Who loves whom seems to be an issue of growing concern in today's world. The issue is clouded by the statements of bigots who would claim to be pious. Those who are truly rightuous would see that love is the source of most, if not all, goodness. Love can be broken down into two aspects: physical and emotional.

From the physical standpoint, we have one person taking and giving pleasure to another person. What justification can there be towards calling the exchange of pleasure an evil act? Only a sadist would deny pleasure and few would refute the inherent evil of sadism, unless the sadist reserves such actions for masochists, in which case it is really just the exchange of pleasure in an atypical form. With the exception of the type of sadist just mentioned, a sadist has little right to talk of good or evil. Physical love, being the exchange of pleasure is inherently good.

From the emotional standpoint, we have one person deeply caring for the physical and emotional well being of another person. How can one rationalize calling concern for another's well being evil? For is not the concept of good and evil nothing more than a manifestation of such a concern? Emotional love, being the concern for the well fair of another is inherently good.

Being that I have now fully justified the goodness of love, is there really any need to justify who can share in such a thing? Is this not just a preference? Would you condemn someone for preferring Coke over Pepsi? Chocolate over Vanilla? So why should it be different if for a man over a woman? Black over white? Etc.

There will be those that will cry "Unnatural!" at relationships being two people of the same sex, and perhaps even at breeding between two races.

In the case of homosexuality, it should be pointed out that rats and many other animals, as studies have shown, will resort to homosexual activity in times of overpopulation, as a form of population control. Furthermore, wild dogs will practice homosexuality unless they are the alpha-male or the alpha-female of the pack, in order to see that only the best genes are passed on.

In the case of interracial relationships, the very ability to breed and have fertile offspring proves that it is natural.

Even if we are to put this aside and still call it unnatural, of what validity is this? Can we truly call it natural to drive cars, live in houses, go to school, or even to wear clothes? To condemn on the basis of being unnatural, we must then condemn almost all of modern man, with the possible exception of primitive tribes in Africa, South America, and Australia.

For those who cry "That is disgusting!", consider this: Almost nobody will insist that you take part in such activity or even pay any attention to it. Should you find it on television, you can change the channel, and if in public, you can either turn your head or leave.

To those who take the standpoint of "Such-and-such says that it is wrong": What makes them right?

If they are mortal, they are fallible, no matter how much might and authority they might have. Are we to say that the Nazis were right as long as they had power in Germany and then suddenly became wrong the moment they lost it? To someone who can be so fickle towards what is right or wrong, they have no authority to label anything as anything. The concept of might makes right is a very outdated one and most people will agree is not right.

If we are to say that the such-and-such just mentioned above is divine, why should the words be judged on any different criteria if might does not make right?

Those who would take the standpoint of "It goes against tradition," contemplate this: so does having this discussion. We should also consider these points: Greek tradition believed that women were so inferior that the only true friends and lovers could only be other men and they also worshipped a different set of Gods. The tradition of Abraham's parents was to worship idols. The tradition of Jesus was that of the Jews. All traditions change, as do the times.

For those argue, "What about the children?" What is so wrong that they should live in a house where their parents are truly loving and understand what love is. There are more than enough examples that show that the traditional couple is not always loving. Divorce rates are up to nearly 60%.

Granted that the children may suffer some alienation and isolation because of chosen mate of the parents, but it should be noted that those who would alienate the child would be those who are a bad influence, being that they have a corrupt idea of love, as well as a twisted concept of how to judge an individual and what qualities to look for in a friend. Furthermore, people who grow up in isolation seem to grow up to be more independent and have a better appreciation of true friendship and without such an appreciation, love can not exist.

For those that truly understand the ways of love will see that it is independent from the physical shell of the people involved and in its most pure form, such a shell would bear no importance in its being. Love is a hard thing to find and rather than condemning people for whom they may have found it with, we should attempt to share in their joy at it being found and if we find ourselves incapable of this, we should, at the very least, avoid hindering such a joy.