So . . . I live in Iowa. We let homosexuals marry here.

Wait! Don’t drive to Iowa as fast as you can in your pickup truck with your loaded shotgun just yet! There’s more to this story.

Yes, Iowa has let homosexuals wed for around a year now. This controversial move marked the beginning of what many thought would be a massive societal overhaul in the state, a movement that would flip our culture and community upside-down.

Nothing happened.

No, really. After a year of allowing homosexual marriage, a whopping 92% of Iowans said that “marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples had led to no real change in their own life.” The divorce rates in the state actually dropped, and the net GDP of Iowa rose by 5.3 million dollars.

Groovy.

Let’s look at the social arguments against same-sex marriage: In my youth I attended the Unitarian Universalist Society of Iowa City (we’ll shorten it to “the UU”), a church whose focus was accepting others. Members of the UU were a great conglomeration of different people: heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, whateveryoucanthinkof-sexuals, and members of almost every other religious creed that exists. I talked with these people. I ate meals with them. I laughed, told jokes, took camping trips and had fun with them, and I couldn’t help but notice something.

Disregarding their sexuality, they were just like me. They were all equally human. They were all Americans, and each and every one of them deserved every right that all Americans are given just as much as any heterosexual person. Homosexuals are in every way equal to all of us, and the allowance of their love has been empirically proven to not harm our society in any way. The denial of rights to homosexuals is contrary to the ideals of our founding fathers to ensure liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all people. In the end, granting same-sex marriage rights not only does nothing to harm our society, but further upholds and protects American ideals.

The religious arguments are a bit tougher to tackle: God definitely says in the Old Testament that homosexual relations are, well, sinful. That can’t be questioned, but what can be questioned is the legitimacy of basing arguments off of the Old Testament.
As far as bloody books go, the Old Testament is right up there. With passages demanding the execution of uncircumcised boys, the submission of women to man’s bidding and the slaughtering of those who practice different faiths, a book as reactionary as the OT is definitely a dangerous book to base arguments on. After all, you can’t pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament you’ll follow; if you don’t follow all of it, God will shower you with the curses that are given in the next 52 years (28:16-68). Cite the Old Testament as your source as to why homosexual marriage is wrong and you sure as hell (pun!) better be OK with the rest of what the ancient document says.

Which, of course, better not be the case. In the end, the passages and excerpts that people use to denounce homosexual marriage for religious reasons come from a text that is far too reactionary and brutal to base one’s life, much less one’s social policies on. Furthermore, any all-knowing God would know immediately upon seeing Iowa that same-sex marriage is not a sin. Their love is as good and pure as anybody else’s, and it does not take an omniscient being to realize that.

I could wrap this whole piece of writing in a single sentence: homosexuals deserve the same rights as everybody else. They are as every bit as human and American as we are, and their love is by no means sinful or illegitimate. They are people, we are people, and hopefully the day will come when we can stand side-by-side, with the same rights and same liberties, and with that come one step closer to achieving an equitable and just society.