Caporegime
There is only one side, and people immediately written off as delusional nutters in this thread. Though I respect you for being more diplomatic than I am. 
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
it is simply how the English language works - gay marriage isn't legal, gay marriage is illegal
examples of this usage in mainstream media:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36946914
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...galise-gay-marriage-scottish-tory-leader-says
now instead of trying to be pedantic over my use of some word which I then waste time having to explain why not get back to the actual topic of the thread
Caporegime
I think this thread is pretty much done the next time a mod pokes their nose in anyway tbh.
Typical liberals, only wanting liberalism when it comes to their own interests am I right?
the result of this ruling isn't very liberal at all IMO, you can refuse custom based on some politics/message but as soon as someone attaches a protected group to the message then you're forced to comply with the request... that is a rather illiberal position.
Maajid sums it up nicely
https://www.facebook.com/LBC/videos/10154409373526558/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE
amusingly, in the comments, he's also used the Mohamed cake example I posted on here months ago
Last edited:
[FnG]magnolia;30151541 said:
I think you might be confusing people presenting more extreme analogies to demonstrate their point with people supporting certain things.
likewise this other poster seems to have missed the point in his reaction to someone posing a similar question
Why did you, and some other posters, ignore the rest of the post about the imbalance of power in most incestous relationships leading to a lack of true consent?
Look at the worldwide statistics, most especially sub-sharan Africa.
Now you're just applying selective conditional factors now lmao
When speaking about homosexuality you assume all conditions all always fine and mutual, but for incest you think they cant consent or have mutual attraction?
To compare something properly you need to have constants and variables. The potential variation of "imbalance of power" needs to be constant, you need to compare like-for-like. You cant just create a condition for one type and create a worse condition for the other type and expect to form a proper comparison.
Anyway, in simple terms your argument is only valid if certain conditions are met, which renders any percieved comparions wholly flawed.
What next? Are you actually going to start comparing a peadoincestuous relationship between a 20 year old and his 8 year old sibling, with a homosexual relationship between two 40 year olds?
Really? You cant do that to compare properly, but you can do it to clutch at straws
, you need to assume the incest couple are 40 and 38 or something.
Last edited:
Citable source?
Considering the person who molested me as a kid was a.) my father and b.) male, it does make me err on the side of not trusting men myself.
Wrong. While there is a risk in pregnancy with siblings, it's actually just as negligible with a first generation sibling pairing as it is with any other couple - the problem comes in with generational incest, where the ovum breaks down and multiple sperm is able to fertilise one egg. for example.
The royal family, for example - been a bunch of inbreeding sausage eaters for centuries - if there's only one reason you need to abolish the monarchy aside from being German, it's that they've been keeping it in the family since the year dot.
In your opinion.
Anyway. The thing that really has me worried is this - and I say this as a non christian; Gay people won the right to get married. That's great and dandy, congratulations and. I don't know. Have fun in deciding who gets to be the bride - but what about religious rights here? People should be just as protected from persecution for being gay as they should for simply being christian; you could argue forever and a day that gay people are just humans, but as far as these people are concerned, old Yahweh levelled Sodom and Gomorrah for a number of reasons including a love for bum sex - they're not harming anyone in their beliefs, they're not telling them they shouldn't get married to their face - the gay community is once again forcing someone to accept them, and I hate that. Acceptance when it's a legal requirement is not true acceptance.
Last edited:
Suspended
90 pages over a refusal to make a cake...
Caporegime
They do make tasty cakes though.
Now you're just applying selective conditional factors now lmao
When speaking about homosexuality you assume all conditions all always fine and mutual, but for incest you think they cant consent or have mutual attraction?
To compare something properly you need to have constants and variables. The potential variation of "imbalance of power" needs to be constant, you need to compare like-for-like. You cant just create a condition for one type and create a worse condition for the other type and expect to form a proper comparison.
Anyway, in simple terms your argument is only valid if certain conditions are met, which renders any percieved comparions wholly flawed.
What next? Are you actually going to start comparing a peadoincestuous relationship between a 20 year old and his 8 year old sibling, with a homosexual relationship between two 40 year olds?
Really? You cant do that to compare properly, but you can do it to clutch at straws
Did this make sense in your head? It certainly makes no sense when you have written it down.
Soldato
What about if they are both consenting twin brothers? There is no balance of power issue or birth defect worry. Shouldn't they be able to marry? Love is love? Bakers shouldn't use their 'outdated' morals not to make them a make incest marriage legal cake?
Of course it makes sense, I've basically reiterated the same point at least 3 times now. I will now attempt to reiterate again.
You presented two issues with incest which "aren't present" with homosex.
a) "With incest you have the significant risk of birth defects."
b) "Imbalance of power in most incestuous relationships leading to a lack of true consent"
And you went on to back up homosexuality by literally saying; C) "homosexuality none of these issues are present".
Now let me reason:
Point A "With incest you have the significant risk of birth defects."
This point requires the incestuous couple's primary motive to be to produce offspring. This point chooses to be ignorant of incestuous relations where offspring is not the primary motive, as well ignoring homo-incest. This point assumes it's possible for homosexual couples to conceive a child.
Conclusion: The point is absolutely ridiculous.
Point B "Imbalance of power in most incestuous relationships leading to a lack of true consent"
This point requires the dynamics of power to remain constant between homosexual relations and incestuous relations. There is no inherent disparity of "power" between two mature people simply because the two people are siblings. The dynamics of power in siblings you are describing are only manifest as an immaturity, as soon as you become mature you'd normally stop thinking you have more power over your brothers and sisters.
Conclusion: The point is absolutely ridiculous.
Point C "homosexuality none of these issues are present"
Yeah I don't even have to go into detail with this one lmao. No possible imbalance of power just because the two people have ****s?
You're just ignoring all the homosexual relations where one partner is definitely dominant??? Good grief.
Conclusion: Hahahahahah.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I...I agree entirely with Asim.
No I "literally" said "With homosexuality none of these issues are present in any greater degree than in normal heterosexual relationships."
So the rest of your post is frankly gibberish.
Making laws on incredibly unlikely extremes is normally bad practice.
What about homosexual relationships is harmful in your opinion?
Last edited: