The Canon EF 50 Macro isn't a true Macro (i.e., does not achieve 1:1 magnification unaided), so I'd leave it out of the mix. As mentioned above, the EF-S 60 Macro is probably a better choice if you want a double-duty lens.
Things to keep in mind:
The shorter the focal length of the lens, the deeper your DoF will be, the closer you can get to your subject, and the more chances you'll find for distortion (particularly below 20mm).
The longer your focal length, the shallower the DoF becomes, the faster your shutter speed needs to be, and the farther away you have to be from your subject.
A 50mm on a crop body may be too long for comfortable portrait photography, say, across a table or in a casual social situation, and probably too long for full-body shots in a small studio space. A 35mm lens may be more ideal in those kinds of situations.
The 50/1.8 II is a great starter lens, because it's incredibly cheap. It's about $100, and optically very good, and is the best bang-for-the-buck bargain in the entire Canon lineup. It does have drawbacks, but for the price, you can put up with them, unless you planned to shoot landscapes with it. But very few people buy an f/1.8 lens for landscape shooting.
The 50/1.8 will teach you whether you want to go longer or wider. If you want to go longer, then the 85/1.8 USM, the 100/2 USM, and the 135 f/2.8 Soft Focus are all low-cost possibilities, and all are terrific lenses. If you want freaking amazing, the 85L and 135L are there, but they have four-figure prices.
The two things you may want to consider are a) renting before you buy to see if the focal length is a good fit of whatever prime you buy, and b) analyzing your photos with something like
FocalPlot to see what focal lengths (if any) you tend to sit at.