Nobody in Singapore has Ever Made This Case Against Gay Marriage.
For the first time in human history, the 21st Century is seeing cantankerous debates over the nature of marriage sweeping across the world. Not even in uber-sexualised ancient Rome or Greece, the birthplaces of modern political philosophy, was legal recognition of homosexual relationships considered.
In the debate, traditionalists argue that marriage is by definition, a heterosexual institution, and yet, they often fail to explain why homosexuals should be excluded from the coveted institution.
Progressives on the other hand argue that “marriage equality” is a human right, but come armed with little more than rhetoric and sloganeering. They too, are guilty of not substantiating.
So which is it? Does marriage have a definite shape, or is it malleable?
Many Singaporeans Simply Haven’t Thought It Through
Singaporeans are double-minded on the issue, caught between a media-instilled desire to support gay aspirations for marriage and parenthood, and a commitment to preserving traditional marital norms and family values.
The tension reveals a deeper truth: these positions, though well-intentioned, are fundamentally incompatible—a realisation many have yet to fully grapple with.
Consider the data from Today’s Youth Survey from 2022.
If Singaporeans were consistent in their thinking, the 62% who expressed that “It is important to uphold and safeguard the definition of Marriage (between a man and a woman)” should have equally been reflected in the percentage of respondents who agreed that “Same-sex marriage is wrong.” What the data reveals however, is that only 37% of respondents could bring themselves to say that Same-sex marriage is wrong while, another 25% shied away from openly disagreeing with same-sex marriage.
Perhaps they, and the remaining respondents who are ambivalent or supportive of same-sex marriage believe that both traditional marriage and same sex marriage can co-exist without fundamentally changing the social institution of marriage and the norms upheld by it.
The same inconsistency was reflected in the 2021 Today Youth Survey which reported that while 80% of respondents were willing to work alongside LGBTQ people, and 75% were willing to form close friendships with them, only 58% per cent said they were willing to accept LGBTQ family members. The 22% drop in acceptance once the idea of a LGBT family member comes up is emblematic of a deeper discomfort when societal ideals clash with personal realities.
Society’s true values are revealed in the home, where the public mask of tolerance and inclusion is set aside, exposing a performative moral ambivalence driven by social expediency rather than genuine belief. Abstract tolerance only thrives because it demands less than the intimate reckoning required within one’s closest circles.
In just two short years since 2022, the 2024 IPSOS Survey reveals that about 54% of respondents believe same-sex couples should be able to marry or have legal recognition, while 57% agree they should be allowed to adopt. Conversely, only 25% now think same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry or have legal recognition. On adoption, 30% oppose granting same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, and 13% remain unsure.
However, despite these findings, Cultivate SG’s 2024 Marriage, Parenthood, and Social Discourse survey reports that 78% of respondents support defining marriage as between a man and a woman and believe traditional family units should be emphasised in schools.
This reveals an unresolved tension within Singaporean society: a strong majority supports traditional marriage, yet a slim majority seems open to redefining it. It suggests that Singaporeans value traditional marriage and family—perhaps due to cultural bias—while also wanting to appear progressive, which may explain the seeming contradiction.
Modern Misconceptions
Today, some might consider an article on the true definition of marriage moot, given that 36 countries have legalised same-sex marriage. However, the legalisation of same-sex marriage no more diminishes the fact that marriage has an objective definition than calling a triangle a circle diminishes its triangle-ness.
The general understanding today, is that marriage exists to legally recognise our affection for, and personal happiness with our #1 person.
Legal recognition then carries with it certain societal privileges such as automatic hospital visitation, inheritance rights under the Intestate Succession Act, and immigration benefits for foreign spouses. It also extends to tax reliefs, eligibility for subsidised housing schemes, parental rights, Central Provident Fund (CPF) nominations, and exemptions from testifying against each other in court.
Because marriage is conceived of in primarily personal and affection-based terms, the culture frames it as a personal and private choice. Under this affection centric paradigm, it becomes almost impossible to see why anyone should be excluded from marriage.
The Problems of Privatising Marriage
In truth though, marriage is more than a private institution. It’s a public institution serving a public purpose: procreation and parenting the next generation of society. (Yes, I can see the objections popping off in your minds. There will be an FAQ.)
When marriage is dominantly conceived of as an intense, personal union several problems result.
Marriage reduced to mere companionship loses its distinct purpose and unique identity.
If marriage is just a form of intense friendship, why should it demand permanence, monogamy, or sexual exclusivity? Let’s dig into this affection-based view.
- Permanence: Why should marriage last forever if it’s built on shifting emotions? People grow, priorities evolve—today’s soulmate might not be tomorrow’s.
- Monogamy: If emotional satisfaction is the goal, why not allow multiple partners? More affection, more fulfilment, right?
- Sexual exclusivity: Why tie marriage to sex at all? If it’s about companionship, why not focus on shared hobbies or beliefs instead?
The redefined cultural vision of marriage turns a permanent, exclusive, monogamous covenant into a happiness-driven contract—one with infinite permutations to suit personal preferences. This unmooring from an objective definition destroys the very shape of marriage.
The lesson here is simple: once marriage is stripped of its objective meaning, it becomes a subjective arrangement—fluid, unbounded, and ultimately meaningless. Marriage is more than just companionship. It always has been.
Why Does The Government Even Care About Marriage?
A question that remains unanswered by the cultural definition of marriage is why involve the government in the first place? We don’t legislate friendships, so why treat marriage differently if it’s just another bond of affection?
This is a question that the traditional understanding of marriage is able to answer.
Marriage is important because civilisation and community, state and society, hinge on marriage working correctly toward its intended purpose of raising children and securing family life for the sake of social continuity.
Let’s analyse this a little.
Aristotle says that you can analyse any community by looking at common acts performed, goods pursued, and common norms. In other words, What they do, What they’re after. And how they get there.
A sports team for instance, acts by keeping fit, training their skills and practicing as a team towards the objectives, or “goods” of winning and skill development. The norms that enable this include fair play, sportsmanship and dedication.
In the same way, marriage has a purpose too.
Marriage involves the “act” of sex that produces the “good” of kids who grow up to function in society. Now, if you raise good kids, you foster a pro-social society. But if the kids aren’t alright, they become liabilities rather than assets. Therefore, to raise good kids, you need good “norms” which in the case of marriage are exclusivity and permanence.
This is why the state is interested in marriage in particular more than any other form of relationship.
The government doesn’t care about who loves whom. What it does care about is population continuity, enabled through raising children well. And to this end, only the correct perspective of marriage produces and raises children optimally.
Second, there are significant disadvantages to the public forgetting the purpose of marriage.
- There will no longer be any institutions that defend the natural rights that children have to their biological mother and father. This is also reflected in Art 7(1) of the CRC
- If marriage is primarily about satisfying adults’ desires for the legal recognition of their relationships, then marriage will become infinitely malleable allowing for possibilities like same-sex marriages, wedleases, various forms of polyamory such as throuples, open-relationships and polygamy.
- This undercuts all policy that talks about the special and irreplaceable role of mothers and fathers (especially) in the lives of children, and sends the contrary message that mothers and fathers are actually entirely replaceable by other parties.
- It also commoditises children as the objects of adult desires rather than them rightfully being the subjects of adult affection, and their responsibility to protect and provide for.
We Tinker at Our Peril
Imagine a game of Jenga. At first, pulling out a block here or there seems harmless, even exciting. The tower still stands, so why not keep going? But as more pieces are removed, the structure weakens until, eventually, it collapses—not from one dramatic move, but from the cumulative effect of seemingly minor changes.
Social institutions, like marriage, are our societal Jenga towers. They’ve been built over generations, designed to provide stability and order. When you start altering their foundational rules—like redefining marriage—it might feel progressive or inclusive at first. But over time, the ripple effects weaken the entire structure, often in ways we don’t anticipate.
Take education as an analogy. Imagine scrapping grades altogether in the name of equality, arguing they cause unnecessary stress and competition. At first, it might seem liberating. But down the line, students become unprepared, employers can’t assess skills, and society struggles to function without clear measures of competence. What begins as a well-intentioned change unravels the very purpose of the institution.
Conclusion
Marriage, too, isn’t just a private arrangement, it’s a social cornerstone. It’s designed to unite two individuals in a way that supports family formation and the raising of the next generation. Redefining it to accommodate personal companionship over its traditional role risks reshaping its meaning entirely. If marriage is no longer tied to its historical purpose, what stops further redefinitions? Eventually, the institution could lose its coherence, eroding the societal benefits it was built to provide.
The harm isn’t immediate, but that’s the danger. Like the Jenga tower, it might look fine for now. But the consequences—the weakening of family structures, confusion over parenting norms, legal chaos, and societal fragmentation—may only become visible once it’s too late to rebuild.
Marriage isn’t just a private contract; it’s a public good. Redefining it isn’t progress—it’s a gamble with the stability of an institution that holds society together. And the stakes couldn’t be higher. Are we willing to risk it?
