2014 Gay Games Coming to Cleveland

**jjw** · October-03-09, 08:49 AM

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009..._city_for.html

Others have been Chicago, Montreal, Amsterdam. They were competing with places like DC and Boston. This is an amazing outcome for the city of Cleveland.

Could it ever happen in Detroit?

**Danny** · October-03-09, 03:35 PM

In Detroit HELL NO! in Ferndale FOR SURE!

**jjw** · October-03-09, 06:51 PM

I originally posted this information in the Detroit thread because I was curious to see how Detroiters thought about it. The dollars coming into Cleveland are substantial and the world prestige for Cleveland gained a point. Just wondering how feasible this was for the city.

ccbatson · October-03-09, 11:28 PM

So long as they aren't pushing a political agenda...more power to them.

**elganned** · October-04-09, 06:50 AM

But they are pushing a political agenda, Cc, namely equal rights and opportunities under the law. Like the right to get married, for example.

I say, get the party started. Hell, if it would provide jobs and bring dollars for revitalization, I'd be in favor of having a Big Gay Party every weekend. Their money spends the same as anyone else's.

**Ed Golick** · October-04-09, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by elganned

I say, get the party started. Hell, if it would provide jobs and bring dollars for revitalization, I'd be in favor of having a Big Gay Party every weekend. Their money spends the same as anyone else's.

Just don't invite Danny.

**elganned** · October-04-09, 10:52 AM

He wpuldn't come, anyway. Too busy "prophesying from the street".

ccbatson · October-04-09, 03:15 PM

They have equal rights as do all individuals. Marriage is not a right.

**elganned** · October-04-09, 03:35 PM

But marriage conveys legal rights, which are admittedly entered into voluntarily.
But that voluntary contract is denied gays, therefore the rights conveyed are also denied them.
QED.

ccbatson · October-04-09, 03:37 PM

Entitlements, not rights...which should not exist, whether gay or not.

**elganned** · October-04-09, 03:55 PM

You are mistaken. They are rights, contract rights sanctioned by hundreds of years of court decisions and precedents dating back to the Magna Carta.

I thought you were all about contract rights, Cc, and now you want to deny them? Try being a little more consistent in your positions; it makes the debate flow so much more smoothly.

ccbatson · October-04-09, 10:52 PM

Clarification...entitlements are one sided...the people funding them [[taxpayers) get nothing in the arrangement and have no choice but to participate/fund them. That is not a just contractual relationship...it should be a crime [[theft).

Lorax · October-04-09, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Clarification...entitlements are one sided...the people funding them [[taxpayers) get nothing in the arrangement and have no choice but to participate/fund them. That is not a just contractual relationship...it should be a crime [[theft).

Guess we must add the entitlements given to giant corporations in the form of tax breaks, tax breaks for the rich, corporate welfare, the list goes on. None of us have a choice in whether or not we participate in a society that allows the wealth interests greatest leverage.

Rights are what the non-socialists wish to preserve for themselves at the expense of the rest of society.

Lorax · October-04-09, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

They have equal rights as do all individuals. Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is a choice, sexuality is not.

And not all individuals have equal rights, which should be "axiomatic" unless you've been living under a rock your entire life.

**elganned** · October-04-09, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Clarification...entitlements are one sided...the people funding them [[taxpayers) get nothing in the arrangement and have no choice but to participate/fund them. That is not a just contractual relationship...it should be a crime [[theft).

And I am curious to know exactly what in the institution of marriage is an entitlement funded by the taxpayer that you find so reprehensible?

**sturge** · October-05-09, 08:58 AM

I'm sorry, but the scene from Revenge of the Nerds where the guy throws the javelin designed for his limp wristed throw comes to mind. lol

**Diehard** · October-05-09, 12:56 PM

Faaaabulous!

ccbatson · October-05-09, 07:08 PM

Tax breaks [[joint filing, dependents), sharing SS and Medicare benefits that an individual would not be entitled to if not for marriage...does that clarify it for you?

Lorax · October-05-09, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Tax breaks [[joint filing, dependents), sharing SS and Medicare benefits that an individual would not be entitled to if not for marriage...does that clarify it for you?

Yeah, beautifully. Now when same-sex marriage is nationwide, which will be shortly, all married couples will share the benefits associated with connubial bliss.

Equality is the name of the game here, nothing else.

**elganned** · October-06-09, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Tax breaks [[joint filing, dependents), sharing SS and Medicare benefits that an individual would not be entitled to if not for marriage...does that clarify it for you?

So you are against joint filing, dependent tax exemptions, and shared benefits between spouses? How interesting.

Does your wife agree?

**Diehard** · October-06-09, 02:21 PM

Sounds like an indictment of marriage in general, regardless of the genders involved.

**elganned** · October-06-09, 02:57 PM

I gather he endorses marriage, but only as an emotional attachment. Or something like that.

**bailey** · October-06-09, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by elganned

I gather he endorses marriage, but only as an emotional attachment. Or something like that.

But of course his whole argument is a non sequitor as no one anywhere is now or ever will [[seriously) support the repeal of all marriage civil benefits/entitlements/special gifts from Allah [[whatever euphemism you prefer) to heterosexual couples. But the continual harping about entitlements and 'special rights' for teh gheys allows one to sidestep and avoid the clear unconstitutionality of the granting of civil rights to some but not others based on an arbitrary fact and complete failure to show any rational or compelling state interest in doing so. I expect in about 20 years, this period and those like Bats will be looked upon with as much confusion, disgust and embarrassment as those who stood on wrong side of history on many other aspects in the civil rights struggles in this country.

**elganned** · October-06-09, 05:49 PM

I say let 'em marry. Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer?

ccbatson · October-06-09, 06:34 PM

Yes, I am against entitlements period. My wife, as well as any other rational person on the planet, would gladly live in a country where constitutionally limited government is allowed [[voluntarily) to levy taxes commensurate with the limited services provided [[defense, police, laws for commerce to be just). Care to hazard a guess as to what that would work out to for an average person? 35%? 20%? Try 5% or less.