Here's why same-sex civil unions should be normalized in all countries.

Communities and societies are yet to resolve the intertwined issues of sexuality, reproduction, and marriage in myriad ways. The response concerning morality, desirability and administrative advantages of same-sex partnerships have been equally diverse.

By the beginning of the 21st Century, the world chose one of the three paths:

• To ignore same-sex partnerships,

• To criminalize same-sex partnerships,

• To grant same-sex partnerships equal status to that of heterosexual marriages.

Many countries are yet to comprehend such a thing, forget consensus!

But why? Why are people averse to same-sex unions?

Same-sex marriages have been legalized in 28 countries (most of it is Western Europe), yet, it remains banned in the Eastern side of the globe.

The expansion of LGBTQ+ rights has been uneven globally, and in the long run, when they have been suppressed, there’s a hindrance to their expression, freedom, and way of living.

Isn’t prohibiting a same-sex couple the right to unionize their partnership, when it's explicitly available to a heterosexual couple – preventing their freedom of expression?

Furthermore, it is considered to dehumanize and devalue their relationship in comparison to the ‘stereotype’ that has been existing for centuries. For years now, people around the world have been fighting to express their sexuality – it’s not just she/her; he/ him – we are evolving in recognizing people who wish to be addressed as they/ their. It’s not confusing, but merely providing people an opportunity to express themselves, as they should.

We’re part of a cohesive world where different people have different individualities and sexualities – the concept of ‘normal’ does not and should not exist. Every human should be free and should be considered as an equal to express his or her sexuality.

It’s about finding the cohesiveness in a chaotic cosmos.

Marriage is not about complementary, gender-based roles – so why should the gender of participants matter?

Marriage should not be about a ‘legal contract’ between a man and a woman. It should not be considered a tradition. As society evolves, social concepts change – traditions are abandoned and changed. Why are people finding it hard to comprehend and accept people who wish to unionize their partnership?

We should not be following a notion that is conserved throughout history.

In all honesty, civic unions, governments, and other legal bodies should consider letting people breathe and letting them be! Let individuals validate the quality of their personal life, relationships, and perhaps, communities in the process.

Let some people be married, not married, and married but without the designation of it all.

There is not an iota of doubt that has been a tremendous rise in the evolution of thinking and accepting same-sex marriages. But is it enough? The country’s institutional forces, for example, the legislatures in Netherlands, Spain, and the UK, were instrumental successes or failures of such laws.

In addition to the above, with countries having federal political systems and strong judiciaries, such as Canada, South Africa, and the USA, the courts played a vital role to encourage acceptance.

In countries where consensus is yet to be reached, the idea is unlikely going to be resolved even if there is a surge in the acceptance rate. In some parts of the world, some issues are considered to be ‘more important' in comparison to same-sex marriages.

There is also the notion about sexuality and the concept of marriage is compounded by national pluralism and a tendency for secularism and religiosity…It is illogical to freeze what marriage stands for, and how it must be carried forward to freeze its meaning based on a point in history.

In many ways, courts and legal institutionalized bodies are the problems, but they can pave the way to be part of the solution. By passing laws that favor the union of marriages, and allow them to create a family will create a positive externality towards better community living.

Imagine this: if menopausal or infertile women have no legal complications with marriage, then the reason to not allow same-sex unions because they cannot ‘procreate’ does not make sense.

Courts can enforce the opinion and encourage the possibility of same-sex unions that will cause an overhaul in public opinion – and this is what the state of Massachusetts did in the year 2004!

Paving the way towards same-sex unions will ensure government benefits and help the children of these unions and the community as a whole.

Morally, Ethically, and Humanly speaking, nobody should feel the need to hide in a closet till the day they die, just because, certain sections of the society will not ‘accept’ or ‘welcome’ them.

If we begin to move away from the notion that “Marriage is a licensed prostitution”, and welcome Love is Love – we would be able to move forward as a whole.

I am not a member of the LGBTQ+, but I believe that it is imperative we move forward as a community.

We welcome people as they are – no questions asked!