Nate Silver: Anti-Gay Marriage Arguments "Literally Stop Making Sense"

FiveThirtyEight:

Yesterday, I was sent an e-mail from the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign, which I signed up for under a secondary e-mail account. The message suggests talking points that opponents of gay marriage might use when calling into local radio stations:

Read the whole story: FiveThirtyEight

Comments

[plmgood]

Ignorance to the term "marriage" is unbelievable. The Church has "hijacked" the term to fit their version of morality. The fact is, NO PERSON, even those of a religious faith, CANNOT get "married" by the Church unless they get a marriage license by their respective states. IE; the state "marries" you by a civil union and your church of choice santifies it.
Who says gays want their "civil union" sanctified by a church of bigots? ALL "marriages" are considered "CIVIL UNIONS." Period. If the church wants the word "marriage," let them have it. The only thing that gay or heterosexual "marriage" offers is those tax benefits of a "marriage" and the rights that go with a true civil union.
Not one religious person can defend their stand on civil unions of gays because they have no valid facts of how it would "damage" their "marriage." Quoting their "VERSION" of their bible has no basis in fact and therefore is not a defining factor.
There is a "Separation of Church and State" in America if the religious right likes it or not. Those clauses were to prevent the church from infecting our government with a "Religious State" like Iran.
The 1st Amendment gives ALL Americans, including gays, the right to their own religion of choice and/or Atheist beliefs without the state condemning them. The Church needs to "tend to their own knitting" and get out of our govt and practice their faiths in their own "houses of worship!"

[biscuitstix]

before i post this i should say i am not religious , and i am pro gay marriage. I'm trying to figure out why all these people voting against gay marriage care...doesn't your god judge people individually on his own, even if it is against the bible (and im not saying it is) wont god judge them on his own, people aren't supposed to be the judges in religion god is. let 'em get married and complain about something else

[Liberal Angel]

There have never been any arguments from their side that made sense. All of them rest on nonsense, or ignorance.

[makeshiftriot]

They never made any sense, so how could they "stop" making sense.

Just make it legal, the holy-rollers will get over it. Their opinions aren't important per law any way.
The whole separation of church and state thing was meant for stuff like this.

Remove your heads from God bottom and do your jobs, congress.

[PlanoBlue]

Just ask Mr. Phillip Spooner, an 85 year old WWII vet and American hero about gay marriage. He has it right.

[hallowellboy]

There is no legitimate arguement against Gay marriage except bigotry and hate. When you have a former Hitler Youth pope trying to increase his church's numbers by appealing to the rightwing discriminators from another religion you have to agree discrimination is part of religious norm. By the way, do all the Anglican "heretics" that have been sent to Hell for the last 400 years get out? Just curious.

[dogman44]

If gays are allowed to marry, my dogs may see me as less of a man and they
might stop obeying me. If gays are allowed to marry I might be expected to
attend a wedding or two. I avoid weddings and funerals. I can come up with
all kinds of reasons why gay folks getting married would just mess my life
all up. Besides if gays were allowed to marry they'd just turn into boring
families like most of the married people I know.

[zsja]

but think of the uptick in the wedding industry! economic recovery, here we come!

[Okieborn]

To Each his own !!!
Live your life the best you can, and how you choose !!!

[Okieborn]

Nate Silver is Right !!
I am a straight male who believes in the old philosophy of to each his own !!!
Everyone is suppose to have a right to live their lives as they wish !!!

[William Young]

EXACTLY! Which is why they should allow gay marriages to take place in this country. Let's be honest what two guys/girls do in the privacy of their own bedroom is NO concern of mine and honestly the only time you're worried what they're doing is if you're somewhat curious yourself.

I used to be like I don't understand how gays would compare their struggles to those of African Americans but last year it hit me pretty hard. We were denied so many rights just on the basis of our skin color and pretty this is what's happening to the gay community you're denying the right to marry on the merits of their lifetstyle which is STUPID! They may not get their time now but I will predict in less than 20 years this will be a non issue.

[JSDKoeln]

I really appreciate your comments wholeheartedly. But, one thing you said about "lifestyle". Being gay is not a lifestyle and not a choice, just as skin color is not a choice. That is the correlation. This is what the small minded right wingers can't fathom.

[jdlund]

I do find the whole "they'll teach gay marriage in school" bit rather odd. How exactly would they "teach" this? Something along the lines of "5 x 7 is 35 and oh by the way boys and girls, feel free to marry a member of your sex/gender, it's totally cool?" I'm going back over all my public education experience and I don't ever remember there being an instance in which "marriage" was discussed in that great of detail. I never remember discussing what it was outside of vague nonjudgmental anthropological terms.

I will say the only decent argument is the one about having to accept polygamy as well, because it's absolutely right. It's the same rigid adherence to traditional morality that currently bans homosexuals from recognized marriages. Sure there is good reason to make sure little girls aren't betrothed to old men in church sanctioned child abuse and quasi-sex slavery. Sure there is good reason to make sure women are really entering these unions willingly and aren't being coerced into something. But who can honestly say it is impossible for three or more people to consensually enter into an agreement to marriage or that they couldn't be happy that way?

The crap about some hillbilly marrying his horse is easily refutable due to the horse's inability to consent and the grown man-daughter thing is, in addition to being stupid, easily refutable due to the consequences for potential children in terms of severe birth defects.

[ivoteforsmartpeople]

They could at least get the NAME of the people they are bad-mouthing right!

It's the Gay, Lesbian & STRAIGHT Education Network....a group of people of All Orientations dedicated to ending discrimina­tion/bully­ing of CHILDREN based on their real or Perceived orientation.

I'm proud to support them - and Jill Biden was the speaker at their annual awards dinner this year!

[Sumocat]

Stop making sense? When did anti-gay marriage arguments ever make sense?

[oafishcad]

There is no valid argument against gay marriage except the lack of recognition of the humanity of gay people by those opposing it. If you think a gay person is an actual whole and deserving human being, you support gay marriage. If you don't, you don't.

[Peter Danbridge]

There is simply no rational reason to deny this right to gay couples. None.

The fact that it is still an issue speaks volumes about our national and cultural immaturity and about our shameful hypocrisy ("Land of the Free").

[norepublicanleftbehind]

We're not looking for "Gay marriage" we're looking for just marriage. Nothing different just equal protection under the law.

If you call marriage something else, it is something else.

[SantaFeConservative]

Well, marriage is between a man and a woman. If two men or two women want to get "married", it is something else. Just call it something else, get the same rights and responsibilities, and be done with it.

[oafishcad]

No, marriage isn't just between a man and a woman. That's how YOU define it. It already has a different definition in a number of foreign countries and in a handful of states. The "definition" has already been "changed". Even though that particular "definition" was never a universal one. Our national government has always recognized multiple marriage when that's how a foreign country defined it.