4 ms·

I absolutely agree with that premise. However, I'd only buy that as the writer's real message if he wasn't going for a subtext of Gee, look at all the unreason

I absolutely agree with that premise. However, I'd only buy that as the writer's real message if he wasn't going for a subtext of Gee, look at all the unreasonable privileges people get on the grounds of religion! I'm reminded of the argument that we shouldn't support gay marriage, but instead should support getting government entirely out of marriage and letting any consenting adults form any arrangement they want. I absolutely agree with that ideal, but it's not happening anytime soon - so I support gay marriage. However, there are people who make this argument and use it as a reason to oppose gay marriage as a "privilege" we should not be establishing. I can't help noticing that people giving that objection are uniformly straight.

anamax 16y ago
> I can't help noticing that people giving that objection are uniformly straight. That says something about your powers of observation. I note that most people giving that objection are unmarried, and a large fraction are "uncoupled".
- Semiapies 16y ago
  And they remain straight people unrestricted by the status quo, arguing against removing restrictions on others on grounds that are naive at best, disingenuous at worst. Do you have a point?
  - anamax 16y ago
    > And they remain straight people unrestricted by the status quo As I implied with my first sentence, some folks making that argument are not straight, so they don't "remain straight". Yes, most folks making that argument are straight, but since most folks are straight.... > Do you have a point? My point is that your gaydar is broken at least wrt this issue.
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      You're welcome to provide citations of gay individuals arguing against their getting marriage rights on the basis that government needs to get out of marriage.
      - nkurz 16y ago
        E J Graff's "What is marriage for?" is beautiful book by a lesbian author that comes close to making this argument. While not exactly arguing that government needs to get out of marriage, it's a solid argument that government's involvement in marriage is a relatively new thing. It's also a good history of marriage from a heterosexual direction. Interview with the author here: http://www.uuworld.org/life/articles/24266.shtml http://www.uuworld.org/life/articles/24266.shtml
        Semiapies 16y ago
        I'll reiterate what I've said twice already: I'm talking about people using this argument to oppose (or at least refuse to support) allowing gay people to marry members of the same sex. You're welcome to point it out, but I sure don't see any such argument made by Graff in this interview.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > You're welcome to provide citations of gay individuals You cited your personal experience, so you don't get to complain when I do exactly the same thing.
        Semiapies 16y ago
        So when you were claiming my gaydar was "broken", you knew you were lying? At this point, I simply don't believe that you've met gay people who argued against supporting gay marriage on the basis that we have to get government out of the business of marriage first. It's a highly dubious claim, and you seem less than entirely honest.
        anamax 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

> I can't help noticing that people giving that objection are uniformly straight. That says something about your powers of observation. I note that most people giving that objection are unmarried, and a large fraction are "uncoupled".

Semiapies 16y ago
And they remain straight people unrestricted by the status quo, arguing against removing restrictions on others on grounds that are naive at best, disingenuous at worst. Do you have a point?
- anamax 16y ago
  > And they remain straight people unrestricted by the status quo As I implied with my first sentence, some folks making that argument are not straight, so they don't "remain straight". Yes, most folks making that argument are straight, but since most folks are straight.... > Do you have a point? My point is that your gaydar is broken at least wrt this issue.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    You're welcome to provide citations of gay individuals arguing against their getting marriage rights on the basis that government needs to get out of marriage.
    - nkurz 16y ago
      E J Graff's "What is marriage for?" is beautiful book by a lesbian author that comes close to making this argument. While not exactly arguing that government needs to get out of marriage, it's a solid argument that government's involvement in marriage is a relatively new thing. It's also a good history of marriage from a heterosexual direction. Interview with the author here: http://www.uuworld.org/life/articles/24266.shtml http://www.uuworld.org/life/articles/24266.shtml
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        I'll reiterate what I've said twice already: I'm talking about people using this argument to oppose (or at least refuse to support) allowing gay people to marry members of the same sex. You're welcome to point it out, but I sure don't see any such argument made by Graff in this interview.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > You're welcome to provide citations of gay individuals You cited your personal experience, so you don't get to complain when I do exactly the same thing.
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        So when you were claiming my gaydar was "broken", you knew you were lying? At this point, I simply don't believe that you've met gay people who argued against supporting gay marriage on the basis that we have to get government out of the business of marriage first. It's a highly dubious claim, and you seem less than entirely honest.
        anamax 16y ago