DeBunked: Arguments Against Marriage Equality

As many already know, I am a huge proponent of homosexual marriage. I have strongly believe that homosexuals should be given the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. With that said, I seem to hear the same arguments over and over, and quite frankly, get real sick of repeating myself over and over. So I decided to go ahead and try my hand at explaining why those theories and arguments consistently have absolutely no bearing on the institution of marriage in the first place.

Argument One:
"Gays do have equal rights. They can marry a member of the opposite sex just like I can. I can not marry a member of the same sex so this is equal."
This happens to be one of my favorite arguments. Why you ask? Because it just so happens to be one of the most asinine things that I have ever heard. When I hear this argument, I cannot help but shake my head and laugh. Those arguing this point don't take into consideration that they are not homosexual and therefore do not love a member of the same gender. The person is heterosexual and more than likely loves and wants to marry (or is already married to) a member of the opposite sex. They are not being asked to ignore the fact that they are told to be someone they are not. They are not being asked to marry a person that they don't love, or being told that they cannot marry the person they love (that also reciprocates the feelings). A homosexual couple is basically being told "I don't care if you love each other. I don't care that you have been together for thirty years. You cannot marry another man and that is not a problem because I cannot either, so it is Even Stevens." Think about it like this, if homosexuality were the norm and heterosexuality were the abnormal. You (obviously) are the heterosexual. Would you like it if you were told "I cannot marry a member of the opposite, so neither can you!" Thinking about it like that, it doesn't make much sense does it? It doesn't mean that there is equality because a heterosexual person can marry another heterosexual person because that is not the problem in question. The problem in question is the fact that you are entirely free to marry the person you love while a homosexual person is not.

Argument Two:
"If we allow Gays to marry then it will all go down hill from there. People will be allowed to marry animals, or children, or multiple partners. It will never end."
Ummm... no that is not how it works. A marriage can only be between two consenting adults. Last time I checked, animals nor children were consenting adults and could not legally sign a contract, which is what marriage is. Last time I checked multiple partners were not just two people. This argument happens to be one of the most facetious things I have ever heard. I don't even understand how one would come up with this argument in the first place. How in the world does allowing homosexual couples equate to allowing people to marry animals, children or multiple partners?

Argument Three:
"It is unnatural. A man wasn't meant to lie with another man. You don't see homosexuality in animals. Humans are the only ones with homosexual relationships."
EHHHHH Wrong. In 1999, researcher Bruce Bagemihl observed instances of homosexuality in over 1,500 species of animals ranging from primates to gut worms, 500 of which itis well documented in. And a new 2009 review noted that homosexuality was a universal phenomenon within the animal kingdom. That completely and out rightly disproves half of that argument. And as for the unnatural part, if it were unnatural, then why would it have been observed in most if not all species within the animal kingdom? Humans are basically animals, we just have intelligence and speech, but still the most basics of instincts and behaviors remain. Homosexuality is just as natural in humans as it is in the animal kingdom. It may not be observed within the majority of the members of one species, but it is observed in the species none the less.

Argument Four:
"It's against God, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, etc. Homosexuals are against what the Bible, Torah, Quar'an, etc. teaches."
Well, if marriage were strictly a religious institution then this argument might hold weight, but guess what? It is not a strictly religious institution. Here in the U.S., we have separation of Church and State. That means that nothing the "church" says has an impact on law (unless it is the freedom of religion amendment within the Bill of Rights). Marriage, as it pertains to law, is a state issue. To be legally married you have to have a marriage license issued by the state and your marriage has to be presided over by at the very least a justice of the peace (who is not ordained by any religious institution, but allowed the rights to perform a ceremony). Religion within a marriage ceremony is strictly an optional additive. Marriage existed long before many of today's religion. In fact, marriage predates recorded history, so guess what this means? Yes, no religion of today predates recorded history, not even the neo-Pagan religions. Therefore that in it of itself is proof positive that marriage is not a religious institution.

Argument Five:
"It's gross. It's just wrong, because I am not like that."
Let's see. How in the world is that at all logical? I don't like spinach, but that does not mean I am going to start marching on Washington seeking the revocation of the legalization of spinach or other likely greens. I do not like sleeping with socks on, but that does not mean that I am going to say that no one can wear socks to bed. It think that a feather holds more weight than this argument and I am not speaking of a vacuum instance.

Now, I am sure that there are many rebuttals to what I have said, but I am not here to answer every possible rebuttal to anything and everything I say. The point is that I feel that everyone has the essential right to marry the person they love (provided that it is a legal, of age adult that is capable of making the decision legally). I feel that a friend of mine should be allowed to marry the person he loves and has been with since high school regardless of either gender. And I know there are many more arguments, but it is getting late and I need to go to bed before I start spouting nonsensical rhetoric. I will revisit this a little later.