Years ago, during my freshman year of high school, I had to do a survey on one of my family members for my civics class, and I had decided to interview my father. When I asked him if abortion should be legal, he immediately said “Yes! It is the woman’s choice.” Right after, I asked him if he thought that marriage equality should be legal, to which he immediately responded with a stern “No.” In my response, I blankly stared at him, then back at the survey, and said “… You think that women should be able to have an abortion, but you don’t think that two people of the same sex should get married…?” When he validated this statement, I just shook my head and continued, not wanting to get into an argument with my very hard-headed father. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against abortion, but as a bisexual female, my father’s opinion worries me. If I were to end up marrying a woman, what would he say? Would he never talk to me again? Would he come to the wedding? On a larger scale, this worries me even more. If so many people had the same mindset as my father, would I even have the option of being able to get married? I decided to look at my opposing side’s reasoning for a ban on marriage equality, and decided to find strong combatting arguments against them.

Multiple groups and people have gone out of their way to find reasons as to why marriage equality should be banned, with many of these groups being religion-based. Many of these groups and people claim that same sex goes against God. Kirk Cameron expresses his idea on same-sex marriage saying that “marriage is as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve… So I would never attempt to redefine marriage. And I don’t think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t” (Brainy Quote). The National Organization for Marriage, an organization well known for its anti-marriage equality standpoint, states on their website that their mission is to “promote an understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman” and to “protect the religious liberty of traditional faith communities” (National Organization for Marriage). Although everyone is perfectly entitled to one’s opinion, whatever happened to the idea of separation of church and state? This concept is one of the founding concepts of the United States, and it is included in the first amendment. In Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, he states that “religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God… Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion… thus building a wall of separation between Church and State” (Jefferson). While this concept originally refers to the fact that legislature cannot establish any laws that enforce a specific religion, it can be used in the aspect that people’s religious beliefs should have no impact whatsoever on who can and cannot get married. Saying that homosexuals cannot get married because of your religion is like me saying that you can’t eat a hamburger because I’m on a diet.

Another argument used by those against marriage equality is that homosexuals cannot reproduce, and the main purpose of marriage is to procreate. However, there has been recent news of scientists being able to create a zygote and an embryo from two egg cells ("eggs fertilised without sperm”). Although initially this would only be able to create another female, as women do not have the genetic makeup to carry a Y chromosome, scientists are now working on ways to transform an egg into one with Y chromosome capabilities. Scientists have also been able to fertilize mouse eggs with the non-reproductive cells of another mouse’s body (Vogel, “Eggs Fertilized Without Sperm”). While this study is still under wraps and there are a lot of margins for error, this is the first step towards being able to create fully functioning zygotes and embryos. Although people may argue that this is not natural procreation, it still debunks the idea of homosexuals not being able to procreate. Also, a question to speculate about would be: should a heterosexual couple be able to marry if they cannot reproduce? What about heterosexual people who are infertile? Or those who choose to be celibate? If this topic of reproduction capability were to be a valid argument, why would heterosexual couples have the opportunity to marry when fertile, homosexual couples who have many options of having children are not able to marry?

One argument that I often hear, even from my parents, is that homosexuality is “just not natural!” Personally, I’d like a definition of what “natural” means, as “homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide (Fereydooni). In these animals, homosexual acts can be seen as beneficial and is even encouraged in some cases. Some animals even show transsexuality, as they are able to change their sex in order to reproduce in times where the sex needed to reproduce is scarce. As this is the case, it thoroughly confused me as to why humans condemn homosexuality, saying that it is unnatural, when it seems that we are the only animal species that has a problem with homosexuality. And for those of you who think that we are "humans" and are different from "animals", you need to reevaluate your definitions. We are under the kingdom of Animalia, and are therefore, animals.

Some authors argue that marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles. University of Virginia psychologist Mavis E. Hetherington teams up with author John Kelly and claims that “women are happier when their husbands earn the lion’s share of the household income.” Hetherington also claims that “couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childbearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning” (For Better of For Worse 31). The first problem with this idea is that it is extremely close-minded. From personal experience, my sisters earn just as much money as their husbands, and their husbands spend just as much time with their kids, if not more. Both of my sisters’ marriages are thriving, and their children are growing up just fine. The second problem with this idea is that it is a bit sexist and stereotypical, to say the least. The concept of gender-roles as a whole is restrictive and brings a negative overtone. In Guante’s poem “Ten Responses to the Phrase ‘Man Up,’” he asks “Of course. Why fight to remove our chains, when we can simply compare their lengths?” (“Ten Responses to the Phrase Man Up”). Guante points out that it is much easier to compare the stereotypical masculinity rather than to break free from the stereotypical restrictions. Guante then goes onto another great point saying that “you never notice how nobody ever says ‘woman up?’ They just imply it. Because women, and the women’s movement, figured out a long time ago that being directly, explicitly ordered around by commercials, magazines, and music is dehumanizing. When will men figure that out?” (“Ten Responses to the Phrase Man Up”). Guante points out that men are being exploited in media just as much as women are and it has adverse effects on men. On the other side of the gender-role spectrum, Vanessa Marco expresses that women strive for more than to simply find a significant other in life in her poem “Patriarchy”. She voiced a quote of a man telling her “Ain’t no man gonna love you.” She points out that this echoes loudly in women's minds “as if that’s the only accomplishment us women strive for. Like that’s the only role us women play. Patriarchy so evident, it seeps through every floor you got” (“Patriarchy”). Both Guante and Marco express that both men and women should not have to conform to society’s social standards. People should be free to do and act however they want to. Those who don’t conform to these gender roles are subjected to criticism. The third problem that I have with Hetherington’s idea is that it seems counterintuitive. For decades, women fought against societal gender roles. Fighting against these roles allowed women to do revolutionary things such as working and voting; yet some of these women think that gender roles should still be followed.

As the saying goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. About sixty years ago, people who loved each other were being persecuted for attempting to be together. Although back then, it was all about skin color rather than sexuality. In the Loving v. Virginia case, an interracial couple got married in Washington D.C, and when they went to go visit family down south, they were arrested. They sought out help from higher officials and it made its way to the Supreme Court. In 1967, the “Court ruled that state bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional” (Loving v. Virginia). Back then, this was a huge topic, but if we were to look back at it today, most Americans would think that we were ridiculous back then for being so bigoted. If activists back then were saying “why can’t we just let them get married?”, why does it not apply now?

Homosexuality's place in society has been a large topic of discussion and has moved and progressed throughout the decades. From homosexuality being taken off of the DSM list of mental illnesses, to marriage equality being passed in Johnson County, Kansas within the past week, it is clear to see how far America’s culture has come in terms of acceptance and tolerance. Having been a topic of taboo and major criticism, society is taking baby steps towards national marriage equality. Although there are bigoted people who will continue to push in the opposite direction, the amount of accepting people in communities and in legislature are starting to outnumber the bigots. Hopefully, this acceptance and tolerance will spread out of the United States and to other countries in the world as well. After all, if you think about it, why can’t we all just get married?

Works Cited

Cameron, Kirk. "Kirk Cameron Quote." BrainyQuote. Xplore, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. .

"Eggs Fertilised Without Sperm." BBC News. BBC, 07 Oct. 2001. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, For Better or For Worse. (W.W. Norton and Co., 2002) 31.

Fereydooni, Arash. "Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality?" Yale Scientific Magazine. Yale Scientific Magazine, 14 Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/>.

Jefferson, Thomas. "Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists." Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (n.d.): n. pag. Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 1 Jan. 1802. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. .

"National Organization for Marriage." National Organization for Marriage. National Organization for Marriage, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. <https://nationformarriage.org/main/ourwork>

Vogel, Gretchen. "Egg Fertilized Without Sperm." Science/AAAS. Science/AAAS, 12 July 2001. Web. 25 Nov. 2014. <http://news.sciencemag.org/2001/07/egg-fertilized-without-sperm>.

Warren, C.J. "Loving v. Virginia." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2014. .