A/N: This is an essay I had to write for my Voter Prep. (political science) class at school. My friend (Namir Swiftpaw) and I taught a mini-unit for the class on Civil Unions and marriage/divorce laws. We then had to write a persuasive essay for or against Civil Unions/gay marriage. I unfortunately was made to argue the against position, despite all my personal beliefs. I DO NOT FEEL THIS WAY AT ALL! All I could think of while writing this were ways to prove all these arguments wrong. Regrettably, it is mostly a religious based argument, but that is the main argument most people make. Others say it has no sway in a political argument, but I beg to differ. This is, admittedly, not one of the best essays I’ve ever written. I just thought I’d post it.

Historically, the United States has always been a group of people unsatisfied with the way in which they are treated. They’ve even been known as radicals at one point or another. Such a term does not easily fall short of the truth. In seventeenth century Massachusetts, the Puritans made a home for themselves. They left their native land of England to seek not only religious opportunities, but political liberties as well. Unable to change the supposedly corrupt government, they packed everything and left for the New World¾ a radically conservative move. In the twentieth century, a few hundred years after the Puritans, McCarthy headed his trials against the ever-present threat of Communists. Because, of course, Communism was the radical root of all evil, and, therefore, was the root of all the United States’ problems. As abortion became legal, apparently so did the militant movement against it. Angered religious zealots moved to radically impose new laws on abortion clinics, going as far as to bomb said clinics.

In the year 2000, the tiny state of Vermont made yet another extreme move. Its supreme court ordered the legislature to accommodate three same-sex couples who claimed that their rights to common benefits under the state’s constitution had been violated by refusal of marriage licenses. The ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor resulted in Vermont’s avant-garde Civil Unions bill. Homosexual couples from around the country trekked to this tiny place where one of the first steps to marital equality had been taken. Symbolism overpowered the knowledge that such a union would not be acknowledged in their own home states. Still, it was a step for affirmative action in Vermont and supposedly a step for homosexual rights. Still further, it is a step towards the degradation of the institution of marriage by giving homosexuals the closest union they could have without actually being united in a matrimonial sense. By allowing homosexuals to have civil unions, it destroys the integrity of marriage and causes yet another lapse in the ever-deteriorating family life of America today.

Certainly, religious zeal is a common denominator in today’s stand against same-sex unions. Why should it not be? According to the Christian Bible, God created Adam in his own image. He thought, then, that his new child should have a companion. So, from one of Adam’s ribs, Eve was born. "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man" (Genesis 2:22). It is in this instance that God’s intentions were for a man to marry a woman. If a man were to love a man, then from Adam’s loins Evan would have been born. Instead, it was Eve, thus instituting marriage as a union between man and woman. The question of whether or not that relationship should be monogamous is still debated in various cultures, but the overall ruling is that, yes, one husband or wife is how it should be.

Same-sex marriage would start the Untied States down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy, and all kinds of other horrid consequences. If it were to be decided that a man could marry a man, why could he not marry two women, or his brother, or even a cow? Not only is marriage defined by religion, but it has also been defined by numerous governments, including the United States. But what business is it of the government’s to define what a family should be? Especially when said government can not pay less than five hundred dollars for a toilet seat. While the U.S. has defined what marriage is in legal workings, it has maintained, in essence, the biblical definition that has stood the test of millennia of recorded Judeo-Christian history. (And even in nations not based in the Judeo-Christian tradition, such as Japan, have come to realize that marriage restricted to one man and one woman as a family unit produces the most stable and harmonious society.)

Marriage, thus, is an holy institution. According to Joel Odom of .net, marriage is an irrevocable covenant meant to last a lifetime. The Bible teaches that, in marriage, a man and a woman supplement each other emotionally, spiritually, as well as physically. One of the obvious purposes of marriage, then, is procreation. “Historically, marriage forged a powerful connection between sexual love, procreation, and the care of children” (Marriage and Divorce, Commonweal, 151). In many religious families, this value still holds true and parents teach it to their children. Marriage is a man and a woman creating a family. Vermont’s Civil Union bill seems to falsify this idea.

Several statements citing homosexuality as an “abomination” appear in the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 says straight out that “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.” A man and a woman were biologically meant to procreate. (If such is the case, then nature itself did not intend for homosexuality.) Procreation is the action in which living beings produce new living beings. A man and a man or a woman and a woman can not procreate. If marriage is the basis with which a family is built, then gay marriages should not be legalized. If they can not create children of their own, then they can not provide the optimum environment in which to raise an adoptive child.

Vermont’s new Civil Union law has become a symbolic marriage to many in the homosexual community. However, the civil union itself does not equate to permission to live as a homosexual family. In other states, homosexuals can still live together, in some cases even raise (usually adoptive) children. In this case, the same-sex couple would be living in sin and therefore against the teachings of the church.

In summary, Adam and Eve were created as an example of marriage— the way God thought it should be. Marriage was thus defined as a monogamous union between a man and a woman with the duty to procreate and care for a family. On the other hand, the United States government has defined a family as two married people who may file taxes jointly, own community property, or adopt children. Both the government and the Bible have shown that there are negative feelings about the homosexual community and it’s desire for marriage. We continue to destroy the integrity of marriage while contributing to the deterioration of American family life by allowing homosexuals to have civil unions. Who is to say that marriage has maintained integrity since its conception? Maybe as far back as the ancient Greeks, people have entered into marriage for the sake of political advancement and financial betterment. Marriage was a highly controlled thing by priests and such. Who is to say that the homosexual movement for marital equality is the true degradation to marriage? One can never be certain, but one can always assume.