Click Here If You're Against Gay Marriage and Civil Unions

While there was once a time when the arguments against gay marriage and same-sex civil unions were one in the same, since marriage was considered to be a civil union and vice verse, now that term "civil union" has been assigned to describe same-sex partnerships which receive similar martial benefits in a union that is everything but a marriage, those strongly against gay marriage have settled down in their beliefs that same-sex civil unions and other domestic partnerships should also be denied to our nation's homosexual community.

In the minds of those against gay marriage, after all, the prospect of a civil union law for same-sex couples often suggests that a law authorizing gay marriage is not so far out of reach. And so while the arguments against gay marriage are definitely both more intense and prevalent across the country in comparison to those against same-sex civil unions, to understand where one debate comes from, we must understand the basis of the other.

Over the past decades, the main arguments against gay marriage have been consistent in that they, time and time again, claim the following:

That marriage is a heterosexual institution, that marriage is sacred religious institution, and that marriage is a traditional institution.

That marriage is for procreation, and hence, that homosexual partnerships would ultimately contribute to the human race dying out because of this lack of procreation.

That same-sex couples do not provide a proper environment in which to raise children.

All of these popular arguments against gay marriage and same-sex civil unions however, lack the necessary facts that would otherwise give the statements any real value. Instead, they cement themselves as close-minded expressions of bigotry which play purely on discriminating ideals; and they should hold no place in today's modern world. Those against gay marriage often forget that American law is not, in fact, predicated by religion (and more specifically, by the Bible), and that freedom of religion means freedom from religion, and all of it's attached ideologies, as well.

Those against gay marriage and similar homosexual partnerships also forget that a person's sexual preference does not interfere with the amount of love and support which a parent is capable of providing to his or her children. There are many heterosexual relationships with parents who are addicts, who abuse and abandon, who commit crimes, and who, despite being attracted to the opposite sex, fail to fulfill the proper duties of parenting.

And in many cases, gay partnerships are the ones to step up and adopt children left behind from failed heterosexual marriages, so the issue of procreation (especially when overpopulation affects our world more than anything), once again, holds no worthy place in the debate against same-sex marriages.

So although it is indeed true that several things threaten the so-called "institution" of marriage, for example, relationships which are based on money over love or on green cards over lifelong commitment, and the high divorce rate should be enough evidence of this, homosexuality, and the attached arguments against gay marriage, should not be one of them. Slavery, too, after all, was at one point considered an American "institution" of sorts, but the realization that it was inhumane and morally wrong on so many different accounts eventually did come, in time. One can only hope that the same realization strikes in the ongoing argument against gay marriage.