SC Republicans Make Really Dumb Arguments on Marriage

The South Carolina Senate voted for a bill calling for a new constitutional convention so they can outlaw same-sex marriage. Unsurprisingly, the arguments they offered were monumentally stupid. Like this one from a guy who apparently hasn’t even bothered reading the Bible he no doubt claims to believe:

“Marriage is one man and one woman, and I believe that’s the way it’s been in the history of mankind up until the last 15 years,” said Sen. Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, the chairman of the subcommittee.

Lamech. Solomon. Abraham. Jacob. David. If one man/one woman marriage has been the way it is for the entire history of mankind, your Bible is lying to you.

Among them was Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, who said that federal judges who have legalized gay marriage should be impeached, and the bills’ sponsor, Larry Grooms, a Charleston Republican.

“It has to do with the propagation of our species,” Grooms said of protecting what he calls traditional marriage. “It is what is in the best interest of our species. Now we’re told through a federal judge that now we have to change that. It throws out of kilter all of our laws that have been based on the foundation of a man and a woman (being married).”

This argument just cracks me up. What does he think is going to happen, exactly? Does he think if we let gay people get married, straight people are going to stop having kids? Does he think that if we don’t let gay people get married, they’ll suddenly turn straight and start popping out babies? It takes a special kind of stupid to find such an argument convincing.

"Bill Clinton got $750,000 in a speech to Swedish company Ericsson.Can't you see the collusion ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"In fact, Bill Clinton made $750,000 in one speech in Hong Kong to Swedish-based telecom ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"None of the uranium produced by Uranium One in the US is exported out of ..."

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."
"Bill Clinton was a private citizen. Your point?"

Gorka Lies About Clinton and Uranium ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Pierce R. Butler

    If one man/one woman marriage has been the way it is for the entire history of mankind, your Bible is lying to you.

    And quite possibly it lies regarding other matters too…

    It takes a special kind of stupid to find such an argument convincing.

    Not if by “special” you mean anything like “rare”.

  • Sastra

    More and more I’m beginning to see these sort of arguments as deriving their basis from flat-out magical thinking. There is a hidden realm of pure spiritual Essences which embody the Perfect idea of things. As above, so below. The physical world is but a manifestation of the Higher One.

    But wait — through our thoughts and behaviors we can manipulate the Higher realm! Intention is a powerful force. When enough people start to gay marry it weakens and chips away at the Perfect Ideal of Marriage Itself and eventually … no more marriages can find their source in the Spiritual Realm. Marriage is now no longer Real and True because the material world is only a pale shadow reality derived from a Reality of uncontaminated Forms . Without a real foundation — marriages will all crumble. Gay people and their supporters are guilty of performing black magic.

    Hey, it makes as much sense as any other way of explaining their concerns — and more than some.

  • dugglebogey

    I am married, I never had children and I’m sick of these asshole motherfuckers calling my marriage illegitimate. Fuck you Lee Bright.

  • John Pieret

    Sen. Lee Bright

    Ya know, there’s a theory that your name influences how you turn out in life.

    There’s a data point against!

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    It is not just Old Testament, either: In 1 Timothy, chapter 3, Paul advises that bishops and deacons have only one wife. The implication is that polygamy was common enough for Paul to single it out as an issue. The council of elders that ran individual worship services (from which the office of priest would evolve by the 2nd century) was not included in this requirement, nor were rank-and-file believers, which implies that Paul permitted polygamy to all except clergy.

  • dingojack

    Wouldn’t pay to see the face of the dullard Lee Bright when you ask him to describe the nature of the relationship between David and Jonathon…

    😀 Dingo

  • http://www.facebook.com/charlie.cain chuck c

    It is what is in the best interest of our species.

    So is feeding the poor and providing health care to the sick.

  • dingojack

    oops ‘Wouldn’t you pay…’

    Dingo

  • scienceavenger

    “It has to do with the propagation of our species,” Grooms said of protecting what he calls traditional marriage. “It is what is in the best interest of our species.”

    Have you studied the planet lately Mr. Grooms, or talked to anyone who does so for a living? With 7,000,000,000 of us and counting, causing the most recent mass extinction event, it is most certainly not in the best interest of our species to do anything that aids propagation.

  • wreck

    He’s right. Since SSM was legalized in Illinois last year my wife and I haven’t had any kids. The vasectomy after #2 was born 18 years ago has nothing to do with it!

  • brucegee1962

    @2 Sastra, you may have meant your post to be tongue in cheek, but actually it makes more sense out of the things they’re saying than anything else I’ve heard so far.

  • Michael Heath

    scienceavenger writes:

    Have you studied the planet lately Mr. Grooms, or talked to anyone who does so for a living? With 7,000,000,000 of us and counting, causing the most recent mass extinction event, it is most certainly not in the best interest of our species to do anything that aids propagation.

    This conclusion only works if your premises are static rather than acknowledging our ability to adapt. We certainly can’t go on increasing the consumption of some resources per capita and thrive in the future. But we do have the ability to become more efficient in our use of resources where an increase in population could lead to a higher median standard of living and a superior floor than what we suffer and have suffered from in the past.

    So are human growth rates unsustainable where our general condition would suffer? Certainly if it’s ‘business as usual’ or something close. But it doesn’t have to be that way; so it’s not necessarily true we can’t improve life on earth in a world where there’s more humans. It does require a superior level of intelligence and integrity; behavior that’s being effectively thwarted by U.S. conservatives and libertarians along with some other non-U.S. population segments. Though in this case I think the betterment of life on earth requires U.S. leadership, leadership where’re badly failing given U.S. conservatives and libertarians.

  • chirez

    I’m struck by a curious irony. Clearly the only way same sex marriage would cause a population decline is if people in heterosexual marriages were only with their partner because they believe homosexuality is unacceptable. Every time I hear someone say same sex marriage will make people stop having kids, I can’t help rephrasing it in my head as ‘Boy, I sure wouldn’t have married my wife if I could have had my boyfriend instead.’ It’s the missing link that lets that argument make sense.

  • Irreverend Bastard

    @10 wreck

    Since SSM was legalized in Illinois last year I haven’t even had sex with a partner of the opposite sex!

  • http://umlud.blogspot.com umlud

    “It has to do with the propagation of our species,” Grooms said of protecting what he calls traditional marriage. “It is what is in the best interest of our species. Now we’re told through a federal judge that now we have to change that. It throws out of kilter all of our laws that have been based on the foundation of a man and a woman (being married).”

    So does that mean that Grooms is saying that infertility is grounds for divorce? Can a married man divorce his wife simply because she is post-menopausal?

    And does Grooms feel that artificial fertilization should be illegal if the donated sperm is not from the husband of the woman receiving the sperm? If it’s okay for “Adam and Eve” to use sperm from an anonymous sperm donor to have a child, why can’t “Mary and Eve” use an anonymous sperm donor to have a child?

    And what about heterosexual married couples adopting a child from an unmarried woman? If it’s okay for “Adam and Eve” to adopt a child from an unmarried woman, why is it not okay for “Adam and Steve” to adopt from an unmarried woman?

    The only answers seem to boil down to, “Because I said no.” Somehow, it seems to me that Grooms hasn’t really thought through his position. Which isn’t surprising.

  • scienceavenger

    This conclusion only works if your premises are static rather than acknowledging our ability to adapt.

    Bullshit. I’m not using static premises, I’m going by history, which shows that despite the improvements we have made, the long term trends in numerous crucial areas continue to deteriorate, and according to some are already beyond our ability to reverse (ie climate, species reduction, etc.). And that’s just the damage we know about. Who knows what crucial species or habitat deep in the ocean we’ve destroyed.

    But it doesn’t have to be that way; so it’s not necessarily true we can’t improve life on earth in a world where there’s more humans. It does require a superior level of intelligence and integrity

    Who said anything about it having to necessarily be that way? We don’t have to necessarily have so many kids either. But between humanity reducing its reproduction rate, or acquiring a higher level of integrity and intelligence to overcome the problems with an exploding population ad nauseum, can there be any doubt the former is more likely?

  • Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden

    “Marriage is one man and one woman, and I believe that’s the way it’s been in the history of mankind up until the last 15 years,” said Sen. Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, the chairman of the subcommittee.

    Exactly, and why can’t conservative stars like Clint Eastwood get up and say that today?

    Ah, marriage! How you remained so perfectly consistent in your causes, your rituals, your nature, until Y2K!!!

  • himurastewie

    But didn’t God create all the people in the first place? If all the people suddenly become ghey married and no longer have kids, can’t he just kind of.. you know, create more people? Not sure why it’s always up to us mere mortals to pick up the slack.

  • felidae

    So, Sen NotSoBright, are you are worried about propagating the species when you are banging your mistress–just asking