This is something I wrote for my English class - a research report on a "controversial issue." I did mine on gay marriage, for gay marriage. A friend of mine did that same issue, though the opposite view, and tried to express in viable words how mine was "better." But that was her opinion. I'd really like the views of those less...well, hyperactive. During our class debate on the our research paper subjects, she was labeled "Poptart," because she bounced out of her seat so often to express an argument.

Enough about her and my personal life. I hope you enjoy. And please don't send me a rant on an opposing viewpoint. I know what they are, thank you.

You are forewarned. I tended to be rather opinionated and one of my teachers said that I should become a lawyer because of some of the comments. Please, don't take offense to it.

Some regard gay marriage as an evil that should be prevented at all costs. The President of the United States himself stated he would try to make a constitutional amendment to abolish gay marriage. People all around the world are being married and getting married, but why should homosexuals and bisexuals be different? Gay marriage is a natural right and should be legal, because denying marriage rights would be oppressive and wrong. Even a group of nuns themselves have proclaimed it is "politically and morally wrong" to deny them the rights; so the religion argument cannot be completely fulfilled. Taking away such rights would also be discrimination, and there are laws against such acts. There are people's lives and relationships and feelings of fulfillment involved. Homosexuals and bisexuals deserve their rights and the recognition of a lasting and legally binding relationship. The advantages of a recognized marriage are being denied to those of "alternate lifestyles" all because of the stubbornness of people that cannot accept that homosexual relationships are valid. Denying homosexuals and bisexuals the right to marry those of the same gender is obviously wrong and discriminative.

Although many, many people claim religious reasons for not accepting homosexuality, what gives them the right? Yes, they have religion; yes, they believe in God or some other divine being; yes, their beliefs are their own and are considered valid in the eyes of the government, but what makes such a claim so absolute? A group of Catholic nuns stated that denying homosexual marriage was wrong and immoral, so there are religions and factions within religions that believe that gay marriage is valid. And isn't God in one religion or sect the same as God in another? Why are some people claiming that God approves of homosexuality while others are saying He denounces it? It seems arbitrary and wrong to put words into anyone's mouth, more so that of a supreme being. Besides, it's not as if anyone on the street can claim they follow every little detail of whatever holy literature they follow. In the Bible, it is wrong to wear gold and pearls, but women wear them all the time; there are also scriptures speaking against shaving, shellfish, pork, clothing of more than one fabric, and women wearing clothing that 'pertains to a man'. What stops people from these everyday things? Nothing. Despite people claiming a religion, they don't follow every aspect. So, why force the issue of gay marriage? All it proves is that people are oppressive and contradictory. There's no valid proof to say that God never meant to put homosexuals on this earth. After all, as Johann von Goethe so eloquently put it, "If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise." And this doesn't cover the argument concerning agnostic and atheist homophobes; there's practically no argument there.

Though, not all heterosexuals feel disgust at the mention of homosexual couples. The abhorrence seems to be restricted to closed-minded individuals that need to learn when not to open their mouths. Mr. Anthony Wilson-Smith lived near a homosexual couple for years, but felt no resentment toward them because of their sexual orientation. Even in high schools, people are growing more tolerant of homosexuality and are even embracing it. But they are, unfortunately, not the generation in control. Those of current higher power are making it difficult for homosexuality and gay marriage to bloom. President Bush made it an avid statement that he would try to make a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; sadly, his Vice President has decided to back his endeavor, despite having a lesbian daughter. Authority has power, though that power does not give those of higher position the right to exploit it for the worse of a specific group.

There are laws against discrimination, so why is it continuing? People all over claim that homosexuality is a disease. They speak of what they don't understand and it's blatant discrimination. The only thing that spreading such a rumor has induced was causing homosexuals to become sick. "The diagnosis of homosexuality as a 'disorder' is a contributing factor to the pathology of those homosexuals who do become mentally ill.... Nothing is more likely to make you sick than being constantly told that you are sick," Ronald Gold said. If it is a disease, at least, homosexuals should be able to call in sick to work to help solve their 'problem'. Nothing seems fair, and all the fingers are being pointed at the homosexuals.

Homosexuals have a right to a legally binding marriage, with all the benefits. There are civil unions, but they aren't the same. Civil unions have many critical differences from true marriage, and most of them are seen as weaknesses. For one, spouses cannot become citizens through civil union, which will be examined in further detail later. Two, a spouse in a civil union cannot collect social security benefits when his/her spouse dies, nor can he/she receive security for retirement. Three, civil unions are not recognized across state lines, thus all benefits that civil unions did provide disappear if a homosexual couple were to move to a different state. These rights are being denied homosexual couples, all because people believe civil unions are as good as marriage without 'destroying' the sanctity of marriage. Civil unions are not enough! The idea that marriage is just for a man and a woman has some serious defects. What would happen if everyone, homosexual or heterosexual, were told they could only have civil unions? This is the country of the free, is it not? A place of equality? Where are the rights? Where is the equality? Heterosexuals should put themselves in the shoes of others and realize the oppression they are forcing upon fellow human beings! Whatever happened to 'love thy neighbor'?

There are real people involved. What right do people, even the President himself, have to deny them marriage? What right does anybody have to tell them they cannot live how they desire as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others? Take Avery and Nikki for instance. They were going to be married because Mayor Gavin Newsom had begun allowing gay marriages. "We have an obligation under the equal protection clause of the Constitution to do what's right--treat people fairly with dignity on an equal basis regardless of their sexual orientation," he argued. Marina Gatto's mothers were to be married at that time. Marina had never really known her father, so she only had one parent. Then, one day her mother brought another woman home, and Marina saw them together and knew it was right. This was six years before Mayor Newsom started allowing same-sex marriages. And, after so long, her moms could be married. Unfortunately, California Supreme Court brought the marriages into consideration and could decide they were invalid. But what right did these people have to shatter the lives of the homosexuals that finally got married? Avery and Nikki never got the marriage license, but Marina's mothers did. And Marina's second mother, being an immigrant, may have to end up returning to Germany if the marriage license doesn't go through and her visa doesn't get renewed (civil unions don't provide citizenship). What's to happen to them? What right do people have to tear families apart and refuse couples to live a happily married life?

There's no doubt that whatever endeavors people make to suppress the rights of homosexuals are immoral. It is, for one, discriminative. Two, it nurtures ill feelings between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Three, it teaches younger generations to hate the differences in people, even when they should be embraced. What would existence be without differences? Hackneyed and predictable. What makes discrimination against homosexuals different from discrimination against African Americans? Or Hispanics? There are laws against hate crimes and racism, but why not against homophobia? It's really sad that the people in this country are so narrow-minded. There are countries around the world that have recognized homosexual marriages--France, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, for example--so why can't the United States? Is it that homosexuality is seen as a disease? Is it that homosexuals are seen to only have sex and not truly love? Or is it that the epitome of the human race is just a thick-headed bigot? One, homosexuality has not been established as a disease. Sure, there have been signs of physiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but that doesn't classify it as a disease; that's like saying people with blue eyes, as opposed to brown, are diseased. And homosexuals do love each other. As Boy George said, "There's this illusion that homosexuals have sex and heterosexuals fall in love. That's completely untrue. Everybody wants to be loved." And finally, it's only possible to hope that human kind is a little more comprehensive than thick-headed bigots, though that's not saying there are none.

People are people. Of course opinions will vary, but why should those opinions place a block in front of the rights of others? If someone says something, chances are, someone else will listen. Anita Bryant said, "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children." Homosexuals recruit no one. If a person is gay, he or she is gay; recruitment, or spreading of disease, takes no part in this. But Anita Bryant was heard, no matter how she was argued with. There's no reason she has the right to condemn homosexuals, just as no one has the right to prevent gay marriage. The opinion of one person will always be put into question, and always be defended. But do opinions really matter when the relationships and fulfillment of human beings are put into question? That is always to be left up to the individual. Though, as Dr. Seuss put it, "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

There you have it. Have a nice day.