by Rachel Leah

Created on: May 16, 2008   Last Updated: January 19, 2009

Up until recently Marriage has constituted a union between a Woman and Man. While in antiquity Homosexuality was an unspoken accepted practice, and an accepted part of Greek and Roman myth, outside of these time periods, Homosexuality has been seen as a perversion, and remained so well into the 20th century.

Recently, this community has come out of the preverbal closet and has made its presence known within the legislator. For example, in the summer of 2005, Canada passed its same sex marriage bill into law. This was followed by a few States, although the Federal government, in the US, refuses to support the decision.

It is about time, as there is no logical argument to prevent it. Although, this does not stop many arguments from circulating, with their fair amount of misinformation.

The first, and most constant, argument is that the very idea is against the biblical sense of marriage. However, the legal definition of marriage is man made, not divine, and could be altered as such. Unfortunately, historically the two wires are hopelessly tangled. While churches should be free to deny a marriage they see unfit (however misguided), church and state should not be the same thing.

A second argument used is the slippery slope analogy. If we allow such activities to happen we open the doors for other "deviant" activities including pedophiles and bestiality. This is a ludicrous extreme, at best. It simply ignores the very nature of the relationship. Homosexual relationships, like heterosexual relationships, are consensual. They are often between two adults or two teens with a shared lust or love for the other involved. They are no more loose or unattached as some heterosexual couples, and show no more likelihood in an unstable marriage.

Pedophiles on the other hand prefer relationships with humans much younger then themselves, and target those who are unable or unwilling to offer them a consensual relationship. This can also be said for those who practice bestiality, as no animal can physically or verbally give the consent needed.

Another argument, which holds the most controversy, is that their behavior is a choice and that in itself demonstrates the deviantness of the practice. However, much like those who are born the "Wrong gender", it is an instinct and to choose to ignore it often ends up with situations such as divorced couple over one spouses coming out.

While it is not definitive that it is genetic, the fact homosexuality does exist among animals points in that direction.

An additional point of view at least meets half way, although it could be considered insulting. Some have suggested changing the wording from marriage to union, allowing the institute to remain how it has always been, however the very idea insinuates for a homosexual to be married they are ruining the very practice.

This would suggest the definition is more important then the act. It also shows a reluctance to change, however, without a re-writing of social values we would still be seeing slaves walking the streets and the south cotton fields rising again.

Established rules are not always meant to remain established, and they do not always present the moral high ground. We have no right, in the end, to disallow those of a different sexual orientation the joys and benefits of their own marriage.

Learn more about this author, Rachel Leah.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.