(First published in the Vallejo Times-Herald) 

In following the train of thought on the subject of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry, I notice the main disagreements seem actually to revolve around the origins and definitions of “marriage” and “homosexuality.”
While not advocating for or against same-sex marriage, I think it’s possible to reason the whole thing out.
The origins and basis for the institution of marriage are a lot easier to come by, so let’s start there.
Though marriage has come, in Western culture, to represent the codification of love between two people, love really had nothing to do with it for most of human history.
The idea of official pairings solved several pragmatic problems for early family and tribal groups, and ultimately made possible the development of civilization.
Females and offspring needed protection and economic support and males needed to feel reasonably certain that the children they were supporting were their own. Many experts believe there is a biological imperative driving this.
Since those earliest days of human history, marriages have been used to cement alliances and to secure wealth and power, and the personal and religious implications didn’t come into play until much later.
The religious imperatives attached to marriage were likely added to help ensure the populace had a compelling reason to maintain this basic societal glue, whether they felt like it or not. The same reason prohibitions against other civilization-killers like murder, stealing and bearing false witness were introduced, whether by God or man.
Homosexuality is another matter, entirely.
Mentions of the “practice” are with us since the dawn of history, so, one might conclude that homosexuals have been with us since the beginning. Since most stuff that’s been part of humanity that long, including the really negative stuff like violence, has come to be recognized as “human nature,” I’m guessing homosexuality is “natural” for some humans. Maybe it’s God’s population control method. Who knows?
But, whether it’s a positive, negative or neutral human trait, I’m reasonably certain that for most homosexuals, it’s no more a choice than their hair color or IQ.
On one blog, someone asked an anti-gay when exactly the blogger made the choice to be heterosexual. An excellent question. I can only speak for myself, but I never consciously made any such choice. If it’s not a conscious choice, if people’s sexual orientation is hard-wired, then one can not be “made” homosexual any more than homosexuality can be “cured.”
Besides, with the exception of someone with major masochistic tendencies, no one in their right mind would elect to be gay in a world where this lifestyle will almost certainly add uncomfortable complications and, in some cases, can kill you.
To suggest otherwise is as ridiculous as those who insist “the Jews” are impostors with nefarious designs on the Holy Land. Anyone “choosing” to be a Jew for the past 2,000 years, knowing that contempt, massacres, forced conversions and expulsions were more common than not, would have to have had a death wish.
In fact, many more Jews chose to try to become otherwise over the past millennia than have elected to join “the tribe,” because it has always been safer that way.
It is the rare society that has ever looked with anything but contempt on homosexuals, and this is most true in societies in which the Arbahamic religions — orthodox Judaism, Christianity and Islam — predominate.
I think it’s possible that the admonition against the practice, however, may have had its origins in early civilization’s need to ensure the group’s continued existence by way of population growth.
This is obviously no longer a concern.
So, most of the original reasons for marriage have fallen away as unnecessary, while the idea of marriage as the codification of affection between two people and the official creation and recognition of a “family,” has come to be why most people marry.
If homosexuality is not a choice, but is “natural” for some people, and if marriage officially creates a stable family unit, I’m not sure where the controversy is.

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here