As we rapidly cruise through the age of globalization, everything is replaced by the flow of globalization. Beliefs are slowly being eliminated as we progress towards a society which emphasizes on personal rights. We never seen much commotion about same sex marriages until when globalization steps in. But is it a practical consideration in the age of globalization?

Proponents of same sex marriages says that denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). The main reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that all major religions consider homosexuality a sin; however, the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should. What's next, should we make taking the Lord's name in vain a criminal activity because Christians consider it a breaking of a commandment? Should we revisit the laws set before we even exist and change our minds to fit our country's context? As a society moves on, the people in it should follow the pace and change as accordingly. Thus we should start to accept them despite their "shortcomings" and allow them to fit into our society.

However, most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws. Not forgetting these, the position of religion in our lives are eroded gradually and is not considered vital nowadays.

A common reason for same sex marriage is that the thing that matters should in a marriage is love. The number one reason that heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filing of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another. Marriage is a commitment that says "I love you so much that I want to live the rest of my life with you. I want to share the ups and downs, forsake all others, and be together until death do us part." Should it matter that the couple doesn't fit into what society is used to? Some people talk about living wills and other legal contracts that can give homosexuals essentially the same rights as a married couple. If that is the case, why don't all heterosexual couples use these legal maneuvers instead of marriage? Just maybe there's something more to it.

Also, the lacking in biological ability to procreate makes them opt for adoption instead. In African only there are 12.3 million children waiting patiently to be brought to "real life" and in China, there might be approximately the same number as Africa. These children are suffering everyday and the only saviours are the couples of same sex. Like any heterosexual couple relationship, a same-sex marriage may fuel the desire for a family. Since gay couples cannot have kids naturally, this will likely increase the desire to adopt. Since there are so many kids around the country in need of adoption, this is a good thing. However, others believe a child reared in a same-sex marriage do not develop ideally. Evidence at this point is inconclusive since same-sex adoptions have yet to become widespread.

On an international scale, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - completely contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.

Economic arguments on the impact of same-sex marriage focus on the effects on same-sex couples, businesses, employers, and governments. UCLA Law School economist and policy researcher Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett has studied the impact of same-sex legal marriage on all four of these groups. Same sex couples are affected economically other than socially. They face other financial challenges against which legal marriage at least partially shields opposite-sex couples:

* potential loss of couple's home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one

* costs of supporting two households, travel, or emigration out of the US for an American citizen unable to legally marry a non-US citizen

* higher cost of purchasing private insurance for partner and children if company is not one of 18% that offer domestic partner benefits

* higher taxes: unlike a company's contribution to an employee's spouse's health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation

* legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage

* higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples

* current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner

* same-sex couples are not eligible to file jointly or separately as a married couple and thus cannot take the advantages of lower taxes via the marriage bonus

However, allowing such marriages would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.

The decision is rather of a objective one. Each person has their freedom to choice
and a say to what they want to do. If we were to restrict such marriages, our society will be much better off. Higher revenue could be generated from them and even we do not even know that we could benefit from them. As long as people remove the stubborn block that is hindering their ability to think, the world might be a wonderful place to be in.