Making sense only in a parallel theoretical world

Quite a while ago I commented on the strange logic put forth by a Ms. Tushnet that gays should remain celibate and certainly not be allowed to get married. Also quite a while ago my friend and debate partner responded to her arguments and the fallacies I pointed out. Yes, another case of me letting his insights sit in my inbox.

You stop so soon... more fallacies:

Marriage is in fact defined in highly varied ways by our highly varied religions; qualification and preparation for it vary greatly. A glaring example: Muslims take multiple wives. There is ample Biblical heritage for this! Ms. Tushnet gets an F for perspective and narrow-mindedness. Her views make sense only in a parallel theoretical world that no humans inhabit. Bad assumptions lead to useless (and here silly) conclusions.

Even granting her Catholic definition of marriage, her vision of straight marriage is so unrelated to reality that I, twice married and divorced, could only laugh. Straights have made such a mess of real-world marriage that religions and societies have for centuries twisted and turned their dogma and laws to provide loopholes through which actual marriages could pass. Catholic annulments after years of marriage with children are obvious examples. Two more: 1) The Anglican Church was invented so that King Henry could divorce and remarry. 2) Under the Catholic-inspired laws of New York State when I was young (just a half-century ago), when any couple, religious or not, wanted a divorce, one of the pair (almost always the husband) had to confess in court to adultery. Many thousands perjured themselves to escape miserable marriages.

My laughter grew longer and stronger as I realized Ms. Tushnet has no experience to draw upon; her discussion is really not about people. Too bad, given her commitment to celibacy, that her religion doesn't welcome her into its clergy. She's sooooo qualified.

The defenders of "traditional marriage" (whatever that is) need to tend to their integrity and credibility! Why should we listen to them?