thesis statement tungkol sa same sex marriage

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 ]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Pananaw sa same sex marriage: Lalim at pagdalumat

2022, International Journal of Research Studies in Education

Related Papers

Danica Lorraine Garena

Ang pag-aaral na ito ay isinagawa upang mabatid ang pananaw ng mag-aaral sa paggamit ng mga sariling komposisyon ng panitikang pambata at antas ng pang-unawa. Sa pag-aaral na ito binibigyang katugunan ang mga sumusunod na katanungan: Ano ang pananaw ng mga tagasagot sa paggamit ng mga Sariling Komposisyon ngPanitikang Pambata bataysa nilalaman,layunin,disensyo/istilo, kasanayan/gawain; Ano ang antas ng pang-unawa ng mga tagasagot sa paggamit ng mga Sariling Komposisyon ng Panitikang Pambata batay sa Pang-unawang Literal at Pang-unawangKritikal; May makabuluhang kaugnayan ba ang pananaw ng mag-aaral sa paggamit ng mga Sariling Komposisyon ng Panitikang Pambata at Antas ng Pang- unawa sa Pagbasa; Ang pamamaraang palarawan-correlation ang ginamit ng mananaliksik upang makalap ang mahalaga at makatotohanang impormasyon na kinakailangan sa pag-aaral. Ang istatistikal na pamamaraan na ginamit sa pagsasaliksik ay weighted mean at standard deviation para sa pananawng mga tagasagot sa Mga Sa...

Kritike: An Online Journal of Philosophy

Rodrigo Abenes

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Dr. Ronald Wright

The Normal Lights

Layunin ng pananaliksik ang makabuo ng mga lunsarang aralin at gawaing angkla sa MELCs o Most Essential Learning Competencies sa primaryang antas. Pangunahing metodo ang disenyong palarawan at pagbuo ng mga lokalisado at kontekstuwalisadong may temang katutubo, kabuhayan, kalinangan, kapaligiran, at diskursong kasarian na angkop sa pagtuturo sa anyong modyular, harapan, o blended. Ginamit ang sarbey at panayam sa mga piling kalahok. Lumabas sa pag-aaral na epektibo ang mga aralin kapag nakadikit sa karanasan, kaligiran, at interes ng mga mag-aaral. Ang mga kontekstuwalisadong aralin na pinagtibay sa konteksto ng pandemya at bagong kadawyan o new normal ay mainam na gamiting sandigang kaalaman sa kasanayan at kahusayang komunikatibo sa Filipino at iba pang kaugnay na disiplina.

Stochastics and Stochastic Reports

A.I. Shawky

Debajit Sarma

Mansa Gurjar

Family Practice News

Jennie Smith

Folia Linguist

Yves Duhoux

Language and Linguistics

Belghis Rovshan

RELATED PAPERS

Digital Humanities Conference

maurizio lana

Revista de Estudios Sociales No.35

Mauricio Nieto Olarte

Igor Alekseev

Academia de Direito

Sabrina Favero

Revista Electronica Matices En Lenguas Extranjeras

patri houde

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Juan Escobar

Lidia Undiemi

Australian Planner

Marichela Sepe

International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences

Anggi Setia Lengkana

Maria Sofie Simonsen

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Cristian Furau

Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Agrícolas

Dr. Enrique Gonzalez-Perez

Anuario Peruano de Derecho Internacional / Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Facultad de Derecho y Ciencia Política

Gian Pierre Campos Maza

EUREKA: Life Sciences

Oleksandr Savoiskyi

Journal of Chemical Physics

Xavier Blase

arXiv (Cornell University)

Oral Health and Dental science

Godwin Toyin Arotiba

Journal of Infectious Diseases

Dennis Lang

IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers

Muhammad Raza Maroof Muhammad Maroof khan

Federico Pablo-Martí

Ivan Domingues

Ratna Widiastuti

The Plant Cell

David TWELL

Progress In Electromagnetics Research M

Natchayathorn Wattikornsirikul

Journal of Biotechnology

Jürgen Seibel

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• français
•   BAHÁNDÌAN Home
• College of Law
• Juris Doctor
• Tingnan ang Item

Attitude towards the legalization of same sex marriage among law students of a selected school in Iloilo City

Tingnan / Open

Tagapayo ng tesis, magbahagi , paglalarawan, mungkahing sipi, mga keyword, lokasyon ng istante, pisikal na paglalarawan, collections.

• Juris Doctor [144]

Mga parehong item

Ipinapakita ang mga item na nauugnay sa pamagat, may-akda, tagalikha at paksa.

A comparative study of the common grounds for annulment in canon law and civil law and the possibility of a legal accommodation 

Feasibility of legalizing third sex marriages in the Philippines: Ethico-moral and legal implications 

A content analysis of Supreme Court decisions on the common causes of annulment of marriage in the Philippines 

Aking account.

CPU Henry Luce III Library

EXTERNAL LINKS DISCLAIMER

This link is being provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only. Central Philippine University bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external site for answers to questions regarding its content.

If you come across any external links that don't work, we would be grateful if you could report them to the repository administrators .

Click DOWNLOAD to open/view the file. Chat Bertha to inform us in case the link we provided don't work.

University of the Philippines

Population institute, you are here.

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

The Effects of Attitudes on Sex Roles, Marriage, and Homosexuality on Premarital Sex among Never Married Filipino Youth

by Maria Rosalyn Victoria N. Fonacier (2016)

This study has two major purposes: (1) to explore conservatism and develop a conservatism indicator and (2) to investigate the effects of conservatism on the premarital sex (PMS) behavior of the Filipino never married youth. The study used data from the Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Study 4, which was carried out in 2013. It filtered its sample into the never married young adults who have never had PMS and those who had PMS in the 12 months prior to the survey. This selection resulted in a sample of 13,127 cases.

Conservatism was measured using 14 statement items capturing five socio-cultural dimensions: 1) values on public display of affection, 2) attitudes on sex roles, 3) attitudes on marriage and cohabitation, 4) attitudes on divorce and remarriage, and 5) attitudes on homosexuality. A general conservatism indicator was created to measure the overall conservatism of the youth. Associations and effects of conservatism alongside other socio-demographic variables (age, socioeconomic status, urban exposure, religiosity, and educational attainment) on PMS behavior were tested using t-tests and regression analyses. All analyses were done by gender.

The study results indicate that the Filipino unmarried youth are generally conservative. The lower the conservatism is, the higher the probability of engaging in PMS. Moreover, a gender difference exists in explaining conservatism and PMS behavior.

Dalawa ang pangunahing layunin ng pag-aaral na ito: (1) upang siyasatin ang konserbatismo at makabuo ng isang indikasyon ng pagkakonserbatismo, at (2) upang suriin ang epekto ng pagkakonserbatibo sa premarital sex (PMS) ng mga kabataang Pilipino na hindi kasal. Ginamit sa papel ang datos galing sa Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality (YAFS) Study 4 na isinagawa noong 2013. Sinala sa pag-aaral na ito ang sample sa mga hindi pa kasal na kabataan na hindi pa nakaranas ng PMS at mga kabataan lamang na nakipagtalik sa huling 12 na buwan bago ang sarbey. Nagresulta ang pagsasalang ito sa sample mga kaso ng 13,127 katao.

Sinukat ang pagkakonserbatibo sa paggamit ng 14 na mga aytem na sumasaklaw sa limang panlipunan-pangkulturang dimensiyon: 1) paghahalaga sa pagpapakita ng damdamin sa publiko o public display of affection, 2) mga saloobin ukol sa gampaning seksuwal o sex roles, 3) mga saloobin ukol sa kasal at pakikipisan o cohabitation, 4) saloobin ukol sa diborsyo at muling pag-aasawa, at 5) saloobin ukol sa homoseksuwalidad o homosexuality. Nilikha ang isang pangkalahatang indikasyon ng pagkakonserbatibo upang sukatin ang kabuuang pagkakonserbatibo ng mga kabataan. Sinuri ang mga kaugnayan at epekto ng pagkakonserbatibo sa PMS sa paggamit ng t-test at regression analysis, kasama ng ibang mga panlipunan-pangkulturang variable: edad, panlipunang-pang-ekonomikong istado, pagkakalantad sa lungsod o kalunsuran o urban exposure, pagiging relihiyoso, at natamong edukasyon . Ginawa ang lahat ng pagsusuri sa pamamagitan ng pagsasaalang-alang ng kasariaan.

Ang mga resulta ng pananaliksik na ito ay patunayan na konserbatido ang mga kabataang Pilipino. Ipinapakita ng epektong ito na kapag mas mababa ang konserbatismo, mas mataas ang probabilidad ng PMS. Bukod pa rito, may mga pagkakaibang umiiral sa bawat kasarian sa pagpapaliwanag ng pagkakonserbatibo at sa pagtukoy ng PMS.

Tel. No.: +63 2 8981 8500 local 2457 / 2468 E-mail: [email protected]

3/F Palma Hall, Roxas Avenue, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1101

Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

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…

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