Marriage, Gays, and Atheists

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I have no right to demand anyone marry me.

How to parse this?

1. "I have no right to demand anyone marry me (as a spouse)".
We are not demand that anyone be forced to become our spouses. On the other hand, you've made the glib comment that gays and lesbians can get married already--to those that they don't wish to get married.

In other words, you're not demanding the right for just anyone to marry you, but you want to force us to marry just anyone.

2. "I have no right to demand anyone (church, priest) marry me (to someone else)".
We are not demanding that any religious organization sanction or sanctify our relationships. Instead, we'd like to have our marriages judged, treated, protected, and accorded the same rights and privileges that other marriages are granted by the government, and given the same validity in the eyes of the government.

You're conflating legal, secular rights with religious principles. We're not looking for the religious nod.

That said, you still aren't retracting your heinous remarks about Theo van Gogh?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher
Is that a Battle Toad smilie?

no - the smug smilie

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles

I'm still in the closet in Atlanta. Online, and in Chicago, I'm not.

*shrugs*

It doesn't help that my mother's a convert to Catholicism and uses the same talking points as Ben half the time. But she at least isn't as insulting or disingenuous as he is, even when she says that gays, like serial killers, are an "American problem".

I should feel grateful. In spite of my family's Catholic background, my mother and all my siblings accept me over the ten years I've been out (dad had died a year before I came out).

Now, I haven't had a serious discussion though with any of them about equal marriage rights. I'm afraid to think what the opinion of some of my family would be.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You still haven't grasped Kant's argument that logical actions are in and of themselves self-sustaining. Illogical actions are contrary to their own nature, which is why they lead to their own extinction.

First of all, you don't understand jack about Kant.

Second, if everyone on Earth had children the way religious folks wanted, the world population would quickly exceed its carrying capacity. Therefore, by your attempt at Kant, having children is illogical, and thus we should not be encouraging it.

Unless we want to continue destroying the environment, and thus, our ability to live on this plant, we need to control population growth. Thus, only some people should have children, and those people who do have children should keep the number down to 1 to 3, as opposed to breeding like bunnies, as you religiots are want to do.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
They don't need to use the Army to protects gays in schools.

No, but in the bigger cities, they've established schools for gay victims of bullying.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Chicago doesn't have gay schools.

It appears only New York and Milwaukee have gay schools. Big deal.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Chicago doesn't have gay schools.

It appears only New York and Milwaukee have gay schools. Big deal.

Toronto does as well.

BTW, don't know if you saw this:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/11/gay-lesbian-high-school-chicago.html

Gay-oriented high school plan dropped
November 18, 2008 at 10:47 PM | Comments (14)

The team behind a plan to open Chicago's first public high school aimed at gay and lesbian students pulled the plug today, faced with criticism from Mayor Richard Daley and some ministers and an internal split about whether a revamped version "watered down" the vision.



The Chicago Board of Education was set to vote on the proposal Wednesday, but the educators who had been pushing the plan asked to be taken off the agenda late Tuesday.

The school initially was going to be called the School for Social Justice Pride Campus partly focusing on gay issues. But last week, organizers changed the name to the Solidarity Campus and broadened its focus to include all disenfranchised groups of students.

As late as Tuesday morning, some advocates were pushing the idea that the change was a good compromise. A few hours later, however, the group told Chicago Public Schools officials it would try to retool its ideas and ask for approval in a year.

"There are some members of the design team who felt it was watered down too much and there was not enough consensus...to move forward as it stood," district spokesman Michael Vaughn said.

The organizers, members of the School for Social Justice in Little Village, issued a statement late Tuesday saying they plan to go before the board next year and have the school open in 2010.

Some gay rights activists said they were concerned the proposed high school would segregate gay youths while others saw such a campus as a safe haven from possible harassment and violence.

[Naked Gents Rut]

BTW, don't know if you saw this:

How do you think I found out Chicago doesn't have gay schools?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


How do you think I found out Chicago doesn't have gay schools?

Clearly you wished to enroll in one.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I got all the gayness I could ever want in high school. I was on the wrestling team.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
I got all the gayness I could ever want in high school. I was on the wrestling team.

Those singlets are always amusing.

[-Jrabbit]

Is this circle jerk still going?

Wow.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher


Those singlets are always amusing.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've committed no acts of thuggery, and **** your loose Christian ass for implying otherwise.

What's the difference between condoning thuggery and committing it?

None in my eyes. I don't see what's so hard about this. Just fess up and repudiate the actions of those who are doing more damage then good to your movement.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not a mention of fires. Spray painting is all that's described. OoooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOooooh. You do realize that petty vandalism isn't remotely comparable to arson as a crime, right?

Thank you Boris.

That's what I was after.

I'm glad to see you condone vandalism.