For almost every subject especially those that can ignite passion when extending moral judgments would have its pros and cons in ethical as well as legal contexts. I will attempt to examine the subject from a legal and ethical perspective without getting too bogged down with moral or religious preconceptions.
Religion at times directs rather than persuades. By instilling the fear of God its doctrinal attitudes does not leave room for much debate but it rather leads to a state of confusion. Its arrogance of righteousness is sometimes its biggest failing; at times reflected in instilling immoral fears in accepting these or similar arguments. This can also blur its views on accurate interpretations of moral and cultural updates.
Frome a legal standpoint, not allowing gay marriage is for many, especially for the homosexual community considered prejudice. The stigma of feeling different can be overwhelming as though they are suffering from a social disease. The right of the individual is more often than not is formed by consensus or compromise. As long as we conform to the accepted legal requirement of the law of the state we have the inalienable rights to live as we wish. The private indulgence in gay or homosexual activity or their public display of love and affection is not an exhibition of immorality. Denial of normal enjoyment of marriage, even that of same sex, is a flagrant contravention of that individual right we all have and enjoy. A legal argument will inevitably entail philosophical directions to ground its premises and its conclusions as law. For the time being, when challenged, there is not much in law that can contravene gay Rights. Gay marriage is therefore becoming increasingly accepted in parts of Western Europe, including Spain, as well as in places such as Argentina and parts of the United States.
Some people would argue that gay association especially marriage is against all human tradition and against nature. I would argue that the former is a myth and the latter has over the years been wrongly interpreted as part of that tradition. It is not long ago when the accepted tradition was to keep mistresses, polygamy, marrying nine or ten year old, paedophilic partnerships, suppressing womon's rights, concubines, easy divorce (even with the Catholic Church). Marriage, as a sacrament, was only instituted in the fourteenth century and the marriage ring that went with it signified man’s potency. What is unnatural but still goes on is celibacy in the life of monks, nuns and such like. Morality should be dynamic allowing time to foster change. We live ethically by accepted norms and what is normal today may not be tomorrow. Depending on peoples persuasions some normal activities are accepted faster than others but it is essential that our morals do not obliterate our ethical will to change.
What about Children? Well, what about them? It is a statistical fact that children of same sex association grow up normal. I would not quote statistics at this stage because figures from both sides of the argument are warped and irrelevant for this contribution. A general judgment, however, from a conception of my reading material leads me to this conclusion. I will be grateful, however, to be advised of a more indubitable opinion.
In the book of Genesis, relationship between the sexes is quoted as union between man and woman, not husband and wife. It is also quoted as saying go out and multiply but did not license this union in a marriage certificate. This does not mean those who procreate in a union are right but who cannot have children is an unnatural state or illegal. It did not prejudice same sex union either nor label those who marry but chose not to have children as sinners.
I therefore conclude that after all Man is a social animal. This sociability can take many forms of liking, love, feeling, affection etc. or attracted to same or to the opposite sex. There is nothing in the genome of life which is the ultimate appeal to the law of nature that says man cannot or must not be attracted to the same sex. Whatever is one’s argument it should not be inspired by godly thoughts or religious beliefs. The morality of the dutiful ‘Ought To’ as a way to live will, for this instance, blunt one’s argument and will lead to egotistical prejudice and self-regarding righteousness.