On: We don't need freedom of religion

[Semiapies]

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 → Semiapies]

> 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 → anamax]

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 → Semiapies]

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

[Semiapies → nkurz]

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 → Semiapies]

> 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 → anamax]

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 → Semiapies]

> 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 ...."?