Did Chick-fil-A Pretend to Be a Teenage Girl on Facebook?

[DGuller]

Why would he only punish us? Why hasn't he already thrown down on other nations that have adopted such measures?

Why are you asking me?  I don't even believe in God. 

We have atheists on Languish?

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm pretty sure that what we think marriage is and what Mr. CFA thinks it is are different things. So the premise of the question is suspect from the beginning. It's difficult to find common ground.

[garbon]

Why are you asking me?  I don't even believe in God. 

Because you postulated that it is a possible negative effect. Seems like it would only make sense to worry about that if a) we were treading on virgin ground (tee-hee) or b) had seen similar terrible things happen sometime after other countries legalized gay marriage.

[garbon]

I'm pretty sure that what we think marriage is and what Mr. CFA thinks it is are different things. So the premise of the question is suspect from the beginning. It's difficult to find common ground.

What question is suspect?

[Jacob]

OK, you seem to be making a distinction between condemning choices and condemning what a person is born with.  I can possibly live with this distinction.

Excellent.

[derspiess]

Why would he only punish us? Why hasn't he already thrown down on other nations that have adopted such measures?

Why are you asking me?  I don't even believe in God. 

We have atheists on Languish?

Even preacher's kids are atheists here

[garbon]

OK, you seem to be making a distinction between condemning choices and condemning what a person is born with.  I can possibly live with this distinction.

Excellent.

Isn't it a choice to get gay married?

[Jacob]

Isn't it a choice to get gay married?

Well yes, and it's also a choice for a black person to go to a specific school.

So just like it's bigoted to try to keep black people out of specific schools, it's bigoted to try to prevent gay people from getting married.

[garbon]

Isn't it a choice to get gay married?

Well yes, and it's also a choice for a black person to go to a specific school.

So just like it's bigoted to try to keep black people out of specific schools, it's bigoted to try to prevent gay people from getting married.

Fair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?

[The Brain]

Isn't it a choice to get gay married?

Well yes, and it's also a choice for a black person to go to a specific school.

So just like it's bigoted to try to keep black people out of specific schools, it's bigoted to try to prevent gay people from getting married.

Fair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?

[garbon]

Isn't it a choice to get gay married?

Well yes, and it's also a choice for a black person to go to a specific school.

So just like it's bigoted to try to keep black people out of specific schools, it's bigoted to try to prevent gay people from getting married.

Fair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?

You are right. You'd better not touch that one.

[Jacob]

Fair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?

So?

[garbon]

Fair though one could conceivably not act on one's homosexual urges which doesn't really have an equivalent as a black person, does it?

So?

Well then I don't think the whole actions versus identity thing is so clear...as I believe their objection is to homosexual acts (something one can control) and not that a homosexual exists (not within a person's control).  A homosexual is still a homosexual even when not acting on it.

[Jacob]

Well then I don't think the whole actions versus identity thing is so clear...as I believe their objection is to homosexual acts (something one can control) and not that a homosexual exists (not within a person's control).  A homosexual is still a homosexual even when not acting on it.

I'm not really that interested in the equivocation behind the bigotry, to be honest. That said, opposition to "homesexual acts" isn't really any less bigoted.

[garbon]

Well then I don't think the whole actions versus identity thing is so clear...as I believe their objection is to homosexual acts (something one can control) and not that a homosexual exists (not within a person's control).  A homosexual is still a homosexual even when not acting on it.

I'm not really that interested in the equivocation behind the bigotry, to be honest. That said, opposition to "homesexual acts" isn't really any less bigoted.

I'm not really either - I'm just saying that you and Yi seemed to come to an agreement on a division that doesn't seem particularly clear to me.