It is clear that gay marriage hurts nobody, so why all the fuss? For millennia, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have each discriminated against the gay population. Why? Their god tells them to. Now while that is FAR from ok in Islamic society, or in Christian states, or even Jewish states, it has NO place in America. America has a “wall of separation” between church and state, not strictly guaranteed by the constitution as commonly thought, but invented by Thomas Jefferson. Religion has been used to justify oppression throughout history. In ancient Rome, Jews and Christians were second-class citizens. The Romans were very accepting of other religions, as long as you accepted theirs. However, the rule against false idols made it impossible for Judaism or Christianity to be practiced, and it went underground for quite some time, before Constantine ruled it the official religion of Rome. Religion has also justified countless atrocities, including the Crusades, and imperialism, based on anti-Hamitic (hatred of Africans) and anti-Semitic (hatred of Jews) beliefs, both biblical in origin. As well, religion justified slavery in America. Now it is oppressing another segment of society, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, and queers, more commonly known as GLBTQ. Many people even consider those words I previously said as insults, and thus my words would be construed as an insult. However, I see them as badges of the self, and I would be glad to add “straight” to that list, so that it may define that which is more commonly known as humanity. In America there is a divide. The conservatives, who tend to want a ban on gay marriage, or at best, civil unions. The liberal party general aims for civil unions with equal rights. But nobody seems to champion the rights that these people deserve, except a few radical judges who passed legislation briefly for gay marriage certificates, mainly in San Francisco and Massachusetts. These marriages have since been annulled by the government party currently in power.

Many argue that gay marriage is immoral. This would certainly hold true if Christian/Islam/Judaism morals were all encompassing. However, they are hardly even relevant, with no factual evidence supporting any of them. Sure, Jesus and Mohammed existed, but their divinity cannot be shown. That aside even if there were 100% certainty in the truth of those religions, banning gay marriage for religious arguments would violate the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. However, this argument goes hand in hand with the argument that gay marriage violates the sanctity of the sacred tradition of marriage. Now of course, I won’t bring up the fact that sacred and sanctity are religious words. However, the only reason anybody could ever think that, to draw a line from everyone’s most controversial history teacher, is because they’re racist. Not to say they wake up every morning thinking “how can I screw Jews today?”. Merely that their view of the earth is very oriented towards western culture. In 1756, Native Americans in Brazil were found to have a part of their culture, allowing women to give up their lives a women, fulfilling the duties of men instead, and each taking a wife. As well, the Native American Berdache “deviates from his or her traditional gender role, taking on some of the characteristics and perceived responsibilities of the opposite sex “. Same sex marriages of gender-crossing men (alyha) and women (hwame), were institutionalized and accepted as part of Native American culture. Female berdache “were integral to women's ability to achieve a higher status in most Native American cultures”. African warriors married young boys and shared a bond physically, intimately, and sexually as well as through the comradeship of hunting/war. I could bore you on and on with cultures including the Incas, Native Americans, Africans, and Asians who all had gay-marriage institutions. So therefore the argument that marriage is a tradition between a man and a woman is completely biased. In America, according to the free exercise (of religion) clause, a descendant of any of these cultures could legally apply for a marriage license to one of the same sex. Therefore, not to allow these same rights and benefits to ethnicities other than those above, would be discrimination based on race. As well, the ‘sacred tradition of marriage’ is really nothing more than a sexist ploy, deriving from an even more sexist book, the bible. Women had no real value in society up until the 20th century, and marriage epitomized this. Women were effectively sold into marriage, between dowries, and paying for weddings. In some Asian cultures, a firstborn female would be killed. Marriage was necessary for women financially. Now, when women have equal rights with men, and neither needs the stability provided by the other, shouldn’t marriage be allowed between any 2 consenting adults?

Another argument against gay marriage derives from the fact that those raised in gay families are more likely to be gay. First and foremost, this argument holds no water, for nobody has even shown gay marriage or gay relationships to be wrong in anyways, except the qualms, religion, and racism of western culture, so who cares if this causes more people to be gay. Secondly it could be that their higher acceptance of homosexuality causes them to accept their own. Is increasing tolerance in the world a bad thing? I’d like to think not. Lastly, people argue that the purpose of marriage is children, and it is unnecessary without them. Firstly, this ignores the huge adoption problem. Secondly, ought we in turn ban barren women from marrying? Or set an age limit? What about people who CHOOSE not to have children? Their marriages should all be annulled if we follow this. With the amounts of children in orphanages, do we really NEED more straight marriage? Perhaps gay marriages societal are even more stable, because pregnancy is 100% planned.

The argument above that gay marriage is completely harmless and already legal is viable, however, not only does it have no negatives, but gay marriage offers a multitude of societal benefits. Opponents of gay marriage often cite statistics showing the gay community to be more promiscuous. However, this data is vastly misleading. First of all, it only shows relations between 2 men. Men think about sex once every 6.7 seconds, and I’m assuming the number for women is significantly lower, because it is never cited. Men are actually programmed genetically basically, to have sex and have it often, in the promotion of our genes, where as women’s genes trend more towards singularity and community, which makes sense with children to take care of (this is obviously before anyone thought of maternity leave, only by hundreds of thousands of years). Therefore, a relationship between 2 men will involve more sex, just as the opposite holds true for lesbian relationships. Secondly, without hope, or even a concept of singularity (marriage) how can you define promiscuity. An adulterous relationship simply cannot exist in the gay community, yet these are cited as evidence of the community’s “promiscuity”. Gays are not more inclined to be unfaithful, this is just a misleading statistic. As well, being a “swinger couple” has never stopped a straight marriage, yet that same carefree lifestyle is used to condemn gays. Where is the justice? Marriage would however, make the gay community more accepted, and more stable. Also, gay marriage allows for adoption. Under the current process, civil unions, the paperwork just for “marriage” in the simplest sense of the words, a joining, is much more complex. The processes for divorce and adoption is much harder. Sure, it is a secondary reason, but as cited above, what civilization couldn’t use more adoption?

As if the arguments that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, except western and judeo-christian bias, as well as the many benefits it would bring. Now while I have no influence over actually church marriage, state marriage should not be based on it, because of the first amendment. Therefore, the definition of marriage not only should be, but is required to be amended by law to be marriage between any consenting adults, not just those of he opposite sex, by the free exercise clause and equal opportunity laws.