Different types of same-sex marriages have been documented in Indigenous cultures and based on lineage. In America, We`wha (Zuni) was a lhamana (male individuals who dress and live, at least temporarily, in the roles usually occupied by women in this culture); A respected artist, We`wha was the Zuni`s emissary in Washington, D.C., where he met with President Grover Cleveland. [43] We had at least one husband who was generally recognized as such. [44] In our modern age, traditional marriage and family – defined as husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – have been increasingly attacked, with harmful consequences. In 2012, 40% of all births in the United States were due to single mothers. [8] More than 50% of births to mothers under the age of 30 were illegitimate. In addition, the marriage rate has been declining since the 1980s. These trends do not bode well for the development of the growing generation. The Church`s assertion of marriage between a man and a woman “does not constitute or tolerate any form of hostility towards gays and lesbians.” [25] Church members must treat all men with love and humanity.
You can express genuine love and kindness to a gay or lesbian family member, boyfriend, or other person without tolerating a redefinition of marriage. Philosophy professor Elizabeth Brake shows us how the premises of political liberalism lead to the conclusion, which she calls “minimal marriage,” that “individuals can have legal conjugal relationships with more than one person, reciprocal or asymmetrical, determining themselves the sex and number of parties, the nature of the relationship, and the rights and duties, with whom they can exchange ideas.” 7 Brake`s argument begins with the challenge of reaching a political agreement in a society marked by profound ethical differences. Liberalism`s attempt to resolve is to distinguish between global moral doctrines and public reason. The first category includes all normative, religious and secular ethical theories, which tell us how to live our lives. In contrast, public reason tries to limit itself to these ethical principles that everyone can accept, even though we support different global ethical doctrines. Brake`s position is that, within the framework of public reason, we can justify the existence of marriage, but we can say extremely little about what marriage is: “A liberal state cannot impose principled restrictions on sex or the number of spouses and the nature and purpose of their relationships, except that these are benevolent relationships. 8 Members of a liberal society must accept same-sex marriage, because “the recipes for sexual behavior and the value of relationships are found in complete and apolitical doctrines.” 9 In some countries, a married person or a married couple enjoys various tax advantages that are not available to a single person. For example, spouses may be allowed to calculate their combined income that is too average. This is beneficial for a married couple with different incomes. To compensate for this, countries can provide a higher tax bracket for the average income of a married couple. While the average income may still benefit a married couple whose spouse remains at home, such an average would result in a married couple with roughly the same personal income paying more total tax than two single people. In the United States, this is called a marriage penalty.
[96] Sociologists define marriage as a socially supported union involving two or more people in a stable and lasting agreement that is generally based, at least in part, on some sexual bond. The overarching question of law and order must be: which environment is best for the child and for the growing generation? While some same-sex couples receive guardianship of children, traditional marriage provides the strongest and most established social identity for children. [19] This increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, as sexuality is closely linked to love and reproduction. In contrast, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage over time can undermine children`s social identity, gender development, and moral character. No dialogue on this issue can be complete without taking into account the long-term consequences for children. Traditional societies are not fixed in the past, but are characterized by the acceptance and construction of the wisdom of the ages that have been passed down from one generation to the next. Societies capable of withstanding the test of time are organized in accordance with our common human nature. We humans live by nature, not as robust individuals, but as members of communities.
Within a true community, there is harmony between the good of the members and the good of the community as a whole – the common good. In traditional societies, ethics is above all the ethics of virtue, where virtues are the exceptional qualities of beings who share our human nature. The most important community within a virtuous society is the family, and the nucleus of a virtuous family is the institution of marriage. Marriage is much more than a contract between individuals to confirm their affection and provide for mutual obligations. On the contrary, marriage is an important institution for raising children and teaching them to become responsible adults. Over the centuries, governments of all kinds have recognized marriage as essential to maintaining social stability and sustaining life. Whether marriages were celebrated as a religious rite or as a civil marriage, marriage has been protected and supported by governments in almost every culture, primarily to preserve and promote the institution that is most important for raising children and teaching them the moral values that underpin civilization.