that they are not discriminated against anymore.

What is the Scope in the Future?

Although a significant part of the world including countries like Taiwan, Germany, USA, etc. have been able to match the steps with the advancing surrounding; there is still a section who has not. Even now, marriage equality essays and other online content create backlash.

Therefore, it is essential that more people come forward and join hands to the cause of being united in terms of accepting the bond between people. 

Essay No – 3

Same-sex marriage - the changing attitude of modern society.

Most religions and cultures accept that marriage is not a trivial matter but is a key to the pursuit of happiness. However, they still openly criticise the practice of same-sex weddings. Fortunately, the stigma related to homophobia and LGBTQ community is slowly but surely lessening. Better education, introduction to different cultures, and an open mindset played a critical role in this development. 

Let’s discuss the changing attitude of today’s society and the benefits a culture might enjoy in this same-sex marriage essay.

The History of Same-Sex Marriage

During the mid-20 th century, historian Johann Jakob Bachofen and Lewis Henry Morgan made systematic analyses of the marriage and kinship habits in different cultures. They noted that most cultures expressed support towards a heteronormative form of marriage that revolves around union between opposite-sex partners. However, all these cultures practised some form of flexibility while following these ideals. 

Scholars like historian John Boswell often declared that same-sex unions were recognised in medieval Europe, but the most notable changes were introduced during the late 20 th century. 

An Accepting Society

A more stable society was created over the years, with a better understanding of each other and acceptance for the different. As the culture opened its arms to learn about others, it also learned about minority groups such as the LGBT community. Similar to racial equality, or the equality movement for women, growing acceptance of that community ultimately made the commune much more stable. 

Many consider that same-sex unity will only benefit the homosexual community. However, it leaves a much more profound impact on the overall society. To begin with, it will reduce homophobia by a significant margin. Acknowledging a homosexual relationship will also reduce hate crimes in countries like India. There are many research papers and marriage equality essays available that show how communities that allow an individual to choose their partner to enjoy a significantly less rate of crime. 

The Economic Boost

An unlikely benefit of same-sex marriage and a compassionate society towards homosexuals is the economic boost. For one, the wedding and marriage industry is the biggest beneficiary of same-sex marriage, as it increases their customer base by a significant margin. It also allows several business providers to service them, and helps the travel and tourism industry by boosting the number of honeymoon goers.

For example, businesses in New York enjoyed almost 260 million dollars boost within a year when same-sex marriage was legalised. Similar effects were also found in other countries.

Even though India still hasn’t shaken the stigma attached to a same-sex relationship, somewhat modern society is slowly learning to accept the diversity of human nature. With the help of the government, activists, and hundreds of individuals creating and posting blogs, same-gender marriage essays on the internet, society is gradually becoming an understanding and nurturing entity for everyone.

FAQs on Same Sex Marriage Essay for Students

1. Which countries have legalized same-sex marriage and when?

With the advancement in the thought process of people, many countries have passed laws in favor of same-sex marriage, thereby legalizing it in their countries. The first countries to legalize same-sex marriage before 2010 were the Netherlands who legalized it in 2001, Belgium legalized it in 2003, Canada and Spain legalized it in 2005, South Africa in 2006, Sweden and Norway in 2009 and Iceland, Argentina, and Portugal legalized same-sex marriage in 2010. Later on, Denmark legalised it in 2012, and countries like Uruguay, New Zealand, France, and Brazil in 2013, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the United States in 2015, Colombia in 2016,  Malta, Germany, and Finland in 2017, Australia in 2018 and Ecuador and Austria in 2019. The recent country to legalize same-sex marriage is the United Kingdom. Thus, now people have started accepting the idea of same-sex marriages across the world.

2. What is the importance of same-sex marriage and why should it be legalized?

As the world is progressing we all must understand that each one of us is a human being and before labelling us with our caste and love preference, we must learn to respect each other. In this progressing era as more people with same-sex preference are coming up it has become more important to accept and legalize same-sex marriage because of the following reasons:

It will give people a chance to be themselves and enjoy their own individuality.

It will make people understand that loving a person of the same sex is not wrong or abnormal.

It will teach people that it is better for people to spend their lives with someone they love and not with the person whom they don’t even like.

This will make this place a much happier space to be in.

It gives people with homosexuality a hope of a happy life.

3. What is the status of same-sex marriage in India?

Same-sex marriage in India is still not encouraged. In India, neither the laws are lenient nor the people are broad-minded to accept it happening around them. The legal and community barriers never give these people a chance to prove themselves. Indian society is not very welcoming to changes that are different from the customs and culture they have practised till now. Thus, any change in these cultural laws gives rise to an outburst of anger in the country which makes legalising these issues even more sensitive and challenging for the law. India still needs time to get accustomed to the concept of same-sex marriage. However, not knowing about the concept is a different thing, and completely opposing it is different, therefore, awareness about such issues is very necessary for the developing countries so that people can first understand the pros and cons of it and then either accept it or reject it. Not only in India, but in other countries also, the idea of same-sex marriage is not accepted because they think it is against their religion. People opposing the LGBTQ community to get the right to marry their lovers take away the very basic human right of such people. There has been a long-lasting war for the members of the LGBTQ community for their rights. Although there have been some positive results in recent years, for example, the end of Section 377, which criminalizes homosexuality. However, India still has a long way to go in terms of the LGBTQ community and their rights.

4. What approaches can be used to legalize same-sex marriage?

Same-sex marriage is currently not taken in kind words by the people but slowly and steadily the things are changing and people are able to change their perspective with respect to the LGBT community. Legalizing same-sex marriage in a country like India where a number of religions and customs are practiced is really difficult. Therefore, few approach switch can help legalize same-sex marriage without hurting any religion are that the existing laws are interpreted in such a way that they legalize same-sex marriage, LGBT can be regarded as a different community which has customs of its own that permits same-sex marriage, making amendments in the Act itself or all the religions can individually interpret their marriage laws in such a way that same-sex marriage becomes in accordance with their religion.

5. Briefly discuss your view on same-sex marriages?

Same-sex marriage refers to the marriage of the same sex which is similar to heterosexual marriages in terms of rituals and proceedings. Same-sex marriages should not be ashamed of and are justified because after all love knows no boundaries. The community must be made aware of this concept so that they can appreciate and celebrate the union of two loving souls without considering their gender. The community as a whole must attempt to legalize and accept same-sex marriage with respect to the laws, religion, and customs of the country. In the coming years, there is a ray of hope that same-sex marriages will also be celebrated just like normal marriages in India.

• South Korea
• Other Countries
• Interesting Facts About

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Same Sex Marriage

Marriage equality is an idea that is sweeping around the developed nations of the world today. Although traditionally marriage has been exclusive to relationships of different genders, same-gender relationships are unlocking the opportunities of government recognition of their partnership. Making same sex marriage a legal opportunity comes with some distinct advantages to each society, but there may be disadvantages to each situation which must be considered as well. Here are some of the key points to think about as you decide where you stand on the idea of marriage equality.

5 Advantages of Same Sex Marriage

1. It creates real equality from a government perspective. If two people of opposite genders can be married, then to be equal, a society must offer that ability to people of the same gender as well if their purpose is to form a long-term relationship. That’s how just about every marriage starts. There is a desire to build a foundation for a lifetime of togetherness.

2. It provides more help. Marriage brings with it certain benefits, like the extension of health care, life insurance benefits, and even inheritance rights. Having same sex marriage within a society allows these rights to extend to partners in a way that civil partnerships don’t always allow. This way, even if a will isn’t necessarily in place, there is still a natural path of secession for that relationship.

3. It offers happiness. In the US, the founding documents state that people have the right to pursue their own happiness. Same sex marriage being a recognized legal contract allows for this to take place for the population that finds this to be an important part of their lives.

4. It provides business opportunities. Now that more people can get legally married, it offers more opportunities to the business sectors which provide wedding services. Photographers, bakers, florists, caterers, and many others have a completely new customer segment to target within their industry, giving them the chance to create many new local economic opportunities.

5. It stops needless violence. In some countries, same gender relationships are punishable by the death penalty or life imprisonment. Many of these nations are in the Middle East. A movement toward marriage equality shows these nations that there is nothing to fear about having a relationship like this.

5 Disadvantages of Same Sex Marriage

1. It creates change. People don’t like change, but that’s more because they fear the future consequences of it rather than the present decisions that are being made. From a fear of God’s wrath to a fear of losing financial benefits, people who are afraid can make very poor decisions to stop those feelings. That can lead to physical, verbal, and spiritual attacks on the LGBTQI community and their supporters.

2. The government structure may not be supportive of the idea. Sometimes changes to the law happen so quickly that supportive laws are unable to keep up. For example: some divorce laws may be specifically structured to only support a divorce between different genders. This would mean a same sex couple could get married, but a local court may not recognize the need for a divorce.

3. It imposes acceptance. It’s true that not everyone may find themselves with same gender attractions. For those that do not, having marriage equality laws in place can seem like an imposition of a choice with society-level consequences on them. It is important to note, however, that those who do have same gender attractions have felt that society has been imposing a standard upon them for several decades. When the tables are reversed, those who benefit from the changes can be just as brutal as those who are fearful of them.

4. Some feel that same sex marriage offends God. From a spiritual standpoint, many have been taught that God forbids a same gender union. This is not because two people of the same gender are unable to love one another, but because of the sexual relationship involved within the marriage union. When the world assumes that God is on their side, terrible things can happen. Terrorism, for example.

5. It changes societal infrastructure. Businesses have to take time and endure costs to adjust to the additional rights granted. Hospital rights, insurance rights, and other changes aren’t always subsidized, which means the business is effectively penalized.

Marriage equality is a subject which brings passionate arguments from both sides. Whether you believe it is the right step to take or is something that is potentially harmful to society, it is important to treat each other with respect in all things. Name calling, insults, and other derogatory comments only prove that instead of evaluating key points like these, a decision has been made on emotions. Let the debate begin, but on the facts involved.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

6 Pros and Cons of Foreign Aid

6 Pros and Cons of Flu Shot

6 Pros and Cons of Flat Tax

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

August 22, 2017

Evidence is clear on the benefits of legalising same-sex marriage

by Ryan Anderson, The Conversation

Emotive arguments and questionable rhetoric often characterise debates over same-sex marriage. But few attempts have been made to dispassionately dissect the issue from an academic, science-based perspective.

Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the more robust, rigorous and reliable information that is publicly available, the better.

There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.

Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage .

What does the research say?

Widescale research suggests that members of the LGBTQ community generally experience worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is possibly due to the stigmatisation they receive.

The mental health benefits of marriage generally are well-documented . In 2009, the American Medical Association officially recognised that excluding sexual minorities from marriage was significantly contributing to the overall poor health among same-sex households compared to heterosexual households.

Converging lines of evidence also suggest that sexual orientation stigma and discrimination are at least associated with increased psychological distress and a generally decreased quality of life among lesbians and gay men.

A US study that surveyed more than 36,000 people aged 18-70 found lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals were far less psychologically distressed if they were in a legally recognised same-sex marriage than if they were not. Married heterosexuals were less distressed than either of these groups.

So, it would seem that being in a legally recognised same-sex marriage can at least partly overcome the substantial health disparity between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

The authors concluded by urging other researchers to consider same-sex marriage as a public health issue.

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. But, it argued that depriving lesbians and gay men the tangible (and intangible) benefits of marriage is not only an act of discrimination – it also:

• disadvantages them by restricting their citizenship;
• hinders their mental health, wellbeing, and social mobility; and
• generally disenfranchises them from various cultural, legal, economic and political aspects of their lives.

Of further concern is research finding that in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents living in areas where gay marriage was allowed, living in areas where it was banned was associated with significantly higher rates of:

• mood disorders (36% higher);
• psychiatric comorbidity – that is, multiple mental health conditions (36% higher); and
• anxiety disorders (248% higher).

But what about the kids?

Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that children raised in same-sex households perform worse on a variety of life outcome measures when compared to those raised in a heterosexual household. There is some merit to this argument.

In terms of education and general measures of success, the literature isn't entirely unanimous. However, most studies have found that on these metrics there is no difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents.

In 2005, the American Psychological Association released a brief reviewing research on same-sex parenting. It unambiguously summed up its stance on the issue of whether or not same-sex parenting negatively impacts children:

"Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

Drawing conclusions

Same-sex marriage has already been legalised in 23 countries around the world , inhabited by more than 760 million people.

Despite the above studies positively linking marriage with wellbeing, it may be premature to definitively assert causality .

But overall, the evidence is fairly clear. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing. The benefits accrue to society as a whole, whether you are in a same-sex relationship or not.

As the body of research in support of same-sex marriage continues to grow, the case in favour of it becomes stronger.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

New research explains how brain blood vessels are formed

20 minutes ago

Researchers discover novel drug candidate to combat fatty liver disease

38 minutes ago

Exploring the effect of the presence of familiar people in interpersonal space

52 minutes ago

Researchers predict real-world SARS-CoV-2 evolution by monitoring mutations of viral isolates

New study targets major risk factor for gastric cancer

In people with opioid use disorder, telemedicine for HCV was more than twice as successful as off-site referral

Researchers find genetic variant coding for tubulin protein that may be partially responsible for left-handedness

2 hours ago

A molecular route to decoding synaptic specificity and nerve cell communication

Hope for treating autoimmune diseases: Researchers explore diagnostic role of the systemic inflammation index

4 hours ago

Testing environmental water to monitor COVID-19 spread in unsheltered encampments

Related stories, health benefits of marriage equality.

Sep 3, 2015

Happy marriage, healthier spouses

Jun 16, 2017

Are LGBT Americans actually reaping the benefits of marriage?

Jun 22, 2017

Same-sex marriage legalization linked to reduction in suicide attempts among teens

Feb 20, 2017

Study shows traditional marriage rates unaffected in states allowing same-sex marriage

Jun 13, 2013

Same-sex cohabitors less healthy than those in heterosexual marriages, study finds

Feb 27, 2013

Recommended for you

Combining food taxes and subsidies can lead to healthier grocery purchases for low-income households

21 hours ago

Las Vegas mass shooting survivors continue to struggle with major depression, PTSD

Reducing late-night alcohol sales curbed all violent crimes by 23% annually in a Baltimore neighborhood: Study

Apr 1, 2024

Steady rise in US suicides among adolescents, teens

Mar 29, 2024

Miscarriages linked to health risks in later pregnancies

Mar 28, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

9 Advantages and Disadvantages of Gay Marriage

The issue on same-sex marriage or gay marriage has been a controversial topic for so many years now, with several countries worldwide have made it legal while others still are firm on their stand to ban it. Gay marriage is a union or marriage between two people of the same sex through a civil ceremony or in church. Although it was not acknowledged legally for decades and some even considered it a taboo, some countries have broadened their perspective and take on this contentious issue. Some of the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage are the Netherlands, Argentina, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Brazil and just years ago, the United States. Since June 2, 2015, same-sex marriage has become legal nationwide. The LGBT community considers this a feat but for them, the battle isn’t over yet. Despite this achievement, not everybody disagrees and have their views on the issue.

List of Advantages of Gay Marriage

1. Legal Rights Protection One of the most useful advantages of legalizing marriage is the protection it gives the couple when it comes to health care, finances and taxes. Before, two people who are cohabitating and in a homosexual relationship living as couples are not given the security of protecting what both have them earned and saved together. If a partner dies, the surviving lover does not have the right to the property under the name of the deceased even if both of them have paid for the property. With the legalization of gay marriage, they are now considered by the state they live in as legally married so they now can enjoy tax breaks given to heterosexual married couples and are entitled to become heirs to their spouses. This also includes signing documents together as a couple and open joint accounts and purchase properties together.

2. Lessens Stigma Legalizing gay marriage also mitigated the discrimination and stigma on homosexuals because making the union or marriage legal gives gay couples the affirmation that they are accepted not only by society but also the state. For so many years, there have been stories about discrimination of homosexuals as well as crime committed against them. Today, no one can be ostracized and discriminated in the workplace or be denied from marrying his or her partner because of sexual orientation.

3. Gives Right to Start a Family There have been lesbian and gay couples who want to start a family and have their own children. Before, this was not allowed and looked at negatively by society. If ever one partner already has children, the other partner does not have the right to be an adoptive parent or if ever, they process does not work on their favor and takes years to be completed. With the legalization, gay couples can now adopt children just as straight couples can. They can even have children of their own through in vitro fertilization or by getting surrogate mothers or sperm donors.

4. Gives Equal Laws Homosexual relationships are also the same with heterosexual relationships when it comes to the mistakes or abuses that can happen between two people. However, unlike straight married couples who can file for adultery, divorce and infidelity, gay couples were not given the same purview of the law before. With gay marriage, married homosexuals can now file for divorce and sue their partners with adultery or infidelity. Also, in case of divorce, the other one can receive alimony and their children will be given child support.

List of Disadvantages of Gay Marriage

1. Affects Child Development Even if gay parents are allowed to adopt or have children, having two parents of the same sex might not be healthy or what’s best for the children involved. These kids need both a father and a mother image to have a balance and normal childhood. Gender roles can be hard to play especially if biological and physical aspects are the issue. If a boy grows up with two women, with the other one playing the role of the father or both plays the role of mothers, father image will be lacking and the couple cannot answer questions typically asked by boys to fathers, say, the physical changes in the body. Same goes for girls living with two-male parents.

2. Burdens the Divorce System Another disadvantage of allowing gay people to marry is the fact that when things don’t work out and they file for divorce, they will add to the number of cases pending in court and the burden put on the legal system in terms of court proceedings for divorce, alimony and child support will be doubled while these problems would have been lessened if gay marriage were not legalized.

3. Prone to Bullying Even if gay marriage is already legalized, not all accept and embrace this practice, particularly kids. Opponents of gay marriage claim that making this marriage between homosexuals legal can bring problems in the future especially when children are involved. Children of homosexuals and lesbians may be prone to bullying at schools and some even end up being physically hurt by other kids.

4. Possibility of Tax Increase With the tax benefits to be given to surviving legal partners, this can be added expense for the government. Some people are thinking that with the legalization of same-sex marriage and the increase in tax benefits, the government will be prompted to raise taxes in order to afford these added expenses.

5. Affects Adoption Process By allowing married gay couples to legally adopt children and given that they might find it difficult and expensive to have children of their own, there will be an increase in the number of child adoption applications. This might lead to more straight couples who are also interested to adopt not being given priority since they have bigger chances to have their own children.

Despite the legalization of gay marriage, this topic will remain to be a contentious issue especially that not all can accept and will accept the idea of two people with the same gender to be married in a religious ceremony.

Disadvantages and Advantages of Same Sex Marriage

Today, June 16, 2015, was a historical day in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is a fundamental right and that all 50 states in the country would be forced to recognize and certify these marriages. The debate about marriage equality has been a raging one for many years, for a wide range of reasons. The true questions that should be asked are what harm and what benefits will actually come from this landmark ruling and how will it change and shape our society.

The Advantages of Same Sex Marriage

1. Not Allowing Some People To Marry Is Unconstitutional By allowing some people to marry, and not others, the government is discriminating against citizens. This creates the feeling that the government classifies homosexual people as second rate citizens who do not have the same rights as heterosexual people.

2. Access To Equal Benefits There is a wide variety of benefits that are offered to couples who are legally married. Some of these include tax benefits and insurance perks. Since same sex couples can now marry, they too get to enjoy these benefits and perks that come along with being married.

3. “Traditional Marriage” Views Have Changed The way that society think has drastically changed over the past decades. People’s minds are opening to things that they may have not understood before. The same idea goes with same sex marriage, the idea of two men or women getting married often confused people, which is why they did not support it. Times have changed and legalizing same sex marriage is a testament to this.

4. Everyone Needs Love All couples experience different relationships, but the idea and feeling of love is universal. Marriage is a traditional thing that truly solidifies and commits a relationships, and straight couples should not be the only ones who have the privilege of doing this.

5. Religion Is The Problem The biggest reason that it is wonderful that same sex marriage has been legalized is the fact that the argument is largely religious. It is unfair to oppress some people based on the views of few.

The Disadvantages of Same Sex Marriage

1. Marriage Is A Religious Sanction The entire idea of marriage is from religion. This is what arguers of same sex marriage speak the most about. The traditionally defined marriage is between a man and a woman, same sex marriage is against what the Bible teaches, so it is sac religious to marry two men or two women into a religious sanction.

2. Confusing For Children Another big problem wit same sex marriage is how it will affect the children of the country. By legalizing same sex marriage it gives the message to children that it is normal or okay to be in a homosexual relationship. This also causes confusion for them as to how reproduction works.

3. Marriage Is For Procreation The entire purpose of being on this planet and getting married is to have children, expand the population, and keep the human race going. Same sex couples cannot have children because it requires both a female and male to conceive a child. If we begin to praise people for not having children, the human race could slowly begin to dwindle.

4. It’s A Slippery Slope By legalizing same sex marriage, you are opening the door for other types of non traditional couples to fight for their right to marry. This could include underage marriages, incestuous, and even group marriages.

5. Having A Mother And Father Is Important Kids need balance in their life in order to be successful adults. This balance comes from having influences from a mother and a father in their developmental years. Same sex couples cannot give this to a child because there is only one gender having influence over their life.

6. Reduces To Sanctity Of Marriage Marriage is a traditional and religious ceremony and commitment that people hold very sacred. The institution of marriage has been degrading slowly over time, and we need to do everything that we can to preserve this. Same sex marriages devalue traditional marriages and cause people to sway away from getting married.

Want to learn how to become a professional blogger and never have to get a job? Listen to the award winning podcast The Blog Millionaire  to find out how. Go here to subscribe for free and download the episodes straight to your phone, tablet, or computer .

Important Facts About Same Sex Marriage

• Support for same sex marriage in America rose from 37 percent to 57 percent between the years of 2009 and 2015.
• The very first country to ever legalize gay marriage was the Netherlands in 2001.
• In 1998 Alaska was the first state to legally ban same sex marriages.
• The very first legal gay marriage was officiated in Massachusetts in 2004.
• 20 different countries around the world allow gay marriage.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

One Benefit to Same-Sex Marriage that Nobody is Talking About

Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples will improve America’s health. As a researcher studying how same-sex married couples influence each other’s health, I find that same-sex spouses do many of the same things that heterosexual spouses do to influence each other’s long-term health.

Columns appearing on the service and this webpage represent the views of the authors, not of The University of Texas at Austin.

As the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether the Constitution requires recognition of same-sex marriage, many have speculated about the real-world consequences and benefits of marriage equality.

On at least one front the answer is clear: Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples will improve America’s health.

The empirical evidence is indisputable: Married Americans are healthier and live longer than the unmarried. They enjoy better overall health, have fewer chronic conditions, are less likely to have a heart attack and more likely to survive a heart attack if they have one, and they are less likely to be institutionalized in old age.

Marriage benefits health because spouses influence each other’s health habits, provide emotional and social support that promotes healthy immune and cardiovascular functioning, and facilitate the use of preventive and curative health care.

These well-documented findings make the denial of marriage to gay and lesbian Americans a hazard to public health.

Marriage may be even more important to the health of gay and lesbian people than to heterosexuals. Gays and lesbians face more stress throughout life — precisely because of their sexual minority status — and this stress takes a toll on their health.

A recent Institute of Medicine report shows that sexual minority populations are at greater risk for a wide range of health conditions including depression and anxiety, chronic health conditions, disability and overall poorer physical health.

The legalization of same-sex marriage in some states means that social scientists are now in a position to assess marriage and health dynamics of same-sex couples. As a researcher studying how same-sex married couples influence each other’s health, including how they take care of each other during illness, I find that same-sex spouses do many of the same things that heterosexual spouses do to influence each other’s long-term health.

For example, they help each other with important medical decisions and remind each other to take their medications, eat well and exercise. But my empirical findings show that when one spouse is seriously ill, gay and lesbian spouses tend to be even more supportive of each other than are heterosexual spouses.

Perhaps most striking, same-sex patients and their spouses are more likely to mutually support each other when one of them is seriously ill, and to have more confidence that the spouse will provide the support he or she needs if future health problems occur.

In contrast, heterosexual marriages are characterized by strong gender dynamics in which women provide more support to men than men provide to women. Heterosexual women provide more support to their spouses even when the woman is the patient.

Indeed, heterosexual women more often feel they cannot rely on their spouses to take care of them. And couples are more likely to divorce if a wife becomes seriously ill than if a husband becomes seriously ill.

Sometimes people talk as if marriage equality is all about giving gay and lesbian couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples. That is important, of course, but equally important are the benefits that heterosexual couples may derive as we learn more about how men and women in same-sex unions promote healthy behaviors and supportive relationships.

Securing marriage equality for gay and lesbian people can provide broader lessons about how to increase the health-building properties of marriage for all Americans.

Access to marriage will benefit the health of gay and lesbian populations and provide greater stability for their families. A healthier population promotes quality of life for individuals and, at the same time, serves to reduce health care costs for society as a whole.

We can debate whether embracing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do. We should all agree that it is the healthy thing to do.

Debra Umberson is the Christie and Stanley E. Adams Jr. Centennial Professor in Liberal Arts and a professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin.

A version of this op-ed appeared in the Huffington Post and the Austin American Statesman .

To view more op-eds from Texas Perspectives, click here .

Like us on Facebook .

New op-ed by @LiberalArtsUT prof: Health is a benefit to all marriages. http://t.co/RGjvnUHcgO — Texas Perspectives (@TexPerspectives) May 13, 2015

Explore Latest Articles

Apr 02, 2024

Texas Performing Arts Presents World Premiere Performance by Darden Smith, UT Songwriter in Residence

The Power in Prediction: Eclipses and Native Americans

Apr 01, 2024

Move More, Sleep Better, UT Study Finds

MyInfoBasket.com

Free Quality Online Learning Materials

• Pagkilala sa Pambihirang Pagkakakilanlan ng Lahing Pilipino
• Alab ng Kultura: Mga Musika at Sayaw ng Lahi na Pambihirang Ipinagmamalaki ng mga Pilipino
• Tunay na mga Biyaya: Mga Kawanggawa sa Pamayanan na Bunga ng Pananampalataya
• The Last Words of Jose Rizal: An Insight into the Final Moments of the National Hero
• Who was Jose Rizal? Discover the Life and Legacy of Jose Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda

Same Sex Marriage Debate: Reasons For and Against

Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance in other countries, but are still banned in the Philippines. Some explain that the traditional marital set-up defines the fundamental, cross-cultural institution that healthily provides ‘normal parents’ to children.

Same-sex marriage advocates however argue that legalizing same-sex unions would be good not only for gay people, but also for society as a whole, since society fundamentally supports loving relationships regardless of the people’s gender orientations and preferences.

So generally speaking, should same-sex marriage be legalized?

These are some of the reasons used by those who propose the legalization of same sex marriage:

1. Same-sex marriage does not hurt the society or anyone in particular. Denying this form of marriage is a case of minority discrimination.

2. A legalized same sex marriage can be a big help to orphanages. Same sex partners’ inability to procreate would probably bring them to adopting orphans.

3. Today, homosexuality is already an accepted lifestyle. Many productive and highly-respected people in the society (such as leaders, filmmakers, and other artists) belong to the gay community. It’s about time to positively sanction their relationships.

4. Is not love the most important thing that should matter in marriage? Once same-sex marriage is legalized, the political and financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages will also be enjoyed by genuinely loving gay couples.

Oppositely, those who take the traditional stance offer these reasons against same-sex marriage:

1. Same-sex union may traumatically confuse children especially about gender roles, procreation, and societal expectations. For children’s sake, same-sex marriage must be banned.

2. Though becoming rampant, gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged as studies show that it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other personal and societal problems.

3. Same-sex union and building a family out of it are not biologically natural. Same-sex couples cannot naturally produce children through their union.

4. The proposal will weaken the sanctity, honor, and prestige of marriage as a fundamental institution. Same-sex marriage will destructively weaken many traditional family values that serve as fabrics of a stable society … continue reading

©  Jensen DG. Mañebog /MyInfoBasket.com

SA MGA MAG-AARAL : Maaaring ilagay ang inyong assignment/comment dito sa comment section ng Moral Standards and Non-Moral Standards (Difference and Characteristics)

ALSO CHECK OUT: Reasoning and Debate: A Handbook and a Textbook  by  Jensen DG. Mañebog

IMPORTANT: TO STUDENTS (and their friends/relatives): For your comments NOT to be DELETED by the system , pls SUBSCRIBE first (if you have not subscribed yet). Thanks.

===== To post comment, briefly watch this related short video:

==== For your COMMENT, use the comment section here: Comments of RATIONAL STUDENTS

Share this:

• ← Mandatory Drug Test for Students Debate: Reasons For and Against
• Curfew Debate: Reasons For and Against →

Privacy Policy

Same Sex Marriage Argumentative Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Example 1: Gay Marriages Argumentative Essay Outline

Introduction.

Same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right. To have experts write for you a quality paper on same sex marriage, seek help from a trusted academic writing service where you can buy research proposals online with ease and one you can be sure of getting the best possible assistance available

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Paragraph 1:

Same-sex marriage provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care.

• It gives them the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples.
• It makes it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Paragraph 2:

Same sex marriage allows two people in love to happily live together.

• Homosexuals deserve to be in love just like heterosexuals.
• The definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes.

Perhaps you may be interested in learning about research proposals on human trafficking .

Paragraph 3:

Same sex marriage gives homosexual couples the right to start families.

• Gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children.
• A family should ideally have parents and children.
• It is not necessary that the parents be a male and female.  

Paragraph 4:

Same sex marriage does not harm the institution of marriage and is potentially more stable.

• Legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not  negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage.
• Heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages.

Paragraph 5:

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and mother for a balanced upbringing.

• They hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence on children.
• They forget that that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places.

Paragraph 6:

Opponents may also argue that same-sex marriages reduce sanctity of marriage.

• To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony.
• Unfortunately, such arguments treat marriage as a man-wife union only.
• They fail to recognize that there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.
• Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages.
• It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them to actualize their love in matrimony.
• It enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children.
• It is only fair that all governments consider legalizing same sex marriages.

Read on the best motivational speech ideas .

Argumentative Essay on Same Sex Marriage

For many years now, same-sex marriage has been a controversial topic. While some countries have legalized the practice, others still consider it not right and treat it as illegal. Same-sex marriage is defined as a marriage or union between two people of the same sex, such as a man and a man. Some countries have broadened their perspective on this issue even though for many years, it has never been legally acknowledged, with some societies even considering it a taboo. The United Kingdom, Spain, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, and recently the United States are some of the countries that have legalized it (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Irrespective of any arguments, same-sex marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental human right.

First, same-sex marriage, if recognized by society, provides legal rights protection to same sex couples on such matters as taxes, finances, and health care. If people live together in a homosexual relationship without being legally married, they do not enjoy the security to protect what they have worked for and saved together. In case one of them dies, the surviving partner would have no right over the property under the deceased’s name even if they both funded its acquisition (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). Legalizing same-sex unions would cushion homosexual partners from such unfortunate situations. They would have the right to become heirs to their spouses and enjoy tax breaks just like heterosexual married couples. Legalization would also make it possible for them to purchase properties together, open joint accounts, and sign documents together as couples.

Same sex marriage also allows two people in love to become one in a matrimonial union and live happily together. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is thus denying them the right to be in love just like heterosexuals do. Moreover, the definition of marriage does not suggest that it should only be an exclusive union between two people of opposite sexes. According to Gerstmann (2017), marriage is a formally or legally recognized union between two people in a personal relationship. As per this definition, people should be allowed to marry once they are in love with each other irrespective of their genders. Reducing marriage to a union between a man and woman is thus a direct infringement into the rights of homosexuals.

Additionally, gay marriages give homosexual couples the right to start families. Just like heterosexual couples, gay and lesbian partners should be allowed to start families and have their own children. Essentially, a family should ideally have parents and children and it is not necessary that the parents be a male and female. Same sex partners can easily adopt and bring up children if their marriage is legalized and recognized by the society in which they live (Gerstmann, 2017). As one would concur, even some heterosexual couples are not able to sire their own children and resort to adopting one or even more. This is a right that should be extended to same sex couples too given that they may not be able to give birth on their own.

Further, same sex marriage does no harm whatsoever to the institution of marriage, and is potentially more stable. According to a 2009 study, legalization of civil unions or gay marriages does not in any way negatively impact abortion rates, divorce, or marriage (Langbein & Yost, 2009). This makes it quite uncalled for to argue against or prohibit gay marriages. In yet another study, only 1.1 percent of legally married gay couples end their relationships as compared to the 2 percent annual divorce rate among opposite-sex couples (Badgett & Herman, 2011). This implies that heterosexual marriages have a slightly higher dissolution rate on average than opposite sex marriages. It could then be argued that gay marriages are more stable than traditional man-woman marriages. The two types of marriages should thus be given equal chance because neither affects the other negatively. They also have more or less equal chances of succeeding if legally recognized and accepted.

Opponents of same sex marriage may argue that it is important for children to have a father and a mother. They may say that for children to have a good balance in their upbringing, they should be influenced by a father and a mother in their developmental years. Such arguments hold that homosexual couples only have one gender influence over the lives of children and that this is less fulfilling (Badgett, 2009). However, the arguments fail to recognize that children under the parental care of same sex couples get to mingle with both male and female genders in various social places. At school, the children get to be cared for and mentored by both male and female teachers who more or less serve almost the same role as parents.

Those who are opposed to same sex unions may also argue that such marriages reduce sanctity of marriage. To them, marriage is a religious and traditional commitment and ceremony that is held very sacred by people. They contend that there is need to do everything possible to preserve marriage because as an institution, it has been degrading slowly over time. Their concern is that traditional marriages are being devalued by same sex marriages which are swaying people away from being married and instead choosing to live with same sex partners (Nagle, 2010). It is clear here that such arguments treat marriage as a man-woman union only and are thus not cognizant of the true meaning of marriage. Moreover, they fail to recognize that traditions and religions should not be used against same sex couples because there are people who do not ascribe to any tradition(s) or religions.

Same sex marriage is a human right that should be enjoyed just like traditional heterosexual marriages. It protects the legal rights of lesbian and gay couples and allows them the well-deserved opportunity of actualizing their love in matrimony. In addition, it enables them to exercise their right to start families and bring up children. Arguments made against this form of marriage, such as that it undermines traditional marriages, are based on opinions and not facts. Moreover, it is not important for a child to have a father and a mother because there are other places in which they actively interact with people of different sexes. As such, it is only fair that all governments consider legalizing gay marriages.

Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011).  Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex couples in the United States [PDF]. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Marriage-Dissolution-FINAL.pdf .

Badgett, M. V. (2009). When gay people get married: what happens when societies legalize same-sex marriage . New York, NY: NYU Press.

Gerstmann, E. (2017). Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Langbein, L., & Yost, M. A. (2009). Same-sex marriage and negative externalities.  Social Science Quarterly , 90(2), 292-308.

Nagle, J. (2010). Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017). Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Explore a persuasive essay about strengthening community handled by our tutors following the prompt provided.

Example 2: Sample Essay Outline on Same Sex Marriages

Thesis:  Same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

Pros of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex couples are better at parenting.

• Children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health.
• Children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers perform better academically and socially.

Same sex marriage reduces divorce rates.

• The divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. Higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited.
• Divorce is not good for family cohesion.

Same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing.

• Bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil.
• After some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced increased anxiety disorders.

Cons of Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages.

• It could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling.
• They might want to become homosexuals upon growing up.

For a holistic development, a child should have both mother and father.

• Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child.
• A child needs to learn how to relate with both male and female genders right from when they are born.

Other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions.

• People who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged.
• They might start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals for instance.

Why Same Sex Marriage Should Be Legal

Paragraph 7:

Marriage is a fundamental human right.

• All individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right.
• Denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

Paragraph 8:

Marriage is a concept based on love.

• It is inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and woman.
• Marriage is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding.

Paragraph 9:

opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

• However, this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular.
• It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition.

Same sex marriage should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex.

Same Sex Marriage Essay Example

The idea of same sex marriage is one of the topics that have been widely debated in the United States of America. It has often been met with strong opposition since the majority of the country’s citizens are Christians and Christianity views the idea as evil. On the other hand, those who believe it is right and should be legalized have provided a number of arguments to support it, including that it is a fundamental human right. This debate is still ongoing even after a Supreme Court ruling legalized this type of marriage. However, this debate is unnecessary because same sex marriage, just like opposite sex marriage, should be legal.

It has been proven through studies that same sex couples are better at parenting. A University of Melbourne 2014 study indicated that compared to children raised by both mother and father, children brought up by same sex couples do better in terms of family cohesion and overall health. Similarly, the journal  Pediatrics  published a study in 2010 stating that children under the guardianship of lesbian mothers performed better academically and socially (Gerstmann, 2017). The children also experienced fewer social problems.

Same sex marriages also reduce divorce rates. According to Gerstmann (2017), the divorce rates in a state were reduced significantly after the state legalized gay marriages. This was as per the analysis of the before and after divorce statistics. Likewise, higher divorce rates were recorded in states where gay marriages are prohibited. Generally, divorce is not good for family cohesion especially in terms of caring for children. Children need to grow up under the care of both parents hence the need for their parents to stay together.

In addition, same sex marriage increases psychological wellbeing. This is because bisexuals, gays, and lesbians feel socially rejected if society views same-sex marriages as illegal or evil. A study report released in 2010 showed that after some states banned this kind of marriage, bisexuals, gays, and lesbians living there experienced a 248% rise in generalized anxiety disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 37% rise in mood disorders (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). In this respect, allowing such marriages would make them feel normal and accepted by society.

Same sex marriages may diminish heterosexual marriages and the longstanding marriage culture in society. Perhaps, it could be possible for children in homosexual families to think that same sex unions are more fulfilling and enjoyable than opposite-sex relationships. As a result, they might want to become homosexuals upon growing up. This would mean that standardized marriages between opposite sexes face a bleak future (Nagle, 2010). Such a trend might threaten to throw the human race to extinction because there would be no procreation in future generations.

Same sex unions also fall short because for a holistic development, a child should have both a mother and a father. Absence of a father or a mother in a family leaves a gaping hole in the life of a child. The two major genders in the world are male and female and a child needs to learn how to relate with both of them right from when they are born (Nagle, 2010). A father teaches them how to live alongside males while a mother teaches them how to do the same with females.

Further, other non-typical unions may be encouraged by same sex unions. If the marriages are accepted worldwide, people who get involved in such other acts as bestiality and incest may feel encouraged (Winter, Forest & Senac, 2017). They might even start agitating for their “right” to get married to animals, for instance. This possibility would water down and deinstitutionalize the whole concept of consummation and marriage. This would further diminish the existence of heterosexual marriages as people would continue to find less and less importance in them.

Same sex unions should be legal because marriage is a fundamental human right. It has been stated by the United States Supreme Court fourteen times since 1888 that all individuals should enjoy marriage as a fundamental right (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). In making these judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Due Process Clause protects as one of the liberties the freedom to make personal choice in matters of marriage. The Court has maintained that this free choice is important as it allows free men to pursue happiness in an orderly manner. Thus, denying one the right to marry a same sex partner is akin to denying them their basic right.

People should also be legally allowed to get into same sex unions since marriage is a concept based on love. It is traditionally inaccurate to confine marriage to be only between a man and a woman. The working definition of marriage should be that it is a union between two people in love with each other, their gender or sexual orientation notwithstanding (Hertz & Doskow, 2016). Making it an exclusively man-woman affair trashes the essence of love in romantic relationships. If a man loves a fellow man, they should be allowed to marry just like a man and a woman in love may do.

As already alluded to, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that a relationship between same-sex couples cannot be considered marriage since marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Based on this traditional definition of marriage, they contend that gay and lesbian couples should not marry. However, as noted by Carpenter (2005), this definitional argument is both conclusory and circular and is thus seriously flawed and fallacious. It is in no way logical to challenge gay marriage based on this archaic marriage definition. That marriage only happens when one man and one woman come together in a matrimony is a constricted view of the institution of marriage. Moreover, there are no reasons accompanying the definition showing that it is the right one or should be the only one (Carpenter, 2005). Therefore, it should be expanded to include same-sex couples. The lack of reasons to support it makes it defenseless thus weak.

Same sex marriages should be legalized by all countries in the world. In the U.S., the debate surrounding its legalization should die off because it is irrelevant. People have the right to marry whoever they like whether they are of the same sex or not. Just like love can sprout between a man and a woman, so can it between a man and a fellow man or a woman and a fellow woman. There is absolutely no need to subject gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to unnecessary psychological torture by illegalizing same sex marriage.

Carpenter, D. (2005). Bad arguments against gay marriage.  Florida Coastal Law Review , VII , 181-220.

Gerstmann, E. (2017).  Same-sex marriage and the constitution . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hertz, F., & Doskow, E. (2016).  Making it legal: a guide to same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships & civil unions . Berkeley, CA: Nolo.

Nagle, J. (2010).  Same-sex marriage: the debate . New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Winter, B., Forest, M., & Senac, R. (2017).  Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: a neo-institutional approach . New York, NY: Springer.

Example 3: Same Sex Marriage Essay

Same Sex Marriage Essay- Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Discuss how the idea of gay marriage has changed over the last decade and show the progression of the movement.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Essay Outline

Introduction 

Thesis:  Gay marriage was regarded as an abomination in the early years, but in recent times the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage is gradually changing.

In 1965, 70% of Americans were opposed to same-sex marriage.

• They cited its harmfulness to the American life.
• Prevalence of AIDS among gay people further increased this opposition.

Social gay movements contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Gay movements increased the exposure of members of the society to gay marriage while showing their sufferings.
• Through social movements, the society saw the need for equality and fair treatment of gay persons.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Political bodies and politicians pushed for equality of gay people in efforts to garner political mileage.
• The influence of politicians changed the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

The incidence of gay people, particularly in the United States has contributed to change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage.

• Increase in the number of gay persons pushed people into accepting gay marriage.
• The media contributed in gathering compassion from members of the society by evidencing the sufferings of gay people.

The judiciary upheld the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

• In 2014, 42 court rulings were made in favor of gay marriage.
• There are more than 30 states today with policies in support of same-sex marriage.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage.

• The Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that stopped governments from restricting the freedom of marriage worked in favor of same-sex marriage.

Paragraph 7: 

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them.

• Restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality.
• An adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for the fulfillment of love by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards same-sex marriage has changed. Social gay movements and increased incidence of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate gay marriages. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage.

Changing Attitudes on Same Sex Marriage Sample Essay

In the early years, gay marriage was an abomination and received criticism from many members of society. The principal reason as to why many people in society were objected to gay marriage was that it went against religious and societal values and teachings (Decoo, 2014). However, over the past three decades, the perception of society towards the practice has changed. The degree of its social tolerance and acceptance has gradually improved. In the 2000s, numerous social and political lobby groups pushed for a change in insolences towards gay marriage (Decoo, 2014). Though these lobby groups have tried to advocate for the rights of gay people, their principal focus was to change people’s attitudes towards homosexuality.

According to a study conducted in the year 1965 investigating the attitudes of Americans towards gay marriage, seventy percent of the respondents were opposed to the idea of same-sex marriage citing its harmfulness to the American life. Most Americans felt that the practice went against the social and moral values of the American society. In the years between 1975 and 1977, the number of Americans who were not objected to gay marriage increased (Decoo, 2014). However, this number decreased in the years of 1980, when the prevalence of AIDS among gay people hit alarming levels. In the years that followed, the attitudes of the American society towards gay marriage rapidly changed.

The rise of gay social movements has contributed significantly to a change in attitude of the society towards gay marriage. In the early years, people were not exposed to issues of same-sex marriage, but the gay social movements focused on increasing the exposure of gay marriage, while advocating for their equal treatment (Keleher & Smith, 2018). These movements were able to reveal the injustices and unfair treatment that gays were exposed to, and how such unfair treatment tarnishes the image of the society (Keleher & Smith, 2018). The movements persuaded the society to embark on ways of addressing injustices meted out on gay people. Through highlighting these injustices, members of the society acknowledged the need for reforms to bring about impartiality and non-discrimination in marriage.

Political movements in support of gay marriage have as well contributed to changing the attitude of the society towards the practice. As a matter of fact, one of the strategies that gay social movements employed in their advocacy for gay rights were political maneuvering (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The lobby groups approached aspiring politicians, who would advocate for equal rights of gays to garner political mileage. With time, politicians would use the subject to attack their competitors who were opposed to the idea of same sex marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). This increased political support for gay marriage influenced members of the society into changing their attitude towards the same.

The ever increasing number of gays, particularly in the United States, has contributed to a change in the attitude of the world society towards gay marriage. As the number of gays increased in the U.S., it became hard for members of the society to continue opposing this form of marriage (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). Many families had at least one or more of their family members who would turn out to be gay. The perception of gay people by such families would therefore change upon learning that their loved ones were also gay (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The media also played a significant role in gathering compassion from the members of the society by portraying the injustices that gay people experienced (Demock, Doherty & Killey, 2013). The society would as a result be compelled to sympathize with gays and lesbians and thus change their stance on same-sex marriage.

Further, the judiciary has also contributed to the change in the attitude of the society towards gay marriage. There were states in the U.S. that initially illegalized same sex marriages, prompting gay people to file discrimination lawsuits (Coontz, 2014). Reports indicate that in the year 2014, there were more than 42 court rulings that ruled in favor of same-sex couples (Coontz, 2014). Some critics of same-sex marriage termed these rulings as judicial activism. They argued that the judiciary was frustrating the will of the American society, which was opposed to same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Following these rulings and the increased advocacy for equality and fair treatment of gay people, some states implemented policies is support of same-sex marriage (Coontz, 2014). Today, the entire United States treats the practice as legal, as was determined by the Supreme Court back in 2015.

The increased push for the freedom of marriage has also contributed to changing the attitude on gay marriage. In the early years, there were states, especially in the United States, that opposed interracial marriages, so that a white could not marry an African-American, for instance (Coontz, 2014). In the years before 1967, there were states that restricted people with tuberculosis or prisoners from getting married. Other states also discouraged employers from hiring married women. However, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that state governments had no right to deny people of their freedom of marriage (Coontz, 2014). When such laws were regarded as violations of human rights, gay people also termed the restriction of same-sex marriage as a violation of their liberty and freedom to marry.

Supporters of same sex marriage have also increasingly argued that people should be allowed to marry not necessarily based on their gender but on the love between them and their decision as two adults. According to such people, restricting marriage to a union between heterosexual couples only creates a biased view of human sexuality. For example, they point out that this extreme view fails to acknowledge that gay couples also derive fulfilment from their romantic relationships (Steorts, 2015). They additionally contend that an adult should be allowed the freewill to seek for this fulfillment by starting a relationship with a partner of whichever gender of their choosing. Whether they love a man or a woman should not be anybody’s concern. The argument also notes that gay couples who have come out clearly demonstrate that they are happy in their relationships.

Gay marriage has been the subject of social, political, and religious debates for many years but over the past two decades, the attitude of the society towards it has significantly changed. Social gay movements and increased numbers of gay people has compelled the community to accept and tolerate the practice. The judiciary has as well contributed to this change in attitude by pushing the freedom and right to marriage, thereby finally making the practice legal in the United States.

Coontz, S. (2014). “Why America changed its mind on gay marriageable”.  CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/13/opinion/coontz-same-sex-marriage/index.html

Decoo, E. (2014).  Changing attitudes toward homosexuality in the United States from 1977 to 2012 . Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.

Demock, M., Doherty, C., & Kiley, J. (2013). Growing support for gay marriage: changed minds and changing demographics.  Gen ,  10 , 1965-1980.

Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In  Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA .

Steorts, J. L. (2015). “An equal chance at love: why we should recognize same-sex marriage”.  National Review . Retrieved June 23, 2020 from  https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/05/yes-same-sex-marriage-about-equality-courts-should-not-decide/

Our article explores the intricacies of same-sex marriage discourse, offering a debated essay with a structured outline. Explore our speech writer generator free tool and create a good speech.

More examples of Argumentative Essays written by our team of professional writers

• American Patriotism Argumentative Essay
• Argumentative Essay On Marijuana Legalization
• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample
• Argumentative Essay on Abortion – Sample Essay
• Gun Control Argumentative Essay – Sample Essay
• Can Money Buy Happiness Argumentative Essay
• Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay
• Illegal Immigration Argumentative Essay

If you are having any issues choosing a suitable topic for your argumentative essay, worry no more for we have a variety of argumentative topics  to choose from and convince others of your position. Y ou can also get college homework help from Gudwriter and receive a plagiarism free paper written from scratch.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

Things you buy through our links may earn Vox Media a commission

The Case for Marrying an Older Man

A woman’s life is all work and little rest. an age gap relationship can help..

In the summer, in the south of France, my husband and I like to play, rather badly, the lottery. We take long, scorching walks to the village — gratuitous beauty, gratuitous heat — kicking up dust and languid debates over how we’d spend such an influx. I purchase scratch-offs, jackpot tickets, scraping the former with euro coins in restaurants too fine for that. I never cash them in, nor do I check the winning numbers. For I already won something like the lotto, with its gifts and its curses, when he married me.

He is ten years older than I am. I chose him on purpose, not by chance. As far as life decisions go, on balance, I recommend it.

When I was 20 and a junior at Harvard College, a series of great ironies began to mock me. I could study all I wanted, prove myself as exceptional as I liked, and still my fiercest advantage remained so universal it deflated my other plans. My youth. The newness of my face and body. Compellingly effortless; cruelly fleeting. I shared it with the average, idle young woman shrugging down the street. The thought, when it descended on me, jolted my perspective, the way a falling leaf can make you look up: I could diligently craft an ideal existence, over years and years of sleepless nights and industry. Or I could just marry it early.

So naturally I began to lug a heavy suitcase of books each Saturday to the Harvard Business School to work on my Nabokov paper. In one cavernous, well-appointed room sat approximately 50 of the planet’s most suitable bachelors. I had high breasts, most of my eggs, plausible deniability when it came to purity, a flush ponytail, a pep in my step that had yet to run out. Apologies to Progress, but older men still desired those things.

I could not understand why my female classmates did not join me, given their intelligence. Each time I reconsidered the project, it struck me as more reasonable. Why ignore our youth when it amounted to a superpower? Why assume the burdens of womanhood, its too-quick-to-vanish upper hand, but not its brief benefits at least? Perhaps it came easier to avoid the topic wholesale than to accept that women really do have a tragically short window of power, and reason enough to take advantage of that fact while they can. As for me, I liked history, Victorian novels, knew of imminent female pitfalls from all the books I’d read: vampiric boyfriends; labor, at the office and in the hospital, expected simultaneously; a decline in status as we aged, like a looming eclipse. I’d have disliked being called calculating, but I had, like all women, a calculator in my head. I thought it silly to ignore its answers when they pointed to an unfairness for which we really ought to have been preparing.

I was competitive by nature, an English-literature student with all the corresponding major ambitions and minor prospects (Great American novel; email job). A little Bovarist , frantic for new places and ideas; to travel here, to travel there, to be in the room where things happened. I resented the callow boys in my class, who lusted after a particular, socially sanctioned type on campus: thin and sexless, emotionally detached and socially connected, the opposite of me. Restless one Saturday night, I slipped on a red dress and snuck into a graduate-school event, coiling an HDMI cord around my wrist as proof of some technical duty. I danced. I drank for free, until one of the organizers asked me to leave. I called and climbed into an Uber. Then I promptly climbed out of it. For there he was, emerging from the revolving doors. Brown eyes, curved lips, immaculate jacket. I went to him, asked him for a cigarette. A date, days later. A second one, where I discovered he was a person, potentially my favorite kind: funny, clear-eyed, brilliant, on intimate terms with the universe.

I used to love men like men love women — that is, not very well, and with a hunger driven only by my own inadequacies. Not him. In those early days, I spoke fondly of my family, stocked the fridge with his favorite pasta, folded his clothes more neatly than I ever have since. I wrote his mother a thank-you note for hosting me in his native France, something befitting a daughter-in-law. It worked; I meant it. After graduation and my fellowship at Oxford, I stayed in Europe for his career and married him at 23.

Of course I just fell in love. Romances have a setting; I had only intervened to place myself well. Mainly, I spotted the precise trouble of being a woman ahead of time, tried to surf it instead of letting it drown me on principle. I had grown bored of discussions of fair and unfair, equal or unequal , and preferred instead to consider a thing called ease.

The reception of a particular age-gap relationship depends on its obviousness. The greater and more visible the difference in years and status between a man and a woman, the more it strikes others as transactional. Transactional thinking in relationships is both as American as it gets and the least kosher subject in the American romantic lexicon. When a 50-year-old man and a 25-year-old woman walk down the street, the questions form themselves inside of you; they make you feel cynical and obscene: How good of a deal is that? Which party is getting the better one? Would I take it? He is older. Income rises with age, so we assume he has money, at least relative to her; at minimum, more connections and experience. She has supple skin. Energy. Sex. Maybe she gets a Birkin. Maybe he gets a baby long after his prime. The sight of their entwined hands throws a lucid light on the calculations each of us makes, in love, to varying degrees of denial. You could get married in the most romantic place in the world, like I did, and you would still have to sign a contract.

Twenty and 30 is not like 30 and 40; some freshness to my features back then, some clumsiness in my bearing, warped our decade, in the eyes of others, to an uncrossable gulf. Perhaps this explains the anger we felt directed at us at the start of our relationship. People seemed to take us very, very personally. I recall a hellish car ride with a friend of his who began to castigate me in the backseat, in tones so low that only I could hear him. He told me, You wanted a rich boyfriend. You chased and snuck into parties . He spared me the insult of gold digger, but he drew, with other words, the outline for it. Most offended were the single older women, my husband’s classmates. They discussed me in the bathroom at parties when I was in the stall. What does he see in her? What do they talk about? They were concerned about me. They wielded their concern like a bludgeon. They paraphrased without meaning to my favorite line from Nabokov’s Lolita : “You took advantage of my disadvantage,” suspecting me of some weakness he in turn mined. It did not disturb them, so much, to consider that all relationships were trades. The trouble was the trade I’d made struck them as a bad one.

The truth is you can fall in love with someone for all sorts of reasons, tiny transactions, pluses and minuses, whose sum is your affection for each other, your loyalty, your commitment. The way someone picks up your favorite croissant. Their habit of listening hard. What they do for you on your anniversary and your reciprocal gesture, wrapped thoughtfully. The serenity they inspire; your happiness, enlivening it. When someone says they feel unappreciated, what they really mean is you’re in debt to them.

When I think of same-age, same-stage relationships, what I tend to picture is a woman who is doing too much for too little.

I’m 27 now, and most women my age have “partners.” These days, girls become partners quite young. A partner is supposed to be a modern answer to the oppression of marriage, the terrible feeling of someone looming over you, head of a household to which you can only ever be the neck. Necks are vulnerable. The problem with a partner, however, is if you’re equal in all things, you compromise in all things. And men are too skilled at taking .

There is a boy out there who knows how to floss because my friend taught him. Now he kisses college girls with fresh breath. A boy married to my friend who doesn’t know how to pack his own suitcase. She “likes to do it for him.” A million boys who know how to touch a woman, who go to therapy because they were pushed, who learned fidelity, boundaries, decency, manners, to use a top sheet and act humanely beneath it, to call their mothers, match colors, bring flowers to a funeral and inhale, exhale in the face of rage, because some girl, some girl we know, some girl they probably don’t speak to and will never, ever credit, took the time to teach him. All while she was working, raising herself, clawing up the cliff-face of adulthood. Hauling him at her own expense.

I find a post on Reddit where five thousand men try to define “ a woman’s touch .” They describe raised flower beds, blankets, photographs of their loved ones, not hers, sprouting on the mantel overnight. Candles, coasters, side tables. Someone remembering to take lint out of the dryer. To give compliments. I wonder what these women are getting back. I imagine them like Cinderella’s mice, scurrying around, their sole proof of life their contributions to a more central character. On occasion I meet a nice couple, who grew up together. They know each other with a fraternalism tender and alien to me.  But I think of all my friends who failed at this, were failed at this, and I think, No, absolutely not, too risky . Riskier, sometimes, than an age gap.

My younger brother is in his early 20s, handsome, successful, but in many ways: an endearing disaster. By his age, I had long since wisened up. He leaves his clothes in the dryer, takes out a single shirt, steams it for three minutes. His towel on the floor, for someone else to retrieve. His lovely, same-age girlfriend is aching to fix these tendencies, among others. She is capable beyond words. Statistically, they will not end up together. He moved into his first place recently, and she, the girlfriend, supplied him with a long, detailed list of things he needed for his apartment: sheets, towels, hangers, a colander, which made me laugh. She picked out his couch. I will bet you anything she will fix his laundry habits, and if so, they will impress the next girl. If they break up, she will never see that couch again, and he will forget its story. I tell her when I visit because I like her, though I get in trouble for it: You shouldn’t do so much for him, not for someone who is not stuck with you, not for any boy, not even for my wonderful brother.

Too much work had left my husband, by 30, jaded and uninspired. He’d burned out — but I could reenchant things. I danced at restaurants when they played a song I liked. I turned grocery shopping into an adventure, pleased by what I provided. Ambitious, hungry, he needed someone smart enough to sustain his interest, but flexible enough in her habits to build them around his hours. I could. I do: read myself occupied, make myself free, materialize beside him when he calls for me. In exchange, I left a lucrative but deadening spreadsheet job to write full-time, without having to live like a writer. I learned to cook, a little, and decorate, somewhat poorly. Mostly I get to read, to walk central London and Miami and think in delicious circles, to work hard, when necessary, for free, and write stories for far less than minimum wage when I tally all the hours I take to write them.

At 20, I had felt daunted by the project of becoming my ideal self, couldn’t imagine doing it in tandem with someone, two raw lumps of clay trying to mold one another and only sullying things worse. I’d go on dates with boys my age and leave with the impression they were telling me not about themselves but some person who didn’t exist yet and on whom I was meant to bet regardless. My husband struck me instead as so finished, formed. Analyzable for compatibility. He bore the traces of other women who’d improved him, small but crucial basics like use a coaster ; listen, don’t give advice. Young egos mellow into patience and generosity.

My husband isn’t my partner. He’s my mentor, my lover, and, only in certain contexts, my friend. I’ll never forget it, how he showed me around our first place like he was introducing me to myself: This is the wine you’ll drink, where you’ll keep your clothes, we vacation here, this is the other language we’ll speak, you’ll learn it, and I did. Adulthood seemed a series of exhausting obligations. But his logistics ran so smoothly that he simply tacked mine on. I moved into his flat, onto his level, drag and drop, cleaner thrice a week, bills automatic. By opting out of partnership in my 20s, I granted myself a kind of compartmentalized, liberating selfishness none of my friends have managed. I am the work in progress, the party we worry about, a surprising dominance. When I searched for my first job, at 21, we combined our efforts, for my sake. He had wisdom to impart, contacts with whom he arranged coffees; we spent an afternoon, laughing, drawing up earnest lists of my pros and cons (highly sociable; sloppy math). Meanwhile, I took calls from a dear friend who had a boyfriend her age. Both savagely ambitious, hyperclose and entwined in each other’s projects. If each was a start-up , the other was the first hire, an intense dedication I found riveting. Yet every time she called me, I hung up with the distinct feeling that too much was happening at the same time: both learning to please a boss; to forge more adult relationships with their families; to pay bills and taxes and hang prints on the wall. Neither had any advice to give and certainly no stability. I pictured a three-legged race, two people tied together and hobbling toward every milestone.

I don’t fool myself. My marriage has its cons. There are only so many times one can say “thank you” — for splendid scenes, fine dinners — before the phrase starts to grate. I live in an apartment whose rent he pays and that shapes the freedom with which I can ever be angry with him. He doesn’t have to hold it over my head. It just floats there, complicating usual shorthands to explain dissatisfaction like, You aren’t being supportive lately . It’s a Frenchism to say, “Take a decision,” and from time to time I joke: from whom? Occasionally I find myself in some fabulous country at some fabulous party and I think what a long way I have traveled, like a lucky cloud, and it is frightening to think of oneself as vapor.

Mostly I worry that if he ever betrayed me and I had to move on, I would survive, but would find in my humor, preferences, the way I make coffee or the bed nothing that he did not teach, change, mold, recompose, stamp with his initials, the way Renaissance painters hid in their paintings their faces among a crowd. I wonder if when they looked at their paintings, they saw their own faces first. But this is the wrong question, if our aim is happiness. Like the other question on which I’m expected to dwell: Who is in charge, the man who drives or the woman who put him there so she could enjoy herself? I sit in the car, in the painting it would have taken me a corporate job and 20 years to paint alone, and my concern over who has the upper hand becomes as distant as the horizon, the one he and I made so wide for me.

To be a woman is to race against the clock, in several ways, until there is nothing left to be but run ragged.

We try to put it off, but it will hit us at some point: that we live in a world in which our power has a different shape from that of men, a different distribution of advantage, ours a funnel and theirs an expanding cone. A woman at 20 rarely has to earn her welcome; a boy at 20 will be turned away at the door. A woman at 30 may find a younger woman has taken her seat; a man at 30 will have invited her. I think back to the women in the bathroom, my husband’s classmates. What was my relationship if not an inconvertible sign of this unfairness? What was I doing, in marrying older, if not endorsing it? I had taken advantage of their disadvantage. I had preempted my own. After all, principled women are meant to defy unfairness, to show some integrity or denial, not plan around it, like I had. These were driven women, successful, beautiful, capable. I merely possessed the one thing they had already lost. In getting ahead of the problem, had I pushed them down? If I hadn’t, would it really have made any difference?

When we decided we wanted to be equal to men, we got on men’s time. We worked when they worked, retired when they retired, had to squeeze pregnancy, children, menopause somewhere impossibly in the margins. I have a friend, in her late 20s, who wears a mood ring; these days it is often red, flickering in the air like a siren when she explains her predicament to me. She has raised her fair share of same-age boyfriends. She has put her head down, worked laboriously alongside them, too. At last she is beginning to reap the dividends, earning the income to finally enjoy herself. But it is now, exactly at this precipice of freedom and pleasure, that a time problem comes closing in. If she would like to have children before 35, she must begin her next profession, motherhood, rather soon, compromising inevitably her original one. The same-age partner, equally unsettled in his career, will take only the minimum time off, she guesses, or else pay some cost which will come back to bite her. Everything unfailingly does. If she freezes her eggs to buy time, the decision and its logistics will burden her singly — and perhaps it will not work. Overlay the years a woman is supposed to establish herself in her career and her fertility window and it’s a perfect, miserable circle. By midlife women report feeling invisible, undervalued; it is a telling cliché, that after all this, some husbands leave for a younger girl. So when is her time, exactly? For leisure, ease, liberty? There is no brand of feminism which achieved female rest. If women’s problem in the ’50s was a paralyzing malaise, now it is that they are too active, too capable, never permitted a vacation they didn’t plan. It’s not that our efforts to have it all were fated for failure. They simply weren’t imaginative enough.

For me, my relationship, with its age gap, has alleviated this rush , permitted me to massage the clock, shift its hands to my benefit. Very soon, we will decide to have children, and I don’t panic over last gasps of fun, because I took so many big breaths of it early: on the holidays of someone who had worked a decade longer than I had, in beautiful places when I was young and beautiful, a symmetry I recommend. If such a thing as maternal energy exists, mine was never depleted. I spent the last nearly seven years supported more than I support and I am still not as old as my husband was when he met me. When I have a child, I will expect more help from him than I would if he were younger, for what does professional tenure earn you if not the right to set more limits on work demands — or, if not, to secure some child care, at the very least? When I return to work after maternal upheaval, he will aid me, as he’s always had, with his ability to put himself aside, as younger men are rarely able.

Above all, the great gift of my marriage is flexibility. A chance to live my life before I become responsible for someone else’s — a lover’s, or a child’s. A chance to write. A chance at a destiny that doesn’t adhere rigidly to the routines and timelines of men, but lends itself instead to roomy accommodation, to the very fluidity Betty Friedan dreamed of in 1963 in The Feminine Mystique , but we’ve largely forgotten: some career or style of life that “permits year-to-year variation — a full-time paid job in one community, part-time in another, exercise of the professional skill in serious volunteer work or a period of study during pregnancy or early motherhood when a full-time job is not feasible.” Some things are just not feasible in our current structures. Somewhere along the way we stopped admitting that, and all we did was make women feel like personal failures. I dream of new structures, a world in which women have entry-level jobs in their 30s; alternate avenues for promotion; corporate ladders with balconies on which they can stand still, have a smoke, take a break, make a baby, enjoy themselves, before they keep climbing. Perhaps men long for this in their own way. Actually I am sure of that.

Once, when we first fell in love, I put my head in his lap on a long car ride; I remember his hands on my face, the sun, the twisting turns of a mountain road, surprising and not surprising us like our romance, and his voice, telling me that it was his biggest regret that I was so young, he feared he would lose me. Last week, we looked back at old photos and agreed we’d given each other our respective best years. Sometimes real equality is not so obvious, sometimes it takes turns, sometimes it takes almost a decade to reveal itself.

More From This Series

• Can You Still Sell Out in This Economy?
• 7 Stories of Dramatic Career Pivots
• My Mother’s Death Blew Up My Life. Opening a Book and Wine Store Helped My Grief
• newsletter pick
• first person
• relationships
• the good life
• best of the cut
• audio article

The Cut Shop

Most viewed stories.

• The Case for Marrying an Older Man  
• 10 Impressive Questions to Ask in a Job Interview
• This Mercury Retrograde in Aries Will Be Peak Chaos
• What We Know About the Mommy Vlogger Accused of Child Abuse
• Behold, the Ballet Sneaker
• How to Break Up With Someone in the Kindest Possible Way

Editor’s Picks

Most Popular

What is your email.

This email will be used to sign into all New York sites. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive email correspondence from us.

Sign In To Continue Reading

Create your free account.

Password must be at least 8 characters and contain:

• Lower case letters (a-z)
• Upper case letters (A-Z)
• Numbers (0-9)
• Special Characters (!@#$%^&*)

As part of your account, you’ll receive occasional updates and offers from New York , which you can opt out of anytime.