On last night’s Daily Show, Jon Stewart debated Bill Bennett on gay marriage. (That’s a link to the video.) I always root for Stewart when he debates conservatives on social issues, but I always wind up frothing because he leaves out certain arguments that I would have made, or he misses an opportunity to make a good point about something and instead makes a joke. I always wish I could butt in.

For instance, Bennett brought up the common “slippery slope” argument that gay marriage might lead to polygamy. I LOATHE slippery-slope arguments. Here’s my response: issues should be argued on their own terms. Look – if you can’t think of valid, independent arguments against polygamy, then maybe polygamy should be legal. Oh? What’s that? You argue that I’m being ridiculous, because polygamy is sexist and creates economic inequality among husband and wives? Well, there you go! There’s your argument! Now, how exactly does legal gay marriage invalidate that argument?

For the record, Stewart did point out (although he didn’t say it very well) that homosexuality is part of who a person is, while polygamy is a choice. But I don’t think that’s a valid argument in and of itself. You can’t just argue that polygamy is a choice, because someone could respond, “It’s not a choice that I love all three of these women.” You have to argue about the effects of polygamy, not about the cause of it. It can be fun to watch Jon Stewart debate someone, but it can also be frustrating.

Good. The opponents of gay marriage couldn’t even get a majority of the Senate to support a vote on a marriage amendment. Only 49 senators voted to close debate.

I can’t express how disgusted I am at Colorado’s Wayne Allard, whom Time named one of America’s five worst senators, and those who agree with him. That includes the President, who hasn’t even discussed the issue since he was re-elected but now sees fit to use us in order to help his party.

As Michael Scherer points out, opponents of gay marriage rarely talk about actual gay people anymore. While it’s nice that insulting gay people directly is apparently no longer a respectable component of mainstream political discourse, it also means we’re left out of the equation completely.

But rather than talk about gay marriage, a dozen speakers, including Colorado GOP Sen. Wayne Allard, took turns expounding on the importance of loving, two-parent homes for children. They talked about the damage done by deadbeat dads in the inner city, and the importance of family in minority communities. As the Rev. Eve Nunez, an Arizona pastor put it, “America has been wandering in a wilderness of social problems caused by family disintegration.”

The press corps who had gathered for the event appeared universally baffled by the argument being made from behind the microphones. “How would outlawing gay marriage encourage heterosexual fathers to stick around?” asked the first wire service reporter to be called on for questions. “Why not outlaw divorce?” another scribe asked Allard later.

They can’t answer these questions because it’s not about “strengthening the family.” Or if it is, they’re too timid to take steps that will affect a majority of their constituents; they’d rather pass a law that they know will never affect them. People don’t want to criminalize adultery because someday they might be adulterers; they don’t want to ban divorce because they might want a divorce someday. But they don’t mind banning gay marriage, because hey, they’ll never be gay.

This is a complete failure to try and see the world through the eyes of a human being who is different from you. That’s the root of the world’s problems, really. It’s been true throughout human history and probably even before then. It takes effort to see the world through someone else’s eyes; it’s easier to just be ignorant and afraid of those who are different. People don’t like to leave their comfort zones.

So we’re seen as The Other. We’re expendable. Who cares that a gay marriage ban will prevent certain people from achieving full protection for their relationships? I’m not gay, so I don’t have to worry about it. It affects them, not me.

People are so ignorant.

Audio versions of a bunch of New Yorker articles. Good for the iPod, I imagine.