Homosexual marriages ethical debate: comparison of the views from both perspectives

An increase of participants in Pink Dot had surfaced throughout the years as it hits their tenth year this time round. Standing from the government’s view, if adopted with a functionalist perspective, a male and female’s role in a marriage is crucial to the society’s development as human reproduction can take place between the couple. This will then aid in the country’s population.

Despite the issue being surfaced with homosexual marriages on if they can provide or serve to the society’s well-being, functionalists understand that a family’s role does not simply focus on reproduction but also socialization. They would emphasize on the parental relations where there will be no dysfunctions and no problem would occur. Proper care and guidance can be given to children to raise them up and children will still be able to play a part in society’s stability. There are several homosexual families which were given the opportunity to socialize with children regardless of them being accepted by the country.

Religion is also another factor where functionalists look into as religion plays an essential role in society’s norms. Opposition of homosexual families will arise in people who are more religious and traditional. There are also certain teachings which influence their followers to oppose it on spiritual stands as well. Thus, leading us to conclude that homosexual marriages shall be decided by democracy. Nonetheless, conflicts arise on the legalising homosexual marriages while looking at what the society can benefit from it. These conflicts show the functionalist perspectives effort in trying to get social consensus.

On the contrary, when viewing this issue from a conflict perspective, the opposition of homosexual marriages reflects the struggle in social classes within the society. Denying of homosexual marriages reflects second-class status of LGBT in society. This is seen as a struggle between the higher and lower class in the society as homosexual marriages are dismissed from certain entitlements which heterosexuals get to benefit from.

Even though there are differences in the two perspectives, both perspectives still see LGBT as a behaviour of deviance. The reason being is due to the presence of conflict where society does not view LGBT as a social norm and is not welcomed by people. However, both perspectives take their stand differently on what LGBT can serve to the well-being of the society. A homosexual marriage where reproduction is unable to take place is seen as a deviant behaviour and unfavourable to the society for a functionalist where as a conflict theorist focuses more on the differences in rights of the social classes between the homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Homosexual marriages are not welcomed by society as people deem them as unethical and brings an end to the next generation since they are unable to reproduce. People question their ability to provide proper parental guidance to children and whether they will affect the children’s growth. LGBT was also being tagged to AIDS where people see it as a negative effect of homosexuals that harm the society’s well-being. Thus, with a functionalist perspective, it allows the government to know how LGBT had operated to society’s changes.

The difference between the two perspectives is that a functionalist is more optimistic and strives to seek for a way to solve the issue by working together and move away from changes while a conflict perspective inclines more to the changes wants the society to manage it rather than avoiding it. In short, functionalists are more inclined to seeing things in an optimistic and beneficial way looking at the good points of an issue. However, functionalists may be worried over the society’s stability in regard to the population and economic growth. Conflict theorists are not as worried with changes and are willing to face the issue but the quick decisions may lead to unforeseen circumstances and resulting in negative effects which society may not be able to handle. The instability of a country may occur as the decisions made were not approved and accepted by the majority.