Assuming we are talking about homosexual marriage in the U.S., marriage regardless of sexual orientation as a right provided by the government should be legalized.
It's the government's job to ensure that the rights of the people are upheld. If homosexual marriage is to be illegal, would that mean that the government is illegally withdrawing certain rights from the people due to sexual orientation? My answer to that question is yes. I say yes because to afford people of one type of sexual orientation the right to marriage, over people of another type of sexual orientation is discrimination by the government on sexual orientation. For the government to openly discriminate against a type of people is a violation of the discriminated groups' rights as people. This would be akin to only allowing people of certain hair color the right to marriage or the government not allowing people of a certain race the right to marriage.
For the argument that marriage is the union between a male person and a female person, no other combination, I argue that the state governments need to specify the grounds for marriage in our modern age to prevent the violation of the people's rights. I argue that marriage should be defined by the government for governmental purposes as the union between two people, period. Marriage in the eyes of the government should not act against the rights of the people on the basis of sexual orientation. If it is to be argued that marriage is based from religion, then that is fine in the eyes of the religion, but in the U.S. there is a separation of church and state, so I do not believe that the origins of marriage play a role in our government's modern adaptation of marriage between people.
However, I would be willing to concede that instead of using the word “marriage”, we use the word “union” or “united couple” or some other term to describe what the government previously used the word “marriage” for. The term would be used to describe male and female, male and male, and female and female unions. So the idea is to abolish the word “marriage” from a governmental standpoint for a new universal, in regard to sexual preference, terminology. Or we can stick with "marriage", but whichever terminology we decide to use, it should be universal and non-discriminatory unlike our current "marriage" governmental terminology.
So....Some archaic magical diety with male genitalia, a human digestive system, a human nervous system, eyeballs to see his prey, and a skeletal structure that would only develop after millions of years of evolution in gravitational forces equal to our planets, needs to sanction love for it to be credible? How about we just all stop 'getting married' and live our lives happily without religious indoctrination? Haha
Legalizing homosexual marriage is an inherit human right. Shakespeare says that love is blind and i completely agree because who is to say that you cannot fall in love with and marry the love of your life. It just seems stupid that someone would say that you cannot get married because you are homosexual.
If you do hold the archaic notion that homosexuals choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex, then consider this question: do you choose to be straight? If you are a male, do you choose to be sexually attracted to women, or are you just attracted to them outside of your control? And vice versa for women. I certainly do not choose to be heterosexual and attracted to women, I just am sexually attracted to women for reasons that are beyond my control. This is the exact same way that homosexuals feel about the members of the same sex, and it is a shame that they are oppressed with such rampant homophobia around the world.
Furthermore, there are as many as 5 million people in the world who were born intersex. This means that they were born with ambiguous genitalia and strange genetic codes such as XXY. Technically, these people could be considered both sexes since they usually have both genitalia. Should they just not be allowed to marry anyone because they are both genders? Or maybe they shouldn't be allowed to because it's "not natural" or "not what God intended."
Ultimately, we are beginning to finally see that gender distinctions are not black and white, but instead are very grey. We need to realize that homosexuals are the way they are because of their genes and their past experiences. We need to give them the same tax benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy, and finally heighten their status to equality.
First of all, I want to make it clear that in America-- the country of freedom, all is possible. I believe that everyone has the right to live freely as long as they are not putting others in a harmful way. So is homosexual marriage putting others in harm? Obviously not! So it should clearly be legalized. If you believe that it should not be legalized, please clearly state the reason but not "because God said so".
Who ever opposes this argument is a homophobe and is scared of the real world, why would you even have a restriction on this it's ridiculous and extremely horrid behaviour towards other people you have never met, got along with or even tried to like or understand Gay people. Every body should have a exact same rights no questions asked.
In conclusion if you were to hate a "Gay" human it is proven you would be hating a autistic kid. Personally how could you hate somebody that has no control over their disability?!
But also explain to me why @ADCoore that Gay kids are bullied to suicide or even worse mudered just becuase they were diffirent or Gay.
Not until it is called by another name. They should be free to live together and be allowed the basic freedoms of REGULAR married individuals. I refuse accept the idea that what two men or two women do together be called by the same name as a MAN & WIFE couple.
NO, same sex (assuming this is what is referenced as it's already legal for a homosexual to get married...To the opposite sex...Everywhere in the USA) marriage should not be legal. We should go beyond all the traditional arguments and simply get rid of all legal benefits and definitions of "marriage." Marriage should be a religious term only. All the traditional marriage benefits could be allowed between any two people via forms filled out, notarized and filed with the government giving rights we today give to married couples (IE. Next of kin rights, rights of survivorship, living will issues, organ donation, tax incentives).
I believe that everyone has the right to do what they want. If two men or two women want to be together, at the end of the day it doesn't bother me physically. However, marriage is defined as a man and woman affair and it should stay that way. Marriage is a moral issue that the government should not try to put its hands in.