People don't understand that equality of rights isn't de facto equality. Examples:
Spoiler
A. Equality of rights: Men can marry women, they can't marry other men.
De facto inequality: Heterosexual men can marry whomever they love, gay men can't.
B. Equality of rights: Everyone can travel.
De facto inequality: Poor people don't have the means to travel.
C. Equality of rights: Everyone can run in the Presidential election.
De facto inequality: Everyone isn't called Bush.
D. Equality of rights: Gospel is forbidden.
De facto inequality: Gospel lovers gospel can't listen to their favorite music.
F. Inequality of rights: Black men are not allowed to enter buses.
Conclusion: It's up to you to decide what kind of society you want. If you prefer a society in which same-sex marriage is the standard, then it's perfectly fine as long as you can reasonably support your opinion. But saying that gay people shouldn't get married because the Bible said that this is bad is certainly not an admissible opinion.
Now people usually dismiss the relation between marriage and civilization.
Spoiler
Civilization: Eating with cultery (Europe), chopsticks (Asia) or bread (Middle East).
Barbarism: Eating with your fingers, e.g. fast food.
Now regarding sexuality:
Civilization: Rules regarding sexuality.
Barbarism: Free sex.
We are now entering a new era in which homosexuality is seen as the exact equivalent of heterosexuality. Does that mean that there is no rules anymore and that everyone will be equal? No. Examples:
Spoiler
A. Polygamy, polyandry and other multiple-adults families (e.g. trouples, jedi marriages) are not allowed.
B. Pedophilia isn't allowed.
C. Zoophilia isn't very well tolerated either and people can't get married to animals.
In all of those cases, we have de facto inequality. So if you believe that gay people should have the right to get married because de facto inequality is bad, then you will have to allow marriage for at least A and C. Of course you wouldn't allow marriage for B, because you consider that B is harmful to society, which is right. But de facto inequality will remain. In A and B, there is no reason to forbid marriage, but people are still not ready for that. It's very well possible that in a few years we will allow marriage for A and B, who knows?
In conclusion, the only good reason to support gay marriage is that many gay people want it (although not all of them), and an important part of society is indifferent or supportive. But there is nothing rational there, it's just a cultural evolution. So in terms of overall happiness it's better to allow gay marriage, unless we can prove that gay marriage is harmful to society and that the damages that it could provoke would be more important than the happiness that it would provide. Good luck to find the answer to this.
Pretty damn well said, probably the most effort on this thread so far. I can't completely agree that your claims about civilization/barbarism are perfect, but I get what direction you're going with that.
Unrelated to above: If America is what's at hand (and it is), we have to accept the first amendment right. People are allowed to have opinions and express them. Have something wrong with homosexuality? You're allowed to say that. However, please keep in mind that to have an argument you must have both the thesis, the claim(s), and the evidence. If your evidence is a book that argues something concrete like the ascension of men who are ______ into heaven, that does little justice in arguing that men who are ______ should have the right to ____.
The difference in this situation, it seems:
For same-sex marriage: I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry because it gives them the equal benefits that marriages between heterosexuals have, and since a mutual love between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is very much realistic, it should be allowed for them to marry.
Against same-sex marriage: I believe homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because, as dictated in the bible, marriage between homosexuals is an abomination, and they will not ascend to heaven. I believe homosexual relationships are taboo, and it should not be allowed for them to marry.
The argument that allowing homosexual marriage will open the doors to pedophilia and zoophilia based marriages would mean the argument for both sides would not change. However, it does.
For same-sex marriage: I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry because it gives them the equal benefits that marriages between heterosexuals have, and since a mutual love between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is very much realistic, it should be allowed for them to marry.
This is the primary difference between a homosexual relationship and a "pedophiliac relationship" or a "zoophiliac relationship." Both children and animals are unable to have a romantic-sexual relationship with a man or woman because they a) have not developed to yet/hit puberty or b) cannot develop a cross-species relationship of that kind. To argue that allowing homosexuality, which is a "mutual" sexuality, is the same thing as these, is like comparing a melon to a truck.
