2 ms·

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
    > So when you were claiming my gaydar was "broken", you knew you were lying? Not at all. I believe that you have described things as you saw them. I'm suggesting that reality was different. > 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. Good for you. I don't believe your claim either. > It's a highly dubious claim, Based on what? Your perception of the political uniformity of gays? > and you seem less than entirely honest. Based on what? I'm not relying on gaydar. I'm relying on "I'm gay and I think ..." statements. How do you know that they were lying? What's the basis for your "uniformly straight" claim? Did they all say "I'm straight and I think ...."?

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
  > So when you were claiming my gaydar was "broken", you knew you were lying? Not at all. I believe that you have described things as you saw them. I'm suggesting that reality was different. > 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. Good for you. I don't believe your claim either. > It's a highly dubious claim, Based on what? Your perception of the political uniformity of gays? > and you seem less than entirely honest. Based on what? I'm not relying on gaydar. I'm relying on "I'm gay and I think ..." statements. How do you know that they were lying? What's the basis for your "uniformly straight" claim? Did they all say "I'm straight and I think ...."?