Gay marriage or marriage between two persons of the same sex can not be because marriage is by definition a relationship between two members of the opposite sex, sorry if that hurts anyones feelings but check the dictionary.
As to why it would be a bad idea to attempt to change the meaning of the word, change the social institution and change the cultural norm, I can think of a number of concise reasons:-
- Enduring social institutions and norms which are vital for generation on generation transmission of experience, the reproduction of society and social functionalism, you meddle with those are your peril, its not the same as changing the days the shops are open or where you can buy liquar.
- The real issue is parity of esteem, should there and can there actually be parity of esteem between the heterosexual majority and the homosexual minority? Is it within the gift of government and society, through difficult and possibly very costly adjustments in the most vital and enduring social institutions, to deliver that?
No. I really dont think so. There is a long history of this in the conflict and co-existence of other minorities and majorities and the study of minority-majority relations which are perhaps less important now due to marginalisation would really prove fruitful to anyone considering the minutia of this topic. Basically for the individual who is well adjusted to their identity no especial external recognition or response to their identity is going to be necessary, for the one which is other directed none is ever going to suffice or satisfy.
- Why does marriage between a man and a woman exist in the first place? There are myriad reasons and norms, including norms to do with inheritance and property, norms equated with romantic love and affective bonding, from a strictly scientific and materialist perspective it could be considered a legal sanction of a bio-chemically addictive bond which persists to permit child birth and child raising.
What's not really in question and persists no matter what way the institution is reimagined or reinvented by different communities or cultural backdrops is naturalistic aspect of heterosexuality, biologically and usually psychologically males and females are sexual compatible with one another, they also have monogamous relationships. So effectively marriage existed in fact before it was linguistically and legally sanctioned and became a norm. I dont see compelling evidence for it existing as a norm already or if it did to give it recognition and thereby make it normative.
The origins of homosexuality are consisted, sometimes even between homosexuals and sometimes definitely by bi-sexuals or pomo-sexuals who do not accept the idea of binary divisions in sexuality or sexual dichotomies, whether it is a consequence of bio-chemical responses, genetic make up, physiology or culture to me sometimes appears besides the point but what I would suggest can not be contested is that there is a huge profile, particularly political, given to what is a small community of individuals and which by its very nature logic would suggest ought to be one which would receed in numbers over time.
What is the big deal about that? Well, in part it corresponds to the issue of sufficiency and parity of esteem which I mentioned earlier but it also to me is a very, very serious issue from the perspective of private conscience and individual sovereignty, you can be a conscientious objector to just about anything presently, and behave accordingly, but not to homosexual behaviour.
It is a seperate topic and one I've mentioned before, only to be labelled a bigot and provoke the vitriol of many, but while I'm sure there is a minority of individuals who are happy, well adjusted psychologically and socially whose same sex attraction and sexual behaviour is unaccompanied by risk taking behaviourial norms or other key indicators of maladaption to me, without prejudice, this appears to be the minorities minority. There is a major, major issue as to whether or not the homosexual community itself is yet ready to police itself and reconsider the fact that its historical status as ostrichised and oppressed has allowed it to become a lightening conductory or umbrella for many who are ill or deviant. I dont think it is and for the most part the heterosexual majority isnt able or willing to take that role for fear of being accused of bigotry, at least that's what comes to light when homosexual couples abuse children they have fostered and social workers are investigated following the incident, as has happened in the UK. Similarly individuals in homosexual welfare organisations are prosecuted for their roles in peadophile rings, while leaders of gay rights campaigns like Peter Thatchell campaign for the "sexual rights of adolescents/children" suggesting that the age of conscent criminalises.
Given that backdrop I dont think I could support anything which promotes homosexuality as normative, including revision the most enduring and successful social institution there's been.
Now you can consider this and go away and think about it or you can dismiss me as a bigot, probably a "bible basher" or similar liberal stereotype, a closet bigot who's good at rationalisation and sophistry. That's going to be your choice at the end of the day.