Why should Same-Sex Marriage be allowed?

Your question is confusing. The main question sounds like you are asking why it should be allowed and the body sounds like you are looking for logical reasons to ban it. You might want to clarify what you are looking for.

I have never heard a logical reason to BAN same sex marriage.

Reasons for allowing it: Banning it is discriminatory against gay people. Straight adults are allowed to marry who they want and they get all kinds of benefits for doing so. But gay couples lose out on over 1000 benefits granted to married couples. Immigration is an issue because if a couple is married and one is not a citizen, they can't get legal status for their partner like an opposite sex marriage, even if they are legally married in some states.

Under the US Constitution and based on Supreme Court cases, the government can't create laws causing discrimination without a compelling state interest. There is no state interest in keeping gay people from marriage. It harms no one, it doesn't destroy the sanctity of anyone's marriage, and one man-one woman is NOT the tradition, as is obvious throughout the bible. There is a state interest in supporting consenting adults who want to commit to loving and caring for each other for life.

You'll never get an answer that isn't based in religion or fear/hatred.

You'll get posts about "morality" "god said so" "the definition of the word" and maybe even "the states should decide". The people who are against same sex marriage will never be able to provide a logical or legal reason, they just know they don't like gay people and don't want them to have the same rights as the rest of us. Heck you'll even have some people claiming it's a "special right".

In England we have had "Civil Partnerships" for same-sex couples since 2004. This is a civil ceremony recognised and sanctioned in law and is almost identical to a heterosexual marriage in all but name. Therefore, the issues may be slightly different on this side of the Atlantic (we have a unitary Parliament and no separate jurisdictions, although Scotland can legislate these matters for itself).

When the Bill was going through Parliament, the then Labour government wanted marriage equality but settled on a compromise, since many hereditary conservatives and Church of England bishops sit as-of-right in the House of Lords, and they were strongly opposed to changing England's common law definition of marriage as being a voluntary union of one man and one woman, arguing that for legal reasons, that was best left alone.

However, most people partaking in civil partnership ceremonies refer to it as "marriage". There is now a renewed movement for marriage equality supported by all 3 main parties in Parliament here, though the governing Conservative Party seems to be putting it on the back burner in the face of recent local election defeats.

Personally, I think both major parties here are slightly out of tune with public opinion in some way on this issue. The Conservatives seem to have decided the public don't like the idea. I disagree. Labour members seem to have decided anyone who is neither bothered by the issue, or anyone who is satisfied with the status quo, is a bigot. This is also not a good stance. In fact very few people over here seem to express an opinion on it one way or the other, largely thanks to the Civil Partnerships Act which many see as a recent settlement and one that will change in name only if there is any change.

The main issue some conservatives have here, is not that a gay marriage would be named as such the same as a heterosexual marriage, but rather that they fear state interference with religious freedoms and seek assurances that churches will be permitted to stand by their beliefs. I agree with this view (though I am myself an atheist, I don't think the state should be telling those who have religious views exactly what they ought to think and do.) If a church wants to marry gay people, I am fine with that. If a church wants to maintain its current views I am fine with that too. It is meant, after all, to be a free country isn't it?

The issue on this side of the Pond is not proving as electric as it is in the US. I always say yes to freedom. That includes the freedom of people to marry their loved one, and the freedom of a church and its congregation to think what it likes. Just so long as the church doesn't interfere with the state, the state should not interfere with the church.

The reality is that whatever you call a union between a same-sex couple - civil partnership or marriage - what difference does the name make? What matters is what people think of these unions. Not the wider public, but their own friends and families. Everyone wants their close family and friends at their wedding. Nobody else really matters that much.

I agree that it shouldn't, but nevertheless I'll give it a go.

Through time, as we are well aware, marriage has adapted to meet our standards. Initially it was our bonding with God saying that this is our partner for life, but now as we reach the scientific enlightenment, we are more agnostic or atheist. (I'm sorry for bringing religion in but it is vital) But now marriage is more of a life stage that we get excited over.

We have free will, and part of our subconscious choices what we enjoy, some people enjoy homosexuality, and to rid them of life satisfaction, despite seeming dull, shouldn't be in our power. Marriage is basically a legal contract now that makes us feel secure and more satisfied with our lives, and why should human authorities such as the law have any governing over humans expressing their interest, especially without legitimate reasons except "it says so in the bible" and "it's how our law works".

In the Bible in the same paragraph 3000 years ago, where it says how "thou shan't lay with another man as thou lies with a woman" it also says we shouldn't play with pig skin, ie football. Same sex marriage could be perceived as an emotional expression of love, and if it is only love, why shouldn't we allow two men to express love? If the universe is the sheer size we claim, perhaps two men getting together would have such a minute affect.

As most of the gays argue, it is discrimination to disallow gays to express their love, but that choice to discriminate is also our decision which is mentally parallel to their decision to be gay, although they may argue it is not a choice. We don't question the authority when they say we cannot murder, some may, but what i'm saying is the authority has the power to dominate how we act, and if we don't want that society, we could move to a more open space, but gays don't want it that much. It should be allowed in this situation because their is no argument apart except their selfish needs.

I'm sorry if this isn't good enough, but I am against gay marriage, haven't searched the web for facts (I believe you've already done that), and I'm 15. Apart from that, i hope i've helped you to be able to have some ground facts to base your own argument on.

You can get a secular one ("gay people are bad"), but you can't get a rational one. There's just no rational basis for depriving free people of the right to form their own contracts and decide the terms of their private relationships. Gay marriage bans are fundamentally authoritarian. If you value individual liberty, then you shouldn't support controls on consensual acts between adults that don't violate rights, even if your personal morals tell you homosexuality is wrong. You're free to think it's wrong and hate gays, but you shouldn't use the arm of the government to stop people from working together.

I'm not religious and I'm not gay. But I still believe that u fall in love wiv whoever u have feelings for. It doesn't matter what gender u r or how old u are. People can't stop there feelings! My argument is that everyone is a person. Saying its wrong for someone to fall in love wiv someone the same sex is disgusting and sexist it's not like u can punish someone for having feelings. It's doesn't matter what u look like, what gender u r, or what race u r, or how old u r, everyone can fall in love with anyone.

An argument against same-sex marriage that is logical and secular does not exist.

In marriage, sexual ideology and practice is assumed. Most of the population believe that homosexuality is a violation of what is natural.

The fear of violating what is natural is based upon the possible and factual consequences of anything else which violates natural practice(s).

And without moralizing, it is not very difficult to think of other ... non sexual practices ... which have dire consequences when the 'natural' is violated!

Marriage is a partnership. Every single person has the right to chose their own partner.

l missed place the list of ten places that states, in the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin , several months ago. Last month l did locate one place in the Bible that says what l just wrote; look up 1 Corinthian chapter 6 verse 9.