As a gay man (and lifelong Hoosier) considering marriage to my spouse of nearly 11 years, I've been exposed to my share of arguments against marriage equality. HJR-6 would create an amendment to our state constitution banning gay marriage (or anything "substantially similar", like civil unions). Since its introduction, these discussions have grown louder and more frequent, but no more logical. Let's take a common sense look at a few of these stances:
1. "According to the Bible, marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman."
Genesis 2:24 states: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." But the Bible also states that marriage is between a rapist and his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), and if a woman gets married who is not a virgin, she should be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). My personal religious views notwithstanding, it seems that there is more than one version of "traditional marriage" cited in the Bible. Why do people tout the man/woman endorsement while ignoring the others?
Also, using your religion to deny me my civil rights is as ridiculous as it is un-American. It's like me telling you that YOU can't have a donut because I'M on a diet. Consider the Orthodox Jewish community: As a part of their faith, they are unable to consume pork, but they haven't endorsed a constitutional amendment banning bacon.
2. "Allowing gay marriage is a 'slippery slope' that will lead to bestiality and marriages between adults and children."
Marriage is a legal contract between two individuals which requires consent. Animals and children cannot give consent, though bestiality IS legal in 15 states. If your main argument against marriage equality is it might allow a man to marry his favorite goat, perhaps you should spend less time ogling sexy goats.
3. "Gays have a right to marriage, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex."
This is by far the most ridiculous argument I hear, to which I usually respond: Do you have a rich, yet sexually frigid daughter that I could marry? I say rich, because after our inevitable divorce I'll need some money to get back on my feet. And I say sexually frigid because... well... gross.
It's maddening to hear that someone would rather I live a lie, to conform to a narrow idea of what marriage is, without considering the effect that such a sham marriage would have on my emotional well-being, as well as that of my intended wife. So it's better to be miserable and conform than happy and go against the grain?
As a non-religious man with absolutely no intention of marrying a goat, a child OR a woman, none of these arguments apply to me. My impending marriage will have no effect on any other person in the world, save my husband-to-be. These arguments, and the laws and amendments they influence, harm millions of American citizens. Isn't it time to start thinking logically?