Same sex marriage

Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets as its goal the benefit, pleasure, or greatest good of the oneself alone.

Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It is important to distinguish this from psychological egoism, the claim that people can only act in their own interest. Any act, no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agentEthical Egoism: The person thinks It is morally right to have "Same Sex marriage", because it is their own best interest.. so the person chooses to do what they think is right to do.

But in Psychological ethics: Same-Sex marriage is right because it claims that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. So no matter what is the action, it is motivated by some selfish desire of the person.

People choose to be gay/lesbian because they think they are born to be gay/lesbian and because this is their self interest.

In the same time it is immoral because it is against the nature of marriage. Because the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Where in the other hand, Utilitarianism is, Greatest Happiness Principle: …actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.. so It is morally right be gay/lesbian because it produces the greatest pleasure.

Same sex marriage could be immoral because it is against God's will , and procreation is an essential element of marriage,.

Debates over terminologyProponents of same-sex marriage often use the term "equal marriage" to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights;[1] the term "equal marriage" has also been used by feminists to describe any marriage, regardless of the sex of the partners, in which the partners have equal status within the marriage.[2] Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions.[3] Some opponents use the term "homosexual marriage", and surveys have suggested that the word "homosexual" is more stigmatizing than the word "gay".[4] Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage put the word marriage in scare quotes when referring to it. One notable publication that practices this is The Washington Times. Cliff Kincaid, a writer for the conservative American media watchdog group Accuracy in Media, agrees with this method, arguing that "marriage" is a word that same-sex couples merely want to apply to themselves, but have no legal ability to do so in most states.[5] Same-sex marriage supporters argue that it is editorializing and implying inferiority, and point out that the quotes are even used when referring to same-sex marriages in locations where such unions are legal.[6]Some have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, for instance, wrote that such an arrangement would "strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control."[7] Marriage proponents find such a suggestion impractical. "Why do we suddenly have to throw out the entire system, invent some whole new thing, just because gay people want to get married?", asks Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry. "I don't actually see Alan Dershowitz doing anything about this, other than writing an article, because he probably rightly understands it would be an immense project to go around the country and convince 200 million plus people to trade in their marriage for something new and explain why we are doing this when we actually have a legal system that already clearly distinguishes between civil and religious marriage."[8] Conservative critics like National Review's Jennifer Morse contend that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage that "has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything, with the possible exception of adultery".[9] However, in the case of one state in which same-sex marriages are recognized, Massachusetts, there is a long history of marriage being regarded as purely a civil institution, as illustrated in Governor William Bradford's history Of Plymouth Plantation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage