Agruments for Same-Sex Marriage

This are quotes or paraphrased from the Historical Guide to Controversal Issues in America: Same-sex marriage. Agree with them or not, here they are. I just wanted to list the many of them verses the few illogical arguments that I have seen against Same-Sex marriages (:

1. There are more than 1,049 benefits from being legally married that homosexuals are deprived of.
2. They're deprived of the social view from society (such as employers) who look at those who are married with higher respect and trust.
3. The public commitment made that's sealed by vows and rites that civil unions cannot give.
4. Some would agrue that the pursuit of happiness that the constitution gives would include marriage, therefore, homosexuals are indeed discriminated against in that sense.
5. They are denied the love and commitment to their partner that is given and confirmed in a marriage, which to some people, may dictate if their relationship will last.
6. Society can promote secure, permanent relationships with marriage. For example, "Married couples are more productive, and the general economy benefits. Marital partners provide for one another, putting less strain on sociel services. They eat better and have better general health, and this means that they make fewer demands on an already overburdened health care system. Regular partners are less likely to have STDs, engage in risky sexual behavior, or allow problems resulting from any lapses to go unchecked. These facts are supported by numerious sociological studies." Therefore, if we exclude a group of people from these benefits, societies' image of relationships may not be as good, and it also, of course, may help the homosexual couple's relationship.
7. Valid marriage can exist between two people of different races, ages, religions, and ethnic groups. Some of which religions have prohibited in the past. Just homosexuals are being discriminated against now.
8. People may divorce. People such as criminals (murderers, rapists, child molesters, and sex offenders) are allowed to marry even though they have committed sins in the eyes of the religious (and non-religious of course).
9. Britney Spears may have a 24 hour marriage. Elizabeth Taylor may walk down the aisle 8 times. But yet, a committed homosexual couple would "ruin" the santity of marriage.
10. "...Marriage in history had never conformed neatly to any particular pattern. It is a culturally determined style of living that has been malleable to the needs of many different people and periods of history." Therefore, there will be no redefinition of marriage, as it has always been changing to comodate different people.
11. People fear that same-sex marriages will lead to marriages of several people, relatives, animals, and objects. BUT "Each change in marriage custom and law must first meet appropriate, even stringent tests. It is right that we are currently having this intense discussion of same-sex marriage, because established institutions must not be lightly changed upon the whims of the year or the decade. Society must answer a number of questions responsibly before it approves any innovation, especially in an area as basic as matrimony. Several questions myst be answered positively. Will a change in custom and law promote state interests? Will it contribute to the health and happiness of the people involved? Is a contract such as marriage being made between two people who are legally capable of discernment, emotionally, and intellectually able to commit such a contract?" And I do believe that those answer are no (:
12. "Opponents of same-sex marriage find it difficult or impossible to dignify with the name of marriage a relationship that appears to them a violation of human physiology... The agruments against homosexuality oversimplify human anatomy, ignore the complexity of human beings, and reject the witness of history. A substantial number of individuals have always been sexually attracted to their own gender. Furthermore, same-sex conduct has been documentsed in several animal species...To suggest that the human body is not designed for such activity is to deny the reality that it has always been so used... Most homosexuals today do not find their inclinations and intimate expressions either "unnatural" or "immoral"."
13. The agrument against the "homosexuals have the choice" agrument... "Many (homosexuals) insist that had they been given a choice, they would have chosen to be more like the general population. But the choice was not theirs; it was bestowed by Mother Nature, or, for the more religiously inclines, by God. From early childhood these people have known that they were different. This difference, rather than an aberration of nature, is a central fact of their identity, possibly to be celebrated rather than hidden. While sexual conduct is under the control of will, homosexuality as an orientation is not a matter of choice."
14. There may be a specific role for homosexuals, such as to prevent overpopulation (and let's admit it, we, as the human species, are WAY overpopulated. It happened on the island of ancient Crete where there was a rise in homosexuality as a natural corrective in the overpopulation there. This has also been observed in primates. This, again, disputes the argument that homosexuality is bot natural and that they have a choice. And if they do not have a choice, they should have the basic right of marriage.
15. "Marriages exist to bring children comfortably into the world, to nourish them, and to prepare them for useful and fulfilling lives in families of their own, in churches, and in nations... Gay couples cannot concieve children, but they are indeed rearing chldren. In fact, in the last 15 years there has been a population boom in the gay community. Approximately 1/3 of householding headed by a gay couple now have children in them, children born from previous heterosexual relationships or adopted or acquired through artificial insemination of surrogacy. These children are much desired, because parents have either fought in the courts for their custody or gone to extraordinary lengths to bring them into the world. And unlike so many American children who grow up in single-parent homes, these are attended by two loving parents. They are especially cherishes because gays do not generally give birth to children lightl and without forethought, as straight couples sometimes do. Gay parents often go to considerable expense and surmount legal hurdles to have these chidlren and give them a locing home. And there is no clear evidence in the psychological or education literature that these children as disadvantaged by the alternative sexual orientation of their parents. There may, in fact, be some benefits in being reared by gay parents. Some studies have suggested that these children are elss judgmental and mor tolerant of differences among their playmates..." So basically, "... gays are doing their share in rearing citizens of tomorrow, and often performing th e task superbly; at the same time, they are not irresponsibly begetting children."
16. Within Judaism and Christianity, there are many pro-gay voices. Such as Rabii Steven Greenberg, John Boswell, and Professor Dan O. Via. Liberal Christians who have always understood that the Bible and other religious texts contexts are of its own time. They very much agree that, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40). Clearly homosexual marriages will not harm these people's beliefs.

I obviously, could not have given every single detail from the book regarding this controversal issue, but feel free to check if out. The title is listed above and the author is Allene Phy-Olsen. I simply ask that you read this with an open mind because I do believe that it holds many good points to be consider. So respectfully state your opinion below! No disrespect is allowed here (:
Please do NOT go on a rant on your opinion without considering the points and agruments listed above, thank you, I do not like repeating myself (: