Should gay marriage be legalised?

Marriage can be considered in two ways namely legal (civil) and religious.

Legal marriage is the official union of two people from different families, making an agreement to live together and share their lives. Such a marriage is officiated by a contract made in conjunction with the law.

On the other hand, religious marriage is characterised as being a union solemnised by an authorised member of a religious body. An example would be a christian wedding whereby the priest will officiate the marriage and the wedding will be performed according to religious rites and rituals.

29 countries of which most are European, have legalised same-sex marriage.
69 countries criminalise same-sex couples, of which 8 carry out the death penalty.
81 countries have laws in place against discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation.
Mauritius does not recognise same-sex marriage but provides laws protecting gay people from discrimination in the workplace.

1. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a form of discrimination. It is the equivalent of saying that a white person cannot marry a black person in terms of logic, or, in this case, a lack of it. If a country declared that, it would immediately spark protest due to discrimination and a violation of human rights. Equality is termed as the provision of equal opportunities and facilities to everyone. Hence, equality cannot be maintained if the government withholds the right of gay couples to wed.
   
   In the past, black people were not allowed to wed each other under Church ruling.
   The slave has no rights. Of course, he or she cannot have the rights of a husband, a wife. The slave is a chattel, and chattels do not marry. 'The slave is not ranked among sentient beings, but among things;' and things are not married.
   This sounds racist to me. And I think this should sound racist to most people. In fact, I go so far as to say that if you see nothing wrong with this quote, you are, in fact, racist.
   This is what people's opinions on black people/slaves were in the 19th century. We changed that. That is, we allowed black people to get married, something that most people claimed to be wrong or unnatural. Those black people are humans, so should be given the right to marriage. Gay people are humans so should be given the right to marriage. Otherwise, this is purely discrimination based on sexuality, which is no different from the racial discrimination of the 1800s.

2. In most countries banning gay marriage, these laws are more often than not influenced by religion. In my opinion, religion should never be an influential factor in the creation of laws. This is for the simple fact that someone who does not follow that religion should never be restrained by said religion, especially if those religious laws are based solely on fancy superstition and ancient tradition.

3. Allowing gay marriage will open up the possibility for further steps to be taken to ensure equality for gay people. Accepting the existence and validity of same-sex couples is a stepping stone for further developments and changes to our current system in order to roll back decades of homophobia which are directly responsible for discrimination of gay people. Legalising same-sex marriage also provides a form of official statement that the country is generally against homophobia and that it is ready to embrace diversity, equality and freedom.
   
   In fact, in the US, gay people may be rejected for essential medical treatment over the fact that they are gay. The law, applicable in only one state, declares that a medical professional has the right to refuse to provide any service to people who are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. This is a stark contrast to the equality which is supposed to be a predominant term around which US society revolves.
   
   Allowing same-sex marriage will de-conceptualise homosexuality as being something uncommon, out of the ordinary or different and will render it as something concrete and normal. This will have a direct impact on LGBT acceptance, benefiting not only gay, lesbian and bisexual people but also other queer people. This is backed by the fact that, as from the US Supreme Court ruling of 2015 which granted gay people access to marriage, the acceptance rates of gay people increased drastically by a stunning 12%. Furthermore, since the first state legalised same-sex marriage, the percentage of Americans hating gays dropped from 61% to 30%, which is a really significant drop.

4. Introducing gay marriage is also a huge benefit to the mental well being of gay couples. In a survey done last year in the US, where there are 980,000 same-sex couples, of which 58% were married, it was revealed that gay couples who were able to get married had a much better standard of mental health. Lacking the option of same-sex marriage, couples experience on average 261% more anxiety than those who can get married. A large part, some 64% also remarked that their life felt way more stable after being granted the right to marry. This statistic is also noticeable in the risk of alcoholism, drug abuse or addiction, whereby same-sex couples who cannot get married are around 20 to 30% times more likely to suffer from such problems. Hence, it is clear that legalising same-sex marriage is beneficial to the mental health of gay people.

5. Not being forced into opp-sex marriage means better mental health.

6. [JOKE] Gay couples being able to get married is also a plus for straight men. Not only does a gay man being able to wed another man mean I have less competition with girls but he also does us a great service of taking another man out with him. I don't know about you, but this is great! Now, I don't have to compete with 2 other guys over a girl!

1. Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral and hence, marriage between two people of the same sex should never be legalised as it encourages this "abomination" that is same-sex couples.

2. Gay marriage is improper since it does not lead to procreation, which is the whole purpose of marriage.

3. Gay marriage goes against God's plan for humans, God created man and woman for them to complement each other.

4. The whole purpose of a biological specimens within a species is to ensure continuation of the species.

5. Marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman.

6. Slippery slope. We legalise gay marriage, meaning we may legalise "bad" things later.
   (a) - Zoophilia, Incest, Polygamy
   (b) - Trans rights, Anti-discrimination laws

7. The children will miss having either a mother or father.

1. Homosexuality is unnatural/immoral
   - Homosexuality has been studied and documented in some 15,000 animal species, making it completely natural, I would say.
   - It's actually natural due to methylation or a specific set of genes (supposedly).
   - Us, humans, we are not a very "natural" species though, are we? We manufacture materials which have not been observed anywhere on Earth or even in our solar system, like plastic for example. If we are going by the system of something being "natural" for it to be correct, we are doing many things which could hence be considered as wrong. The technology we have and use is not natural either, you don't see mice scurrying about using organic iPhones which they grew themselves in their tiny garden? Furthermore, we're growing GM (genetically modified) food. We have "played God" and modified the DNA of plants and animals. Is this natural? No, no it is not. But it's not because of that that such practices are wrong.

2. Marriage exists only for procreation
   - There are 7.9 billion humans on Earth as of 2021. In the US, there is an estimated 1 million same-sex couples. By calculation, this means some 7.5 billion humans are still highly interested in opposite-sex marriage and reproduction. I believe this is more than enough to ensure the continuous exponential and unhealthy growth of the human population. If you are afraid that letting gay couples get married and not have kids will reduce the global human population, you have no need to worry, we are still on track to kill ourselves in the future.
   I think it is safe to say that us humans have conquered the world and that reproducing like rabbits during spring is unnecessary and probably quite harmful to the planet and ourselves. Hence, the "marriage is only for procreation" claim is aged and obsolete nowadays.
   - Gay people can have children, through adoption, having a surrogate mother or having In Vitro Fertilisation. Hence, it is still possible for gay people in wedlock to have children, meaning that the idea that gay people is synonymous to no kids is invalid and hence, your claim does not stand.
   - I am equally concerned here about others here. If we are saying that marriage is a reserved privilege, for those who can reproduce during their marriage, then, does that mean you are also against infertile people getting married? What about people who just do not want children? Not everyone wants to have kids, you know?

3. Gay marriage is unholy so should be banned by law.
   - We mentioned initially that religion should have absolutely no influence on law. I follow no religion, so why should I be bound by rules which are not only extremely dated but also should never affect me?
   - If gay marriage goes against God's plan for humans, well, I have news for you. As per the Bible, divorce, eating pork, working on Sunday, pre-marital sex, tattoos and such are also banned. So, are you really against gay marriage due to religion or are you just cherry-picking the bits you agree with?

4. The children will miss having either a mother or father.
   - Not the case.
   - The children who are homosexual-parent-born have mental health as good as a heterosexual parent born child as shown in the research by Pew research center on school children. Homosexuality is not necessarily a form of sex, but a form of love and connection.
   - The parents can oscillate between the roles of mother and father easily. Something I noticed is that there is no lack of love in homosexual households.

5. Slippery Slope.
   - This would mean equating homosexuality to other worse things. The entire legal system works on a case by case basis and, unless we are legalising homosexuality alongside said worse things, such as paedophilia or zoophilia, then it is a cause for concern. However, here you are implying that by legalising gay marriage, we are laying the groundwork for legalising worse things later on. Since everything is dealt on a case by case basis, then those "worse things" will have to demonstrate merit and validity. As Ashmit demonstrated, homosexuality has much merit and is extremely valid. On the other hand, I fail to see how such things as paedophilia or zoophilia have any base for merit.
   
   In fact, I go as far as to say you are setting the precedent for an argument so illogical and unfounded in rationality is a dangerous statement. While I respect your unfounded opinions without scientific evidence, I’d like to examine statements and arguments made for this one. You are utilizing a false equivalency fallacy. In comparing paedophilia to homosexuality, you are breaking one of the cardinal sins of rationality and logic. Prohibiting paedophilia is an example of a public safety argument AND you are saying that paedophilia and homosexuality are somehow the same thing, running along similar lines. But I don't see any similarity between either case which would give reason to legalise paedophilia in the case homosexuality were to be legalised as well.
   You are also comparing these radically different ideas in a thinly veiled expression of bigotry and homophobia. You are here implying that being gay is somehow equivalent to being an abomination, a statement I am quite offended by.
   
   - Next, we also have to see how many people are calling for each case.
   Many people are calling for gay rights and equality. In fact, this is because there are many many gay people.
   On the other hand, how many people do you see arguing to legalise these "worse things" (paedophilia/zoophilia). Nobody. The only people who bring up zoophilia or paedophilia are people thinking it's a valid comparison to homosexuality.
   This comparison lends an idea to just how baseless these worse things are. They have no basis and no backing, as compared to gay rights which are backed by millions if not billions.
   
   - You are also comparing the ethicality of homosexuality with these worse things. We have reason to restrict incest (genetic issues and abnormalities), zoophilia (medium for disease spreading, animals aren't intelligent) and paedophilia (children cannot give consent, are not mature) for the good of the society. And, there is nobody who will argue in their favour. On the other hand, gay people do absolutely no harm in society. They live normal lives, they love others in the same way straight people love and there is no basis for them being a menace to society.

6. The gay agenda.
   - We have absolutely no interest in turning your children gay. In fact, if we actually do "turn your children gay", you should thank us for helping your children realise who they actually are, something you would have had no part in yourself.
   - There is no such thing as a "gay agenda", it's literally something created in the year 2000 because people were afraid of change, afraid of progress. In fact, here's the original quote:
   "[The homosexual] agenda including teaching pro-homosexual [sic] concepts in the public schools, redefining the family to represent “any circle of people who love each other,” approval of homosexual adoption, legitimizing same-sex marriage, and securing special rights for those who identify themselves as gay." - Dobson.
   But look at that quote. What does it say? The gay agenda is the teaching of pro-gay concepts at school and redefining the family, followed by approving homosexual adoption, legalising same-sex marriage and providing special rights to queer people.
   This sounds wonderful actually. It's completely focused on equality and protection of gay people. I think this supposed "gay agenda" is really good, and all of that from a far-right Christian-fanatic Republican. Ironic.
   - Do you want to hear my "gay agenda"? It's to ensure equality among everyone, regardless of who they are, be it queer or not.

7. Threatens religious freedom
   - Impossible. If you are religious and do not approve of homosexuality, then you have many options:
   1. Let the gay people be. As you have religious freedom, they have the freedom not to follow your cult and to be their authentic selves.
   2. If you have homosexual desires but are against it due to religion, then bottle down your feelings. Those completely natural emotions. You can shove them as far down as you want, you can be in a straight relationship if you want. That's your choice after all and I'm sure you'll be very happy living an inauthentic life.
   3. Run away from them, it's called homophobia after all so, there you go, the fear of gay people.
   
   - Religious freedom applies to you. And you alone. It does not give you the right to impose said "religious 'freedom' " on others. That's why it's called freedom.
   - But now to flip the coin: religious freedom does not offer a shield behind which you can attack gay people without repercussions. Calling out religious people for homophobia is not an attack on religious freedom as it only gives you the right to follow a religion of your choice (or not follow any at all) and to observe said religion but does not give the right to attack others for who they are. Hate crimes against gay people are just that, hate crimes. Now, as you said that gay people existing is a threat to religious freedom, I would like to ask, is religion not being used as a way to harm and kill queer people, hence denying the personal freedom of queer people?

8. If they come up with something not in this list of 7, they have my respect.
   (They didn't)