Taking a step back from the hubbub of the news cycle and the side-A versus side-B kind of coverage given to everything that can be reported, let's think about an issue from both sides and come up with a reasonable argument for or against it based upon logic. Let's talk about gay marriage.

Gay marriage, yes. Today let's drop the a-bomb of politics on a website that normally doesn't discuss such things unless thinly veiled behind sub-par fiction. Gay marriage, depending on the pundit, is either an equal rights issue or proof of the decline of Western Civilization. It's either a grand step forward or an example of how the world of man has forsaken God for good this time. Tricky. Tricky. Tricky. So which is it?

The truth is, it's neither. The way the world is today, people can live with and screw whomever they desire. There are some problems, sure, but it's not like heterosexual relationships are all wine and roses either. Take the heterosexual betrothed of the 9/11 disaster that got not a dime from their loved one's deaths. But the end of civilization? Hardly. Homosexual relationships have been around as long as man – or woman for that matter. Both sides agree on that point if even they disagree on the meaning. If letting two people who want to enter the bonds of marriage – emphasis on bonds – means that the very fabric of society will come undone then we should consider what material said fabric is and whether it may not be worth undoing.

Does marriage have sanctity? Yes. Marriage is sanctified by the keepers of the faith that the two who wish to enter into the institution hold as their own. A Roman-Catholic priest sanctifies it by passing on the blessings of his god and so it should be. Government, on the other hand, has no place in preserving "sanctity" as government is not a sanctified institution. Government exists to maintain order and sometimes preserving that order goes against what a church may deem as holy by necessity. If it is decided that it is governments place to be the guardian of sanctity then the question must be asked, "Who's?" There are hundreds of religions in this country and many of them have different ideas on what marriage is about. When government gets involved it starts to bring up sticky issues of church and state and rightly so.

So the next logical question is, "What is government's role in marriage then?" Traditionally the justification for the passing out of marriage licenses is a reason of health: To make sure a brother and sister don't marry and some such. A fine reason to be sure but as there are no innate health consequences to being homosexual, this justification cannot be used to stand in the way. Lacking that, for what reason can government use to deny gay marriage?

"But homosexuals have higher rates of HIV, various STDs and other crap," some might say. Maybe, maybe not. This author doesn't have data either way but common sense might be able to help out. Risky behavior leads to STDs. If a man were to have unprotected sex with one hundred partners, male or female, the chances of receiving HIV would be astronomical. There are heterosexuals that lead said lifestyle and homosexuals that lead very careful, safe, and monogamous lives. One is not inherently more dangerous than the other, it's entirely in how one leads their life. Marriage - with its financial and legal benefits - encourage an individual to settle down with another in a long-term monogamous relationship thus leading to the safest possible lifestyle available.

As each of these questions is answered, through either logic or common sense, it would seem that extending the institution of marriage to homosexuals could only be a good thing.

"But the children, what about the children," people ask. It's always about the children. Or so it seems. Ban violence from comic books because Tales From The Crypt is turning a whole generation into deviants. Make it illegal to sell Grand Theft Auto to underage kids because it will make them want to visit prostitutes and kill them. Oh, the humanity. What the latter completely ignores is that crime rates have done nothing but fall for the last fifteen years, but at least there's a justification.

In what way will gay marriage hurt "the children?" This is the question long left unanswered. The opponents to gay marriage scream it from the rafters but they never say how and this is perhaps the most interesting argument of the bunch. Homosexuals have been allowed to adopt children for the better part of two decades now and, because of in vitro fertilization, they have been creating their own for nearly as long. If having a gay parent is harmful to the child then the youth crime or drug statistics have yet to bare this out in anyway these things are typically tracked. But an important consideration is what these children do not have.

The children of gay parents do not have the same legal protections as the children of heterosexuals. If one parent leaves, then no child support is due the way the law is written. A court case in California is currently deciding how the state will deal with said circumstance but gay marriage would provide this by default. It actually seems as though the children are more harmed by the lack of such an institution than the other way around. Children of heterosexuals should not even enter the consideration since their parents are already part of the "status quo" and would not be affected in the least.

It is said that God created marriage as a union between a man and a woman. If that is true then the religions that believe in this are under no obligation to sanctify the relationship. Neither would be an officer of the law or judge that disagrees with the idea. But if a couple can find someone who wishes to officiate, there is no viable reason to deny such a union.

Looking at the arguments, one is compelled to think that gay marriage could only be a good thing. And though this author may count himself as a heterosexual and is already entitled to the benefits upon settling down one day, he can see no reason to deny homosexuals the same should they wish to as well.