The human rights rhetoric in recent times is brandished by popular Western media and in social circles as paraphernalia for universalization of same sex marriage following the US Supreme Court ruling in favor of same sex marriage. Similarly, the United Nations Human Rights Council during its 27th session in September 2014 adopted a resolution, which was heavily promoted by the U.S., sponsored by Uruguay, Colombia, Brazil and Chile. The resolution among others contends that sexual right is human right. Not all of the reaction to the resolution was positive; a total of 21 countries either opposed or abstained from the resolution. Also — ironically in light of the sponsors of the resolution — Latin America accounts for almost 80% of the world’s reported murders of transgender people, with more than half of these deaths occurring in Brazil (Howard,2014).

Oppositional perspectives from non- Western societies conceive this as imposition of uniculturality and Western hegemony. The most critical is sustainable human development and the future of sexuality. Although sexuality is an elusive concept in the sustainability debate, it has in recent times become an issue of urgent scholarly attention involving psychologists, sociologists, international relations and development studies as resurgent sexual orientation of the global North and opposition from the South, spreads across the world following the ongoing discourse on legalization of same sex marriage in the context of “human rights”.

Sustainable development which is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations from meeting their own needs (Bruntland, 1987) is witnessing global controversy in the context of SSM and sustainable human development (SHD) nexus as human procreation seem threatened. This draws more attention to the study of concepts such as sustainable human development (SHD) largely conceived as development that is pro-poor, pro-nature, pro-jobs and pro-women (UNDP, 2006) and puts in question the notion of procreation in view of Man Sex Man (MSM) and Woman Sex Woman (WSW).

Sexuality both as a concept and social phenomenon is experiencing a global clash at the time of revaluing Western and non- Western debates. At the wake of these controversies, a number of social problems are discernible such as discrimination and violent homophobic attacks. In May 2013, Amnesty International reported that Homophobic attacks in sub-Saharan Africa have reached "dangerous" levels (Amnesty International, 2013). According to the report "Homosexual acts" are increasingly being criminalized across the continent, with governments seeking to impose harsh penalties, including capital punishment (AI, 2013).

More importantly, is the health perspectives and the growing challenge of “Man Sex Man”(MSM) and “ Woman Sex Woman” (WSW) captured in the writings of Young and Meyer (2005) as they examine the trouble with “MSM” and “WSW” and possible erasure of the sexual-minority person in public health discourse and re-echoed the health implications of same sex intercourse emotionally and psychologically.

Gay activist, Rotello (1997) shows the rise in HIV infection among gay men despite the widespread use of condoms and suggests that gay men need to add a strategy of partner reduction to the strategy of condoms in order to bring new infections down.

This global controversy is best explored either within the lens of clash of sexuality or rhetoric of human rights. Beyond these, the paper seeks to interrogate the Western intelligentsia and re-moralizing their understanding of marriage and the legal, moral and sustainability implications of same sex marriage. The contention is: has the conventional notion of marriage as a union of male and female given way for a union of either male and male or female and female?.What is the future of marriage, sexuality and humanity in this resurgent paradigm? These significant questions require radical re-evaluation in era of sustainable development.

In view of the foregoing, the paper provides review of the literature and posits that policy discourse on moral reorientation, sexual rehabilitation and amelioration of violent attacks on LGBTs by non LGBTs is important and because of a variety of historical changes and interpretations on sexuality, the paper goes beyond these debates and advances a distinctive theoretical argument from anti-same sex marriage perspective namely; green sexuality which sees sexuality beyond mere sexual fantasies, eroticism and human rights rather defines it within sustainability perspective as an intercourse that meets the sexual needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of the future from meeting theirs. Green sexuality is an intercourse between opposite sexes premised on the primacy of conjugal love and procreation.

This is a critical analysis in the field of development studies which seeks to clarify current contention and underlying assumptions of SSM from both perspectives and extends the implicit arguments of opposing positions. The aim is to interrogate what sexuality means in the 21st century and how best to preserve the future of humanity. The paper refutes existing viewpoints that are hinged on human rights as basis for SSM and advances a theoretically valid debate that SSM is a virtual union devoid of conjugal bliss and procreation.  This theoretical perspective on SSM as a virtual union is a mode of inquiry which seeks to provide alternative sexuality and novel attempt to reintegrate sustainable human develop-ment into the ongoing sexuality debate. It contends that SSM is informed by anthropogenic choices, seemingly queer and unconventional overtures often defined within the context of erotic desires that do not strongly reflect the true underpinnings of a marital union.

Its legalization does not change this, rather undermines the future of sexuality and in particular children. Policy discourse on moral reorientation of both the LGBTs and non LGBTs is important for a sustainable human development paradigm.

Same sex marriage: Propositional and oppositional debates

There are a number of literature discussing aspects of same sex marriage (Douglas et al., 2005; McCall, 2005; Newton, 2009; Sklar, 2013). We examine the oppositional and propositional perspectives. Schaefer (2013) captures one of the most recent contentions in this debate and observes that in this atmosphere, the idea of SSM strikes some people as only the latest of many attacks on traditional marriage. To others, it seems an over-due acknowledgment of the formal relationships that faithful, monogamous gay couples have long maintained. Certain ideological, socio-cultural, emotional, religious, and moral dilemmas have been deeply felt across the globe within the SSM discourse from several theoretical perspectives.

Although the functionalists and conflict theorists hold different perspectives, they both view SSM as deviant behavior, contrary to the rights perspectives (Douglas et al., 2005; Newton, 2009). Sklar (2013) argues that this is because it does not meet the social norms that our society has traditionally accepted, and therefore is a cause of conflict. But these perspectives each view the role of SSM differently in the aspects of what beneficial role it plays in society. Sklar (2013) further contends that the functionalist views a homosexual couple’s inability to reproduce as deviant and unbeneficial, where the conflict theorist overlooks this circumstance and observes the couple’s standing in relation to higher social classes with more rights.

Some scholars have built a conceptualization that explores same sex complexity in what McCall (2005) refers to as “the complexity of intersectionality”. Barry et al. (1999) examine the “global emergence of gay and lesbian politics” dissecting its world -wide perspectives and increasing changes in global perception of sexual practices with the rise of gay and lesbian movements. Thus, SSM problematique merits further research.

The social exclusion perspective examines the status and social dilemma of the LGBTs discriminated and excluded on basis of sexual inclination relative to the rest of the society, including denial from certain social services, economic and political positions.

Within gender equality, the recognition of equal rights for women along with men, and the determination to combat discrimination on the basis of gender are achievements equal in importance to the abolition of slavery, the elimination of colonialism and the establishment of equal rights for racial and ethnic minorities (UNDP, 1995).

Kimmel and Plante (2004) adopted a multi-disciplinary approach to explore “sexuality, identity and behaviors”, exploring ways in which sexual activities and sexual identities develop, encompassing heterosexual and same-sex., within an array of interactions including, sexual adaptations, sexual media, intersections with violence, and sexual education.

Perhaps most fashionable among debates on same sex legalization is the rights perspective envisaged to stem social oppression, discrimination, enthrone equality and deprivation of LGBTs considered as minority groups. From the rights perspective, freedom of thought and religion, of opinion and expression, education, and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven - all of these basic rights were confirmed several decades ago when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris on December 10, 1948 (UN, 1948) and reinforced in the minority rights context in the recent United Nations Human Rights Council resolution for LGBT rights in 2014.

Yet the resultant social variant of legalizing same sex marriage seems to invent rather than abate discrimination both in Europe and America. After the pronouncement of the supreme court of the United States, there was a division among justices on both the liberal and conservative sides as they wrestled with the question of individual rights, the right to marry, and the traditional definition of marriage. "How do you account for the fact that, as far as I'm aware, until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex?" asked Justice Samuel Alito (Totenberg, 2015).

Sexual rights proponents such as Richardson (2000) remains rather critical of broader policy implications of rights advocacy on what she termed, “constructing sexual citizenship” in exploring the dilemma of “identity movements”. Perhaps more critical is the “politics of sexuality” which is now germane in sexuality debate (Tina, 2005). Today these basic human rights are consi-dered a cornerstone of the modern European community. But that doesn't mean every European understands the structures that uphold them (Sklar, 2013). In some cases the emphasis on sexual right, equality, freedom etc seem not to have doused the social tension and discrimination in public places such as employment opportunities and other social interactions, the contention remains a major 21^st century challenge.

Sexuality

There are a number of interpretations to human sexuality in modern culture from Darwanian (evolutionary) to non- Darwinian debates. The resurgent “new society” as Castells (2000) argues provides divergent perspectives on human activities. Sexuality is not just a social concept, like any identity, it can also be very personal (Dolinsky, 2011). It encompasses differences and broad intersection that cuts across, gender, class, race and sexual identity which affects individual personality.

Among social scientists mainly sociologists, sexuality conceived as primarily a "natural" and individualistic phenomena was consequently not viewed as relevant to sociological inquiry into the social. For example, Marx discussed sexuality primarily in terms of biological procreation within the private domain of the family. What little else he may have said concerned prostitution, as this represented to him a form of public exchange (Stephan, 2013).

As an academic inquiry, Alfred et al. (1948) provide insights on male sexual behavior. While A Kinsey et al. (1953) examine sexual behavior in human female which are both insightful in understanding subsequent debates on sexuality.

In recent decades sexuality gained more relevance in the late 1970s following Michel Foucault’s History of Sexuality which perhaps reawakened some intellectual curiosity on sexuality discourse. According to Foucault (1976);

Toward the beginning of the eighteenth century, there emerged a political, economic, and technical incitement to talk about sex. .... This need to take sex ‘into account’, to pronounce a discourse on sex that would not derive from morality alone but from rationality as well, was sufficiently new that at first it wondered at itself and sought apologies for its own existence. How could a discourse based on reason speak like that? (p.68).

In modern societies, Giddens (1992) explicates dynamics of sexuality and contends that sexuality as we know it today is a creation of modernity, a terrain upon which the contradictory tendencies of modern social life play themselves out in full. Like the virtual sexuality which this literature seeks to theorize, Giddens (1992) argues on plastic sexuality to identify the superficiality of contemporary sexuality where reproduction is not the motif. He contends that plastic sexuality is freed from intrinsic relation to reproduction—in terms of the emotional emancipation implicit in the pure relationship, as well as women’s claim to sexual pleasure.

To a large degree as the legacy of modernity sexuality has been primarily understood as a "natural" phenomenon, intrinsic to an individual’s lifestyle. In this sense sexuality is located within the realm of "nature", of the body or as feminists have pointed out of "woman" (Dolinsky, 2011).

More recently globalization has taken sexuality to an entirely different level including the use of sex toys, online dating and virtual sexual intercourse. Among scholars are debates on the very meaning of sexuality. This critical perspective informs questions such as how do we look at sexuality or what does sexuality mean in contemporary times? This falls within debates on sexual identity, attack on sexuality, conflict and sexual asymmetry.

On the individual sexual identity debate- a strand of human development is discernible. Weeks (1998) used what   he  termed “The Sexual Citizen”, to explore  the practices of sexuality. On the other hand, the institutional sexual identity debate seeks to examine collective identities or common grounds for same sex advocates and practices. This underscores the emergence of LGBT movements and related “sexual equality” and “rights” based groups across Europe and America and elsewhere. Several NGOs such as International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC)(US-based),International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)(Geneva, Switzerland), International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Youth and Student Organization (IGLYO)(Brussels, Belgium), International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Law Association (ILGLaw) (London) etc have been pushing for legalization of same sex marriage often considered as minority rights.

The contention on the “new attack on sexuality” which captured the crux of the disputes as taking place between the “contemporary consensus view ”that “ legalization of SSM is largely a matter of rights and individual choice, and oppositional view that it is “both amoral and unethical” is reflected in the theoretical debates that foreshadows the growing dissonance on the sexuality concept and practices with linkages on morality and politics (Epstein, 2006).

This “new attack” is discernible in the conflict theorist’s perspective which asserts that same-sex marriage debate reinforces the theory of social class struggle. Conflict theorists have charged that denial of the right to marry reinforces the second-class status of gays and lesbians (Schaefer, 2013). In a recent survey in the United States, over 53% of respondents said that the marriages of same-sex couples should be recognized as legally valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. (Schaefer, 2013) Because the homosexual social class is being denied rights that the heterosexual class has privilege to, conflict theorists view this as the “struggle” between those of a higher class and those of a minority class (Sklar, 2013).

Héctor (2002) provides a debate in Mexico on the discourse of sexuality in an era of AIDS espousing the need for re-evaluation of sexuality. The study which advocates more cautious and systemic application of sexuality is plausible in exploring contemporary sexuality dynamics (Giddens, 1992).

The political economy of sexuality has been amply examined to provide the interactions of sexual intercourse in a given social formation. Bernstein (2007) provides the “commerce of sex” both in economic and social contexts. An apparent ephemeral indulgence which in his 2007 study of the Carribean, Padilla (2007) called, “Carribean Pleasure Industry” in exploring the interface between tourism, sexuality and AIDS in the Dominican Republic .

Sociologist Nagel (2000) shows the linkages between “Ethnicity and Sexuality.” demonstrating how such cultural   variables as ethnicity could play key roles in sexuality. A resurgent clash and sexuality crisis is readily discernible as Ingraham (1994) points out that currently, with the rise of the lesbian/gay/bisexual rights move-ments, many "factual" knowledge concerning gender, sexuality, desire, morality, sex differences, labor, and nationality have been put into crisis.

Fields, (2005) captures the growing challenges of sexuality among children and teens echoed in almost every argument that emphasizes the veritable innocence of children and implications of sexuality within the society and demonstrated commitment need for “sex education”.

Exploring the struggle between the problems of eroticism, intimacy and sexuality, Shilling and Mellor (2010) examine the emergent “sexual movements” and the sociological problems of eroticism. Sexuality thus has a common institutional core that establishes its identity. It is possible to accept as Bataille (1952) contends that eroticism is a sexuality construct to explain inherent dynamics of intimacy.

Feminist writer Hemmings (2005) argues that she in particular, cannot think of terms such as ‘emotion’ and ‘feminist work’ together without thinking of the inspirational work of AudreLorde (1980, 1984). She argues that Lorde’s passion and commitment to living a black lesbian feminist life reminds her readers of their own values and embodiment. For Lorde, she observes it is emotional investment and the community ties that this produces that allow marginal narratives to be told and to survive. 

Previous work in the literature such as Hammack (2005), within an integrative human sexual orientation, explores what he termed, “the life course development of human sexual orientation” the central theme of his debate partly hinges on human development. Gagnon and Simon (2005) examine the dynamics of social conduct of human sexuality and identify some basic sexual conducts replete in sexuality. Patterson (1995) explores ways in which human development affects and affected by sexual orientation with the rise in gays and lesbians. A review of the literature suggests a research lag.

Problems of same sex marriage: Legalization and prohibition, some case analysis

The discrepancies between the global north and the global south can be illustrated by the case analysis of some countries that have legalized SSM and others opposed to it. The Netherlands was the first European country to legalize same sex marriage and where the first legal gay marriage in the world took place on April 1, 2001. Belgium followed in 2003. While Spain and Canada in 2005 respectively.

South Africa was the first African country to legalize gay marriage in 2006. Norway and Sweden legalized gay marriage in 2009. Similarly Portugal, Iceland and Argentina in 2010.

Argentina was the first Latin American country to legalize gay marriage. In 2012 Denmark legalized same-sex marriage. Uruguay was the second Latin American country to legalize same sex marriage in 2013 also New Zealand did same in 2013 becoming the first country to legalize same sex marriage in the Asia pacific region. France is the fourteenth country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2013.Brazil also legalized same-sex marriage in May 2013. Luxembourg and Scotland legalized same sex marriage in 2014.

In June 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was repealed in the US and in June 2015 the US Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage. The 2013 European Youth Conference on Human Rights, which took place in Nuremberg under the motto "Rightfully yours" emphasized Freedom of expression and LGBT rights as particularly important to Europe's young generation. Delegates from across Europe debated Europe's hot-button issues at the Conference. Eighty young people from 16 different countries across Europe gathered for five days, focusing in particular on freedom of expression, same-sex marriage, and the social and economic integration of Roma people in Europe (Müser, 2012).

Despite the rise in LGBT movement and legalization of same sex marriage, there are internal contradictions, resilience, opposition, suppression and discrimination of LGBTs. Such discriminations and stigmatization runs counter to equality though they are influential in the evolving changes in the present world.

In Russia in 2013, President Vladimir Putin signed a law that imposes a $3,000 fine on people advocating for gay and lesbian rights – including the right to marry. The legislation passed 436-0 in the Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament (Schofield, 2013).

Protecting the future of children on same sex problems Russian President observed; “It’s not about imposing some sort of sanctions on homosexuality, It’s about protecting children from such information” (Daily Best, 2012).

In The Netherlands, there are evidences of violent attacks. Amnesty International (2013) reports that The Netherlands' reputation for tolerance has also been dented in recent years by a rise in violent attacks on homosexuals. The trend has been seized upon by right-wing politicians who blame Muslim immigrant youths for the attacks. It is a theory that many gays reject.

Ames (2013) shows evidence of such intolerance stating that despite The Netherlands becoming the first country in the world to carry out legal same-sex weddings, evidence shows that there has been a slow rate of same sex weddings unlike heterosexuals. Data from The Netherlands' national statistics agency showed 15,000 gay couples have married since 2001. That means just 20% of gay Dutch couples are married, compared to 80% of heterosexual couples, the agency says (Sklar, 2013).

Vera Bergkamp, head of the Dutch gay rights organization, said, For heterosexuals, it's normal when you are in a steady relationship for more than a year, that a lot of people start asking, 'well when are you getting married?' With two women or two men you do not get that yet,” she explained. “It's only been 10 years, not 100 years (Schofield, 2013).

In his July,2013 article; Europe’s image of tolerance doesn’t extend to gay rights, Washington Bureau Chief ,Matthew Schofield observes that two U.S. Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage were widely interpreted … in the United States as ushering in greater acceptance of gays and lesbians in American culture . But in Europe, even as the British Parliament approved gay marriage.., attitudes toward gays and lesbians are decidedly more mixed. Two countries, the Netherlands and Belgium, legalized gay marriage a decade ago. But elsewhere the approach toward gays and lesbians is far less tolerant (Schofield, 2013).

In a 2013 European youths conference on sexual rights and related themes, it was reported that a resolution calling for equal rights for homosexual was met with a round of applause. Like many of the delegates, conference organizer Alexandra Kotthaus agrees that promoting the rights of the LGBT community is critical, and was shocked to hear some of the arguments used against the resolution calling for equal rights for homosexual couples (Müser , 2012).

Müser  argues that she thought that in these times, especially the youth would be a lot more liberal, but from a lot of eastern European countries, she notes that there were very controversial arguments to the whole resolution as in, homosexuals cannot raise children the same way as heterosexuals can, they should not have the right to marry because it is not 'authentic' and things like that (Müser , 2012).

While in most non Western societies such as Japan, Korea, India, China, Nigeria, Uganda, the Muslim world such as Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and other Middle East countries same sex practices remains an aberration. Such controversies trail the future of sexuality and have given rise to the resurgent “third gender” debate.

In 2012 in India the LGBT people welcomed a landmark Supreme Court ruling that said all official documents must include the option for people to identify themselves as a third gender, for the first time offering a guarantee of human rights in the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India 2012)

On 15 April 2014, Supreme Court of India declared transgender people as a socially and economically backward class entitled to reservations in Education and Job, and also directed union and state governments to frame welfare schemes for them. By recognizing them as third gender, this court is not only upholding the rule of law but also advancing justice to the class that has so far been deprived of its legitimate  natural  and  constitutional rights. Although, this contradicts Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which upholds the criminality of homosexuality.

In South Africa, gay rights are formally recognized and protected under the country's progressive post-apartheid constitution. But despite this, lesbians and gays in townships and rural communities are often the target of violent acts, including rape and murder (Amnesty International, 2013)

In Asia, gay rights and SSM are strongly opposed from China, Japan to India. In some of Asia's Muslim countries, being gay is not just illegal but punishable. In Malaysia, homosexuality is punishable by law through caning and up to 20 years in prison. In Indonesia, fifty two regions have enacted sharia law from the Koran which criminalizes homosexuality--these laws, fortunately for some, only apply to Muslim residents (Koh, 2014).

In modern Singapore, homosexuality--specifically among men--is illegal. While arrest and punishment for this law is hardly ever enforced, attempts to repeal the amendment to Penal Code that criminalizes what the code calls "gross indecency" between men continue to fail (Koh, 2014).

The report, titled "Making Love a Crime," by Amnesty International, documents the discrimination faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, often at the hands of their governments. In too many cases these attacks on individuals and groups are being fueled by key politicians and religious leaders who should be using their position to fight discrimination and promote equality (Amnesty International, 2013).

According to Amnesty International, homosexuality is now a crime in 38 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In the last five years, South Sudan and Burundi have introduced new laws criminalizing same-sex relations (Amnesty International, 2013).

Uganda, Liberia and Nigeria have bills before parliament that aim to increase existing penalties. Uganda’s notorious anti-homosexuality bill has been re-introduced to parliament several times since 2009, and seeks to impose the death penalty for "aggravated" homosexuality. It would also criminalize failure to report violations within 24 h (Amnesty International, 2013).

In France – after months of sometimes violent protest – same-sex marriage bill was passed in April (2013); the aftermath was tumultuous. In May, Dominique Venner, a well-known French historian from the far right and a fierce opponent of gay marriage, wrote a blog entry about its legalization: New spectacular and symbolic actions are needed to wake up the sleepwalkers and shake the anaesthetized consciousness. We are entering a time when acts must follow words (Müser , 2012).

Not long afterward, Dominique Venner walked into Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral and, in front of 1,500 witnesses, shot himself in the head. Soon afterward, Marie Le Pen, a National Front leader and France’s most famous member of  the  far right, said Venner’s suicide was obviously a gesture of positive despair and was aimed at waking up the people of France (Müser , 2012).

The people of France were awakened a couple of weeks later, when, amid continuing high tensions over the legalization of gay marriage, leftist protester and student Clement Meric was beaten to death by far-right skinheads. While the cause of the attack is unknown, it has been tied to gay marriage in the public mind. Again, thousands took to the streets to protest, though this time against hate groups. Recently, France officially banned three far-right groups because of the incident (Müser , 2012).

According to Italian gay and lesbian rights activist Imma Battaglia, in Italy, the debate is very strong, but the result is nil, said Battaglia, who is also a Rome city councilman. Nothing changes, not for 20 years has anything changed. Everyone talks, but it’s a big talk show, nothing more (Müser , 2012).

Even Germany, long thought to be culturally open, has been slow to open to efforts to grant gay couples the same status as opposite-sex ones. Eva Henkel, a board member of a leading German gay rights group, notes that the courts and popular opinion appear to be ahead of the current political will on the issue (Müser , 2012).

The courts have made it clear they see very little difference between heterosexual marriage and gay civil unions,” she said. “Of course, we’re not to equality yet, but there is progress.”

Germany has an openly gay foreign minister, and Berlin’s mayor famously ousted himself before his first election in 2001 by announcing, “I am gay, and that’s a good thing” (Müser , 2012).

In view of the foregoing, it is evident that there is need for a global policy to actually define what sex and indeed sexuality should mean in the 21st century (Table 1). 

Sustainable human development

The Human Development Reports (HDRs), published annually for UNDP since 1990, have used Amartya Sen’s capability approach as a conceptual framework in their analyses of contemporary development challenges. Over time these reports have developed a distinct develop-ment paradigm– the human development approach – that now informs policy choices in many areas, such as poverty reduction, sustainable development, gender inequalities, governance, and globalization (Fukuda-Parr, 2003).

As a concept, human development was popularized in the 1990s by Parkistani economist, Hag Mahbubul (1995) which became a seminal annual UNPD report. The first Human Development Report launched by MahbubulHaq in 1990 had an explicit purpose: ‘‘to shift the focus of development economics from national income accounting to people centered policies’’ (Mahbubul Haq, 1995).  This links sustainability to human development. Although, sustainability discourse became germane in development discourse in the late 1980s following the Brundtland Commission Report of 1987, Our Common Future.

Human development is a process of enlarging the choices of all people, not just for one part of society. Such a process becomes unjust and discriminatory if most women are excluded from its benefits. (UNDP, 1995).

Jolly (2003) develops the contrasts between neoliberalism and the human development approach. Debates on same sex marriage shows that there is no clear theoretical validation of same sex marriage intercourse and sustainable human development. This fundamental theory lag inspired the basis of this debate. A program of same sex discourse and human development interface could be influential to demonstrate the long term effects of same sex intercourse on human development.

More recently, the United Nations has popularized the multidimensional term sustainable human development (SHD). This is defined as: Development that not only generates economic growth but distributes its benefits equitably; that regenerates the environment rather than destroys it; that empowers people rather than marginalizing them. It gives priority to the poor, enlarging their choices and opportunities, and provides for their participation in decisions affecting them. (James Speth, former UNDP Administrator). Speth says further that sustainable human development is development that is pro-poor, pro-nature, pro-jobs, and pro-women. It stresses growth, but growth with employment, growth with environmental friendliness (emphasis as in original) growth with empowerment, and growth with equity (UNDP, 2006). The notion of sustainable human develop-ment bridges the interrelated gaps of development and human emancipation including social, moral and economic. Development has to be designed to capture what the people themselves perceive to be their interests and needs” (UNDP, 2006).

People or communities that enjoy active participation in decision-making over issues that concern their livelihood and interests should be able to realize their human potential, build self-confidence, and lead lives of dignity and fulfillment. Participatory development builds civil society and the economy by empowering social groups, communities and organizations to influence public policy and demand accountability. The process links democratic institutions with human development motivations (OECD, 1995; Bass, 1972: 212-216).

Fukuda-Parr (2003) contends that while earlier Human Development Reports emphasized measures such as the provision of public services, recent ones have focused more on people’s political empowerment. By extension this literature emphasizes green sexuality. The paper suggests that sustainability theories of human development have  the  greatest potential for advancing this field of inquiry. While this study needs further research, the empirical validity is glaring. Recent interest in sustainable human development gave rise to alternative perspectives such as green sexuality, which we seek to substantially explore for urgent policy attention.

UN Resolutions: LGBT Rights as Human Rights

On September 26, 2013 in New York—The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) welcomed an unprecedented Ministerial Meeting at the United Nations to address violence and discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation.

At the closed-door meeting 10 Member States, in a joint declaration, stated:

We, ministers of Argentina, Brazil, Croatia, France, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and United States, and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – members of the LGBT Core Group at the United Nations – hereby declare our strong and determined commitment to eliminating violence and discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity (Sklar, 2013)

The historic meeting provided a forum for ministers and other high-level representatives of Member States, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and representatives of Human Rights Watch and IGLHRC to discuss advancements for protecting the human rights of LGBT persons, and to secure commitments from Member States to this end (Sklar, 2013).

Jessica Stern, Executive Director of IGLHRC, delivered remarks, saying:

As we celebrate this historic meeting, I want to acknowledge that we are not in an easy fight. It is not a fight for a comma or the mere mention of LGBT people in a UN resolution. It is, for many, a fight for our lives. It is, fundamentally, a fight about privilege. Privilege based on gender and sexuality, but inextricably linked to race, bodily autonomy, class, health status, and every other movement for universal human rights. It bears remembering that the rights of the most vulnerable are a litmus test to the strength of the rule of law for all (Sklar, 2013).

Representatives of member states in attendance articulated their full commitment to tackling these human rights violations domestically, including continued attention to the impact of current policies, and internationally, including through concerted action at the United Nations.

A landmark 2011 study by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, drawing on two decades of human rights patterns, found that 76 countries criminalize adult same-sex consensual relationships. The study revealed that States discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, education and health sectors. In addition, hate-motivated violence against LGBT people is present in various regions, which include but are not limited to, physical assault, sexual violence and targeted killings.

The most recent was the september, 2014 resolution. Since the resolution comes with no enforcement capability — it simply calls for a report from the U.N. high commissioner on LGBT "rights" abuses — it will likely be seen as a symbolic gesture, which the U.N. has largely failed to make in the past. This resolution is "only" the second time the U.N. has referred to LGBT rights as “human rights”(UN, 2014).

A review of the literature shows that gap exists in the current research on the validation of same sex marriage and sustainable human development. Yet, while there appears to be agreement as advanced in this study that same sex marriage is a virtual union in the context of procreation there is little consensus in the literature on alternatives and more importantly how best to reintegrate the LGBTs without possible discrimination, violent attacks and stigmatization which we seek to establish. We explore critiques of same sex marriage and suggest an alternative option.

Critique of the same sex marriage paradigm

Same sex marriage has been a powerful force for change since its emergence in the 1970s. The discourse which is ongoing is situated within a broad interaction that traverses the wider society. Critiques inquire into the political, social, moral/religious, economic and cultural consequences of theorizing from either the site of proposition or opposition. For instance, what are the future options and viability of same sex marriage in procreation, aging and child rearing?

This approach attempts to explore the crisis arising from the content and structure of both debates to avoid a one sided inference including those organizing ideologies which naturalize or diminish such sets of debates implicated in the long term efficacy and sustainability of their propositions. Of particular importance is the examination of what is missing in the same sex marriage agenda. Critique is a "decoding" practice which exposes perceptible boundaries and the ideologies which manage them, revealing the taken-for-granted order they perpetuate and opening up possibilities for changing it (Ingraham, 1994).

Evidence of uniculturality and cultural imperialism is discernible as such practices as Same Sex Marriage might in no time form part of America’s international policy thrust. This provides justification for a critique  and caution in the coming clash of sexuality.

While some would frame the definition of marriage solely in terms of civil rights, the reality is far greater. Human rights are reflective of the natural moral order. We do not create new human rights. The state can make legal rights but must first recognize God’s created natural moral order. Thus the state has an obligation to avoid anything that would confuse the proper definition of marriage but also to foster marriage and support it as an institution. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. The State should not create legal rights that contradict the natural moral order (Catholic Bishops Statement, 2013).

There is ongoing debate that SSM is a deviant behavior. Schaefer (2013) contends that although the perspectives of functionalists and conflict theorists are different, they both view same-sex marriage as deviant behavior. This is because it does not meet the social norms that our society has traditionally accepted, and therefore is a cause of conflict.

In addition to its significant contribution to sociological, psychological, legal and emotional studies, it has provided a critical break and evaluation of mainstream development studies contesting the foundations upon which human procreation depends. Proponents pressure for its universalization in relation to political and economic powers. A number of studies have served as social and intellectual conduits in the plausibility of same sex intercourse and marriage which provide significant interventions in same sex practices, and stand as landmarks from which to extend the reach of sexuality debate (Lorde, 1984).

Some perspectives such as the morality question from religious point of view, seek to critique the justification of SSM (Schaefer, 2013). This critique is a concern of functionalists which examines the role of religion in our current society. Because religion still plays a large role in our society’s norms, functionalists believe that the traditional perspective on marriage, held by those who are religious, will ultimately dictate the course of SSM. Indeed, religious teachings have led even some staunch supporters of gay rights to oppose same-sex marriage on spiritual grounds (Schaefer, 2013).

The moral perspective argues that marriage as instituted by God and supported by the needs of human nature, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of one man and one woman joined in an intimate communion of life and love. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are different from, yet created for, each other in all aspects of their being. This complementarity, including sexual difference and spousal configuration, draws them together in a mutually loving union that is always open to the procreation of children.

A same-sex union cannot be the uniquely complementary, mutually loving, and procreative relationship that God intends marriage to be as reflected in the way he  created human nature.(Catholic Bishops Statement, 2013). The definition of sustainable human development emphasizes “pro nature”, same sex marriage arguably does not fall within such strands. It is rather artificial and anthropogenic invention.

By definition, a marriage is something other than a same-sex union. Because persons of the same sex cannot enter into a true conjugal union with each other, it would be wrong to act as if their relationship were a marriage. Since the coming together in sexual activity of people of the same sex is essentially different from the sexual activity of a man and a woman, simply saying they are the same does not make them the same. When society tries to redefine marriage so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, marriage itself is devalued (Catholic Bishops Statement, 2013).

Emotional feelings, eroticism etc are central to such attractions as same sex marriage. Such experience is expressed as one of the key factors which makes the check on same sex intercourse difficult as it is both a way of life and identity. We may not dismiss such issues as intimacy as unimportant to human existence rather such contentions are open for further  critical social inquiry and should be considered in a number of perspectives emotional, social, historical, equality, vulnerability, legal and developmental.

Western rights pundits largely justify same sex marriage and intercourse while conflict theory perspective upholds that same-sex marriage debate completely rein-forces theory of social class struggle. Conflict theorists have charged that denial of the right to marry reinforces the second-class status of gays and lesbians. In a recent survey, over 53% of respondents said that the marriages of same-sex couples should be recognized as legally valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. (Schaefer, 2013) Because the homosexual social class is being denied rights that the heterosexual class has privilege to, conflict theorists view this as the “struggle” between those of a higher class and those of a minority class. In all, there is still growing evidence of sceptism among scholars on effective tolerance and integration of gay and lesbians into the wider European society.

A recent study in the United States argues that one of the current debates amongst the citizens of the United States is whether or not same-sex marriage has a place in our present society, and if accepted, how it would benefit our country (Schaefer, 2013). The Functionalist community has examined this topic, and questioned the pros and cons of its level of deviance from traditional social norms. From their perspective, marriage between a male and female is a significant role of human reproduction, which furthers a society in development “However, many same-sex couples are entrusted with the socialization of young children, whether or not their relationship is recognized by the state” ( Schaefer, 2013). SSM   critiques   explores   it   as   a  virtual  union  which presently argues that attempts to  redefine  marriage  and questions about same-sex unions have occasioned national and international debates on the nature and purpose of marriage. This has also highlighted the need for legislation to regulate and protect marriage (Catholic Bishops Statement, 2013).

This perspective argues that same sex marriage is more like an illusion, paradoxical and contradictory yet an integral part of human society. Evidence of a number of same sex parents who had adopted children shows that procreation is an integral component of marriage which SSM does not offer, hence a virtual union. Norbert Geis, a member of the ruling Christian Democrat coalition in the Bundestag, Germany argued that with SSM, the sanctity of marriage is diminished (Müser , 2012). His views on adoption also were thought to reflect the view of Merkel’s party, which had opposed the defeated adoption laws. Homosexual parents are not natural, he argues. Parents are a father and a mother. That is the way it is (Müser , 2012).

The culture debates and implications for SSM have remained topical especially among the periphery societies. Cultural imperialism is readily discernible (Sarmela, 1975) (Table 2). 

Parker (2009) advanced such arguments in Brazil where such intercourse is considered largely on the basis of pleasure. African and Asian countries argue that it is cultural aberration for a man to have sex with a fellow man or a woman with a woman. Similarly, the Muslim world forbid such relationship. Such standing critiques could not be overlooked in current debates and global policy framings of sexual identifies. The culture mutation strand (Amadi and Agena, 2015; Miege, 1989; Castells, 2000) posits that Western culture and related practices such as globalization and technological advancement forms central lineament of periphery culture dislodgement and imposition of Western culture For instance, the Saudi Arabia’s representative during the debate on the 2014 UN LGBTs resolution said; “We feel there is an attempt to impose uniculturality that runs counter to religious and cultural practices of some countries ”(UN, 2014) .Thus, there is crisis intrinsic to same sex marriage.

Major rethinking of gender and SSM is critical. “Queer theory”, as it is now called, has emerged as one of the prominent new areas of academic scholarship. (Ingraham, 1994). Ingraham further posits that Queer theory has been dominated by postmodern cultural theorists such as Butler (1989), de Lauretis (1987), and Sedgwick (1990), who posit heteronormativity and gender as performative aspects of postmodern culture. More recent materialist approaches to rethinking gender and sexuality include the works of Delphy (1980), Evans (1993) and Smith (1988) to name a few (Ingraham, 1994).

Equally, in what he termed, “Queer Dilemma”, Gamson (1995) explores sexual identity challenges and movements in the society. Collective identity debate also finds relevance in the works of Elizabeth Armstrong, who undertook a five decade span to examine gay identities in San Francisco and Identified the peculiarities and fervent clamor of this group for legal status (Armstrong, 2002). While Ghaziani (2011) observes resurgence of salient “Post-Gay Collective Identity Construction” as integral to the understanding of dynamics of LGBT struggle .Such groups including NGOs are across Europe America, Latin America, Asia and Africa.

Similarly, Green (2008), Shilling and Mellor (2010) identify the sociological problems associated with eroticism, most of which manifests in a socially disoriented personality. This undoubtedly serves that perspectives which undermine SSM critique by labeling it “sex negative”. Beyond the critique of same sex marriage, it is only fair to argue that some of the debates for SSM are made at great risk of procreation which ought to be conceived as strand of sustainable human development aimed at human regeneration and reproduction as explicated.

Green Sexuality as Viable Alternative for Sustainable Human Development

There is no internationally agreed definition of greening among scholars. Although as a development concept it is used to study environmental sustainability. UNEP has defined the green economy as one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. It is low carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive (UNEP, 2011).

The concept of greening in development debate covers a wide range of issues. Since the post Brundtland report and post Rio+ 20 summits, novel awareness on greening has been created to encompass environmental, social and economic factors (Amadi et al., 2014).

There is a renewed enthusiasm over a green sexuality and its potential for a better future for sexuality. Green sexuality is more than the act of sexual intercourse. There are eco-friendly options for sexuality such as respect for the sanctity of sexuality, the opposite sex, regard for the sexual environment, value for emotional and social norms. More importantly are the consequences of sexuality (Bernard, 2012). For instance, what are the effects of same sex marriage to adopted children? How do they look at their lesbian or gay parents?

In green sexuality, sexual pleasure is not the answer, procreation and raising a family is. For instance, eco sexuality a strand of green sexuality centres on efficient mode of intercourse which is sustainable between opposite sexes. Tinamarie Bernard (2012) defines eco sex as the recognition and adaptation of environmentally friendly products and behaviors that benefit lovers and the planet reduce harm to both, emphasize pleasure without compromise and advocate for healthy alternatives to every aspect of reproductive health and well-being. She sums up her understanding of eco-sexuality in an organic nutshell that her experience thus far is that even many die-hard greenies toss their dirt laden hands in the air when you mention making love sustainable. And if sustainability is the wave of the future – future intelligence experts around the globe are saying so – then the ecology of love philosophy is both green and desirable. Bernard (2012) emphasizes man and woman relationship as basis of green sexuality –“reproductive health and well-being” and contends that men and women have different ways of expressing and listening to each other, and sometimes have to work to learn to communicate well.  Weiss (2010) espouses the term eco sexuality and contends that;

Eco-Sex will help you avoid the sins of green washing while you probe the deeper underpinnings of healthy, chemical-free sex. You’ll also tap into the emerging eco-sexual community while shopping for organic aphro-disiacs or logging onto green dating sites. Eco-Sex will open new avenues for the health of the planet and your body. So go ahead: stock your sexual toolbox, reinvigo- rate your passions, and get serious about sustainability- and join the next (and best!) sexual revolution (p1).

For our purpose, we define green sexuality as sexual intercourse between a male and female which protects the diversity of genes, species, and all terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in nature in order to procreate, protect and preserve (PPP) the future quality of life (QL), the environment where life exists, and by the restoration, development, and maintenance of habitats that are essential to species, life support system etc. It is inspired by the most fundamental principle of reproduction through the fusion of male and female gametes. The 3Ps of green sexuality are integral to sustainable sexual intercourse.

Green sexuality has a much broader ambition, namely; environmentally, socially and economically friendly. It sets out a comprehensive approach to human reproduction, including an agenda of policy priorities, tools of analysis and a coherent conceptual framework. Green sexuality does not only encourage intercourse between opposite sexes but promotes natural sexual life, thus, it discourages artificial intercourse such as use of enhancements such as drugs or contraceptives. It encompasses pre and post sexual health.

As an environmentally friendly intercourse, it is framed to protect the sexual ecology. Green sexuality embodies a robust paradigm, which may be contrasted with the neoliberal (NL) paradigm of social interaction and lifestyle that promotes man sex man (MSM) or woman sex woman (WSW) defined solely on rights perspective. There are points of overlap, but also important points of difference in objectives, assumptions, constraints and in the main areas for policy and in the indicators for assessing results.

Socially, green sexuality moves sexuality paradigm into another level encompassing the preservation of the dignity of sexuality, including interactions and social orientations that promote intercourse in its natural state. Socially friendly implies a universal acceptability that ranges from ethical, cultural, rational, value systems and norms .Green sexuality aims at ethical, emotional, moral and psychological wellbeing. Amadi et al. (2014) contend that the notion of "well-being" is associated with the sociological or criminal justice concept of Quality of Life, (QL) which is the idea that not only can people be relatively free from pain and disease, but they can be free from worry, stress, and other negative emotional states. Green sexuality can fill such negative emotional gaps.

Economically friendly, green sexuality adds value to the economy which is the super structure as it promotes human reproduction which constitutes the labor force and the productive wing of the society. Green sexuality encompasses the overall balance and prevention of the exhaustion of human resource. It is a value laden, win-win intercourse, since it is mutually reinforcing, beneficial and reproductive. The offspring which ensues belong to both parties.

Strategies for green sexuality emphasizes investing in sexual education, respect for opposite sex, emotional and psychological balance, promoting moral repertoires, procreation and reproductive health. This is in line with the three dimensions of HDI which include education, health, and promoting equitable economic growth (Fukuda-Parr, 2003). A theoretically valid research agenda is needed to redirect the ongoing same sex marriage debate and Western rights paradigm. 

In view of the foregoing, this paper is a desk review which builds on secondary data from oppositional and propositional perspectives to contrive a valid point of convergence for more collaborative policy discourse to redress the ongoing contradictory images of SSM debate. In exploring the dynamics of contemporary society within the purview of SSM, the paper will explore causal linkages of human rights and sexuality debates to sustainable human development questions. It seeks to advance understanding of how worldwide changes in sexuality including Western rights debates will impact global policies on the future of sexuality and sustainable human development in the context of procreation, aging, child rearing, older adults, or persons of lower socioeconomic status irrespective of either opposition or proposition to LGBTs. This growing pressure to link SSM to sustainable human development though a novel theoretical inquiry could be hugely significant. 

From our analysis sexuality has taken a new turn in the 21st century across Western and non-Western societies. What is discussed in this literature can significantly reveal the organizing problematique, or how the existing literature raises certain critical questions. The missing agenda reveals the interests served by what is left out and specifically a theory lag. Such scant postulations are constitutive of the problematic of the subject of discourse.

The theoretical debate advanced in this paper posits that same sex marriage has been discussed from various perspectives most of which are surrounded with controversies as it is quickly becoming one of the most popular topics of heated debate in virtually all disciplines among Western and non- Western societies. Respecting the dignity of homosexual persons does not conflict with upholding moral intent for marriage in which sexual relations have their proper and exclusive place. Unjust discrimination against LGBTs is wrong, transforming them is better. Policies could be made in this direction to check the rise in sexuality crisis and better, possible rehabilitation of LGBTs.

There are evidence of violence and discrimination on basis of sexual orientation even among societies where same sex marriage is legalized. The Western human rights notion may not bring the discrimination to an end.

As a socially contextualized discourse, sexuality should now witness ethical shifts in line with changes and transformations such as green sexuality advanced in this literature. Thus, a cursory glance at the terminology of sexuality shows that its current use in the Western  world, is fast changing and reshaping the world. Green sexuality as a viable alternative model is premised on sustainable human development as argued. This however ought to be integrated into the broader institutional elucidation of sexuality debate. 

When we look at sexuality it goes beyond rights rhetoric, social, or political constructs. It is practical and real. It is an attitude, intimacy, attachment, a lifestyle and identity. It may not easily fritter away, if it will ever do. Thus imposing SSM on humanity through instrumentalities of governance is unethical and an anathema. The question is how to evolve a universal sexuality ethic built on healthy and more tolerant and sustainable sexual culture. Also policy framings to both advance this choice and ameliorate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is needed. Generally how do we look at sexuality in the 21st century and beyond? What is sex and how do we evolve a universally acceptable sexual identity? Sex has a role in human life, obviously it has a basic role in procreation and family, child rearing and morals. But it is much more than these. The question is, and at any given point in time, sex can mean many different things and what do we want it to mean (Bernard, 2012)?

The Western sexuality debates framed in recent literature within the sex positive or sexual liberation parlance suggest that every -thing sex represents is akin to human wellbeing .On the contrary, there is much to sexuality than this contention (Bernard, 2012). So, we have to fashion a sexual ethic, not rules that are imposed on people, such as legal pronouncements.

In the Netherlands a referendum was organized where people themselves voted and decided. Bernard (2012) argues for a sexual ethic that emerges from honest conversation.

Finally, SSM and its debate will remain topical. The tension between SSM as an idea, and even as an ideal practice, and particular institutional arrangements that societies have accepted or rejected as a norm for them cannot be easily eliminated just because of the increasing affections and more importantly the sexual personality and persuasions of those involved. Future research would seek to answer questions of what humanity really wants sexuality to mean. To ask that question is not to impose a single answer, or to denigrate the LGBTs, it is to recognize that not all forms of sexual intercourse are consistent with social norms, values and human relationships among different cultures. The most obvious example is SSM. A novel sexual culture and value re-orientation in which human beings understand sexuality without dissonance or discrimination is expedient. What policy options are viable to build this culture? To recognize gays and lesbians as the third gender? Or to rehabilitate them? These are some of the fundamental                                                                                                                    questions that should shape the future of modern sexuality. 

The authors have not declared any conflicts of interest.

Preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 3rd international conference on Sexuality, Human Rights and Public Policy at Marquette University, USA. April, 23rd-24th, 2014. We are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers.