Recently, ideas about homosexuality have been changing across the country. Gallup surveys show that in 2002, 52 percent of the Americans surveyed felt that “homosexuality should be an acceptable alternative life-style.” In contrast, only 34 percent of those surveyed agreed with that statement in 1977.

Total support for homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage and adoption is a long way off. But, perhaps people would be more accepting if they recognized the flaws in some common arguments against homosexuality. Some feel homosexuality is wrong because of religious beliefs. The Bible is often cited as a source that backs this. Leviticus 18:22 states, “You shall not lie with man as one lies with a woman; this is an abomination.” Many interpret this passage to mean that homosexuality is wrong without looking at what the passage goes on to say. The passage lists other unapproved activities; including tattoos, certain types of meat that can’t be eaten, men are not allowed to cut or shave their beards, and other standards. Even devote Christians do not follow all the rules listed. It seems unfair to cite the Bible as a reference against same-sex relationships when much of what it says about other areas is ignored.

Another common argument against homosexual relationships is that they are unnatural because they cannot lead to reproduction like heterosexual relationships. But, if this idea were followed, then even sex between heterosexual couples without the intention of having children would be unnatural. Furthermore, homosexuality can be found in nature. Penguins, grizzlies, gorillas, monkeys, flamingos, owls, and rams have all been known to have homosexual pairs.

A final argument against homosexuality is that it is a willful choice the individual makes. Yet, research done over the past few years lends support to the idea that sexual orientation is caused by biological factors. Scientists have found that the size of cell clusters in the hypothalamus can influence sexual orientation. Similar discoveries have been made about another part of the brain; a section of the anterior commissure.

Other evidence suggests that genes play a large role in sexual orientation. Fruit flies can be genetically altered to behave as the opposite sex would when courting other fruit flies. Multiple studies have found that homosexuality runs in families.

Still other studies show that the prenatal environment affects one’s sexual orientation. A German researcher has been able to reverse rats’ sexual orientations by manipulating male hormonal levels in the womb. Other evidence seems to suggest that human sexual orientation can also be controlled by changing hormonal levels.

If people understood that homosexuality is not a result of choice, perhaps they would be more open to homosexual marriage and adoption. Unfortunately, most state governments have taken an opposite stand on these issues. Twenty-seven states have changed their constitutions to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Seven states have banned homosexual marriages. Homosexual marriages may be facing opposition because they are not traditional marriages.

Interracial marriages were once untraditional. But, because it was once unpopular does not make it wrong. Society’s definition of marriage changed with changing times. Legalizing same-sex marriage would be helpful to homosexual couples. It would allow them to share economic benefits and allow one to make healthcare decisions for the other in a medical emergency.

Weak reasons support the conclusion that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt as well. It has been suggested that children raised by homosexual parents might be more likely to become homosexual themselves. Others worry about the teasing a child might endure if they are raised by parents of the same sex. Finally, it is even claimed that these children will suffer from a lack of role models if adopted by a homosexual couple.

In response to these claims, studies show that children raised by two mothers develop their sexual identity through the same ways that the children of heterosexual parents do. No Evidence has been found that shows a definite direct link between the environment one’s raised in and his/her sexual orientation. As for the teasing a child might endure, making it legal for homosexuals to adopt would lessen the social stigma around it. If people became more accepting of adoption by same sex couples, children would learn not to bully kids growing up in such homes. Finally, the argument that children adopted by same-sex couples would suffer from a lack of role models is implausible. Children raised by single parents don’t have a parent of each sex. This fact does not prohibit single parents from adopting.

Legalizing same-sex adoption would benefit children in these homes. The children would be able to receive their non-biological parent’s insurance and benefits. They could also live with their non-biological parent if their biological parent died rather than being sent to foster care.

Changing attitudes about homosexuality will continue to shape the debates about homosexual marriage and adoption. Hopefully people will come to realize that there are benefits in homosexual marriage and adoption and recognize that homosexual relationships can be a part of each area.

I keep waiting for a challenge to the legitimacy of marriage itself to make its way through the courts. I’m under the impression that the definition of marriage itself ought to be declared unconstitutional and stricken from the law books everywhere as a violation of the separation of church and state. Even a famous king by the name of Henry recognized that marriage was an inherently religious concept, and rather than wield his considerable influence over civil law to grant himself a divorce, he had to break England away from the Catholic Church, create the Anglican Church, declare himself the new church’s head, and THEN grant himself a divorce. Marriage is backed by tradition in America, alright, but it’s religious tradition that not only infringes upon the human rights of homosexuals, but also infringes upon the human rights of those who hold fast to religious faiths apart from Christianity, or who hail from cultures that allow for different structures in family than the model presented by many Christian conservatives.

Should the law sanction homosexual marriage? I don’t believe so. Marriage is a religious concept, charged with all the inarguable passions that religion stirs, and it belongs in the realm of the church(es). Should the law sanction heterosexual marriage? Again, I don’t believe so. Again, separation of church and state. I fully support the right of churches everywhere to decide for themselves and their members, who do and do not have the right to marry in the eyes of god(s). The state, meanwhile, should content itself with the business of ensuring equality for everyone and with the business of ensuring social stability by providing laws which define civil unions, so that people can structure families in keeping with their own views, determining such issues as shared custody of children, inheritance matters, medical and insurance benefits to be shared with civil partners, etc.

If this change in our laws doesn’t take place to bring about equality, then I guess I’m in support of same-sex marriage being on the law books as the second-best option. And I guess I’ll wait to see a different kind of challenge make its way through the courts someday: as Henry had to create his own church to grant himself a divorce, same-sex couples might have to create their own church to grant themselves a marriage. When the government denies its validity, challenge it on the grounds that you’ve been married in keeping with your religious faiths, and cite the long tradition of the importance attached to marriage by religion. To deny same-sex couples the same rights conferred to opposite-sex couples would be to place one set of religious beliefs over another.

Again, it almost shouldn’t even be a debate. Such a religiously-charged concept has questionable place in our nation’s laws. To impose the beliefs of a specific religion on all Americans would be to view our American melting pot as something to throw people of different cultures and beliefs into for a long, slow boil.

Role of the church: define and argue in favor of marriage as deemed appropriate in the eyes of God/gods.

Role of the state: ensure equality and social stability, and create an environment where all citizens fully know the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.