The case for gay marriage is really a case that shouldn’t be. Gay people should not have to fight to have the right to be legally married. But since some religious group in this country are somewhat threaten and confused about the right that gay people would received under the law, than it’s only right that the case for gay marriage be explicit.

First, all religions should try to understand that any right that is granted to gay people under the law will not infringe their religious rights or belief. Any disposition in that regard would be a disrespectful to religious rights. No religious group will be force to married gay people if they wish not to.

Now, although some religious group does have other reasons why they opposed gay marriage, none of them are valid enough to disclaim why same sex marriage is wrong.

An argument can be made as such, since not all of us are religious, we should not all obliged to answer to religious belief. Some could also argued even if we were all religious, we should have the right to dispute what ever preaching that seems inconsistent with individual faith. For the religious group to say that the Bible imposed that marriage between same sex couple is wrong, and therefore same sex marriage is prohibited is not a sounded argument to some people, especially those who have no faith in the Bible. It would seem to me that if we’re not all religious than we shouldn’t all be judge by Bible principles. Any attempt to applied Bible principles to judge none believers, is a disrespectful to their faith. It is as if we’re treating them like they never existed. We should really respect all human kind regardless of their faith, that’s the Bible principle I believe in.

Another important point that I’d like to clarify is that the fight for gay marriage is merely a fight for recognition, because whether or not we choose not to acknowledge them, they will always exist. They will always be gay families regardless of what the law decides on; hence this fight is about respect and the right to pass on legal benefit to their love ones. Now since we’ve already established that gay families will continue to exist regardless of what the law says, it’s now comprehendsable to ask what is the definition of a family in today’s society?

A very simple question but if asked most people, they will answer “A nuclear family” a family which is consist of parents who are capable of pro-creations. This family is usually composed of the father, mother and their unmarried siblings. Which is fine because traditionally speaking, that is the original definition of a”family”. But fortunately we have seen that it is changing, throughout the years gay families have become more acceptable in our society. That change has subsequently influenced the definition of “family". I've stated before, since society is not stagnant we can't expect our values to be. I think that statement is so true that it has become alive, confronting us on our daily lives. This is why as we continue to progress as a society, new ideas will develop and those ideas will latter changes our lives.

Now, before going any further, to debate the concept of family values, we must reach some common ground which are necessary for distant discussions. As an example, most of us have heard of the term “blood relatives”. These are family members who derived from a nuclear family. Those relatives are usually your grandfather, grandmother, uncles, ants, nephews and nieces. Well, that’s one type of family, whether some of us choose to refer to them as distance families, makes absolutely no different, they’re our families nonetheless. I should also note that a woman and her siblings is also considered to be a family and so is a man with his adopted children. They both shared one common value and that is "love". They both love and care for their children and that makes them a family.

However though, the family that we’re a custom to is the one that is derived from a heterosexual marriage, where the mother got impregnated and there you have it, one more little bad boy is born. That family is said to be a close family because the relationship that is shared is between parents and siblings. But was it created out of love or is it the marriage certificate that has given it the family title? Some would argue that it is because of both, the marriage certificate and the love that is shared that makes it a "marriage". I believed that it's wrong to think of marriage in such a way. I believed that love should only be the determinant factor for marriage; the certificate should not be use to give preference to which group of couples should be married. The certificate is a legal document that is used to recognize those who are legally married, but by no way does a certificate initiate emotions of love.

Most women give birth to a child for a man they believed to have been in love with. As you can see, the determinant factor here is "love" it is not because of the marriage certificate. Therefore, since it is because of love that a family is created than why do some of us hold the position that a marriage certificate is needed for a family to be accepted in our society. Technically speaking, without the certificate the family still exist. And that family is not held by a marriage certificate but love. Love between two couples and their siblings is the soul determinant for a family. I should also mentioned, although a woman who has given birth to a child for a man she loves does not automatically makes him part of the family. He will have to prove it, until that man has taken up his responsibilities, he is not a father or part of the family; he is simply a baby daddy or a sperm donor.

The only factor that shares a relationship with procreation here is love; a marriage certificate has nothing to do with it. As far as I am concern, it’s a worthless piece of document that is obtain only when two people believed that they have fallen in love. Besides the legality reasons, that piece of document is given out for two reasons only, one - because love is the claimant and - second because money can precedes love, falsify it for personal gain.

With that in mind, we have noticed that the only thing that shares a commonality with procreation here is love. Love between a man and a woman which very often is the cause of a family that precedes a marriage. But the certificate does not always assured the marriage, very often circumstances changes and things are never the same. However, what ever the situation maybe, a family has been form and whether or not the couples choose to remain together, the family still exist. If love is the soul founder of a family than the love that the divorced parent has for that child must maintain the family. With this ideology, I have derived to the conclusion that a marriage certificate does not determine a family, love is the only soul founder of a family. Therefore, where ever there is love, families will evolve.

We live in a society that is diverse; it is a society that comprised the world. Every ethic groups come here in America with their own cultures and religious belief. Which is fine because it’s precisely what has made us stronger as a country? This is why we must learn not to force our religious belief on others who shares different faith than us. And since our ethnic background and culture may share different interpretation as to what constitute a "family" shouldn’t be a constraint that forces us to reject those who shares different family values than us.

This is why I said that family values in this country needs to be revisited, because now days we have different families who shares different values. This society need to give consideration to those families. Whether it's two women or two men, it's still a family. As the president Barack Obama said, "we can't face new challenges with the same old ideas". Therefore, if you in fact agreed that “love” is the only determinant that can define a “family” why than do you oppose gay marriage? On less of course you choose to deny the notion that gay relationships are not founded by love, because if they were, why is it than that gay people are denied their right to a marriage certificate?

Base on the argument presented, the opponent can only attack these premises on the bases of Bible principles. And for that to have been possible, he/she would have had to convinced those religious folks like themselves that the Bible dictates what marriage should be and therefore "the Bible is the only soul conductor for family values". Or he/she may wish to force his Bible principles on others who might reject or opposed them. However, no matter how you have it, for the opponent to disprove the above arguments, he/she would have also had to disclaimed the notion that “love is the only soul founder of a family”. Which mean before a family can come about, love must be present. If one agrees that love is indeed the soul founder of a family than gay couples that are in love should be permitted to have a family that is recognized in our society.

You see, what one must understand is that the commitment that exist among couples are not held by a marriage certificate. That commitment is held by the process of couples having the ability to compromise their differences in a manner that complements their relationship. In most cases for that to have been established, love will always have to be present. This is why the above discipline is stated, because as human beings, we are not perfect. And whether it's a heterosexual relationship or a gay one, we're going to have issues, and we can only solve them by applying the aforementioned discipline. And that is precisely why I've mentioned before that "We are imperfect beings having a loving experience, the result of our relationship will depends on how we balance our imperfection with our values." That principle is applicable for all relationships, it does not matter if it's between two men, two women or hetero, as long as two people are in love, they can sort out their issues by applying the above principle.

Romans 13:9–10 (NIV) ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

If love is the fulfillment of the law than wherever love exist the law has been fulfill. Is it really true or some Bible scriptures have contradicted each other on the meaning of love, because if what is said in Romans 13:9 -10 is correct than love between two men would also fulfill the law. But as we have seen, some members of our society oppose love between two men. Which then forces us to question the meaning of love, because if the love between a man and woman is different, we should know what it is about it that makes it different?

If we derived to the conclusion that loves between a man and a woman means to share, support and caring for one another than why should they be any difference between gay and heterosexual love? I suspect as a society, we are sexually biased when it comes to expressing what love means between gay and heterosexual couples. If love means to care, support and to share, I don’t see how the gay love can be different from the heterosexual one.

If we agreed that there are no differences among the two than we should agree that the gay love is also a fulfillment of the law discussed in Romans 13:9 – 10. And since love is the only soul determinant for marriage, than the love that is shared between the gay couple should also be a determinant for marriage.

So now I must end this debate by concluding that love is the only determinant for marriage, without it there is no loving family. At the same time, we can also say that the love that a divorce parent has for their child also form a family despite the fact that the marriage has vanished.