Homosexual Marriage

I would like to reiterate again that I do not believe homosexuality is "immoral" in anyway and I understand that it is a natural, biological occurrence. I also believe that they are capable of raising children in the same fashion as a man and a woman could. I am going to be arguing that they shouldn't be married in the same fashion as a man and woman are. Now, for the arguments.For the arguments, I will be arguing that marriage between two homosexuals should be renamed to something new.1. Culture Every group in the world has their own specific culture. From Hispanics, to Africans, to Asians, and Europeans. We all have this idea of "marriage", that has been, until recently, a man and woman joining together in holy matrimony. The new definition of marriage is "the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)" (oxforddictionaries.com). Now, most people might be thinking that I am going to argue that the culture of marriage should be the thing protected. This is wrong. I believe that the homosexuals' culture should have been the one that was protected. Hear me out on this one. They had their own culture: to be able to live under the same roof and get the same benefits as married couples could. What is the absolute problem of not calling it marriage? That's the beauty of the thing! The homosexual community could have named it anything they wanted to. They weren't restricted to the bounds of just marriage. However, it seemed the liberals were looking more to pushing them to do it. They wanted to put the focus on homosexual marriage instead of the more important things such as homosexual and transgender civil unions. There were quite a few homosexuals that were against marriage (politicaldiscourse.com, bbc.com). They all the same things: it isn't the same type of union that is formed when a man and woman are married and should not be. 2. Marriage is a Privilege, not a Right.Marriage is a privilege that is given to a man and woman who wish to spend the rest of their lives together with. As you can see from usconstitution.net, it is not in the Constitution of the United States as a right. It is given to the people who get married in a church (or who marry at a courthouse). I believe that the homosexual community should come up with its own form of "joining together" that is both unique and original. However, the government has begun to say that it needs a bigger role in marriage, which leads me on to my next point.3. The GovernmentThis is the biggest issue with homosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with the homosexuals themselves, but with the government wanting more power in the average citizen's life. The real reason why the left pushed this agenda of homosexual marriage was to get more power over the religious systems. This is exactly why the government had "separation of church from state". Not because the church would influence government, but to protect religion from the government. The government has tried different ways in order to get more power over the people. The 18th amendment is a perfect example of this. It was created to lower crime, however it raised it because people realized that the government was just trying to gain more power in their lives. The same thing is with homosexual marriage. There has already been a case in which the government was attempting to coerce a pastor to do a same-sex marriage. Luckily, they were able to sue and win the case. However, what if it comes down to the day when religions aren't able to defend themselves? I ultimately do not have a problem with homosexual marriage and am not offended by it. I am worried that the government will use that to its advantage to gain more power in the individual lives of the people they are governing. That religions will soon be forced to do these weddings despite the protection of the first amendment. I wish you luck in the debate and I can't wait to see your rebuttals.Note: In the first paragraph under "Homosexuality", I believe there is an error in spelling. It says "homosexuality is a sexuality in which a person is sexuality attracted to another of the same gender". I believe you meant to say "sexually" but just correct me if I am wrong. Thanks!Sources:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... http://www.bbc.com...http://www.usconstitution.net...https://www.adflegal.org...