The gay marriage debate/controversy has always been an issue that has attracted my interest. As a young child, my knee jerk reaction was to relate the plight of gays to the plight of African-americans. This sympathy has, however, waned significantly in recent years. Only recently, have I come to a belief about gay marriage on which I'm quite firm and unmoving (though open to other ideas).

I know many on this site are open, mindful, accepting, and understanding of homosexuals (so perhaps this won't piss off nearly as many people as I hope ;P). And many of you might agree with my opinion on gay marriage. But for those of you who don't, I'd really like to hear how in the world you manage to believe what you do without realizing how glaringly inconsistent, mistaken, and sometimes homophobic you are being.

First, my opinion. I believe that opposition to civil unions between homosexuals is unfounded. I believe that opposition to marriage between homosexuals is unfounded. And I believe that any church or private institution that refuses to marry homosexuals, who are otherwise average citizens, ought to be made by power of law to marry homosexuals.

I recognize those last couple statements may come with some controversy, but hear me out. I promise that I will earnestly hear out any opinions/arguments against my own, as well.

But first, the civil unions argument. 1) Legally, there's no reason to deny homosexuals the right to be civilly united (that sounds awful btw). Certain rights come with being legally joined and homosexuals have every right to exercise those rights if they see fit. Religious definitions of marriage (i.e. that it is strictly between a man and a woman) need not come into play here since civil unions do not involve the church.

Before I move on, a bit more on this point for those who still aren't satisfied. Laws exist to preserve order and prevent anarchy or oppression. Laws with a purpose outside of this are superfluous, unconstitutional, and ought to be thrown out (that is not to say that there are not many laws like this, but the topic of this debate is gay marriage so we'll limit it to that). When laws are put in place without consideration as to how they preserve order and prevent lawlessness and oppression, fascism or anarchy results. For example, a law allowing luxury cars to run red lights would result in a significant amount of damage. Laws however demanding that all cars stop at red lights and stop signs, that we obey speed limits, etc., keep people safe and peaceful.

Prohibiting gay civil unions fulfills none of these categories. Gays will not, upon being legally joined, run through the streets causing damage. They will not negatively effect the ability of others to marry. So prohibition of gay marriage is without grounds.

Now, moving on to my later claims. i) The church defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman under god. ii) The bible also explicitly mentions that homosexuals are "abominations." (you can look that quote up if you want, I promise it's in there, I just can't recall what book, verse or chapter). These "reasons" are what Christians say are grounds for their refusal to acknowledge that gays can love each other eternally under god.

Statement (i) seems to be the most damaging to my points, because it is a definition of marriage. But why do Christians define marriage between a man and a woman? Christians imply that this statement specifies that gays ought not be included. However, that statement does not uphold to even the most basic scrutiny. First, we must recognize that when church doctrine concerning marriage was first established there were likely a significantly less number of homosexuals marrying each other. The context of the era was strictly hetero. The definition of marriage is more an explanation of what occurs rather than a textbook to guide us on future conclusions about marriage. At the VERY least, there is no overt indication int he bible that the definition of marriage provided is meant for us to assess marriage in the future. Even today, the Catholic Church is constantly revising its opinions in an effort to modernize and establish a working context. The era in which marriage was "defined" is nothing like the modern era. To hinge an entire argument on this simple definition, bereft of context and explanation is flimsy to say the least.

Of course, Christians may argue that God need not give explanations. What he says is simply enough. To those of you who say that, I pose the question, "How do you know what God meant by those words?" It is very likely that God was speaking only on society in that era. God certainly never mentioned about online porn. That is why Christianity must grow and reevaluate itself as the world changes. (That was why there were prophets. Every so often, one of them came along to "modernize" the religion with a new word of god, making things more clear and better fit for the area. It's a real shame we haven't had one in so long. I really wonder why that is.)

Now that we can throw out the definition of marriage as a valid argument, let's look at this whole "gays are abominations" sympathy that runs throughout Christianity. The bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin and that gays are abominations. So why let them marry? They are bad people according to the bible. Well, because Christianity is a religion that bases itself on accepting sinners and wrongdoers. Does the Christian church regularly to refuse convicted felons? Wife-beaters? Terrorists? Pedophiles? Or any number of monsters who has been married under Christian tradition? The answer is an emphatic NO. Christianity embraces sinners, accepting them for their humanity and vulnerability. Seeking to help them better themselves, even if they make little real effort themselves. How then, can homosexuality be so above and beyond these other offenses that it would be unreasonable to marry one? If someone can answer that question without referring to the definition of marriage which I've just debunked, then please respond to this post or NB me.

Having analyzed the anti-gay marriage arguments available, I see no qualified reason to deny gays the right to marriage. In fact, refusal to marry someone based on sexual preference is discrimination and the government has grounds to force churches into marrying gays. Church and state might be separate, but that does not make churches a safe haven for law breaking and discrimination is breaking the law.

One cannot refuse to serve someone based on the color of their skin, their country of ancestry, or their favorite color. So why their sexual preference?

The only phenomenon that can explain this is the veiled homophobia that runs rampant in American society. It appalls me to see people so speciously argue against gay marriage.

If anyone can better explain to me the reasoning behind those against gay marriage, please let me know.

And for those Christians out there who are not against gay marriage and to whom this post is not in any way directed at, please do not feel like I'm berating all Christians. I know and care about many Christians, consider them close friends, and respectable people. But on this issue, I cannot understand their beliefs. Only homophobia explains them.