LGBTQ rights is buzzing across the news – with movements in DC to conversations across all types of social media. The focus on marriage equality has been a hot topic, but with that comes flagrant contention. And while the conversation appears progressive, it is easy to miss the arguments that are ridiculously obscene.
Here are the five most bizarre arguments against marriage equality.
1. Same-sex marriage will result in the collapse of society:
According to Trent Franks, a Republican Representative from Arizona, same-sex marriage "not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations … [but also] the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run." Many individuals have argued that the loss of a traditional family will be the demise of our entire world. Children need both a man and a woman role model in order to have any chance of survival.
But even with the current structure of marriage, how is this at all true? Currently, 15 million children are being raised without a father, and 5 million without a mother. That is over one third of the population of children that are not being raised by a two-parent household. Has the end of the world happened yet? I don’t think so.
2. Same-sex marriage is unnatural:
Sue Everhart, Republican chairwoman from Georgia, says, "Lord, I'm going to get in trouble over this, but it is not natural for two women or two men to be married. If it was natural, they would have the equipment to have a sexual relationship."
Apparently what is natural is defined by one's ability to reproduce. And apparently love and attraction are also unnatural. And apparently it is natural to curtail the rights of others just because personal beliefs don't align with one another. If same-sex couples are denied marriage based on the notion that they cannot procreate, then I guess individuals who don't want to have kids should also be denied marriage. Does this also mean that infertile individuals be denied that right as well?
3. Same-sex marriage enables bestiality:
Daniel Heimbach, a senior professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, says, "If marriage is radically redefined as a way of just affirming loving feelings of attraction, then equality will require allowing people who love dogs to marry dogs. And people who love ice cream to marry ice cream."
The claim leaves me dumbfounded. I have nothing more to say.
4. Same-sex marriage will collapse the health care system:
Sue Everhart explains, "Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you're gay, and y'all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits?" And according to James Dobson, psychologist and founder of radio talk show Family Talk, "This could be the straw that breaks the back of the insurance industry in Western nations, as millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage."
Apparently, no opposite-sex marriages exist simply for benefits. Also, apparently marriage equality means that only same-sex marriages will yield benefits for spouses. The argument regarding the insurance industry only points out the current injustices that exist in society. It highlights the selfishness of privileged humans and only continues to marginalize those who don't have power. Seriously, we won't give equal rights because we are scared that the bloated insurance industry will collapse (not that that would ever happen)?
5. Same-sex marriage goes against religious beliefs:
The United States was founded on the separation of the church and the state. If the state legalized same-sex marriage, how does that interfere with your own viewpoints? If your beliefs deny same-sex marriages, then don't have a same-sex marriage. Why does it make sense to impose your own religious beliefs on other people? Suppose it was against someone's religion that a marriage cannot be between a man and a woman. Do you think it would be fair to implement those religious ideas since it goes against that individual's beliefs?
I don’t think so.