Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

[wndsr]

Of course.

Why? Would having a homosexual child make you less of a father, or them less of a human being?

Surely you would love your child unconditionally regardless of who they fancied?

 

[Frightful Boar]

Actually you did say just that:



So again, read my reply:




Now try and answer my original question honestly.

Sliver. I think you have a problem. I not once stated that anyone would be doing anyone a disservice. In fact adoption seems like a lovely thing.

So I didn't say that. Are you able to understand now? Why do I have to explain everything in such depth?

 

[RDM]

There is no law that requires someone to produce a product that endorses or supports a change in the law. A company is free to choose who it contracts to and as long as they have not broken the law in doing so (and they would have to prove that it was the fact that the buyer was homosexual rather than it simply being the nature of the product itself) and as the slogan was specifically related to Support for Same Sex Marriage and a change in the current law, I cannot see why a company should be forced to supply products that are designed to endorse that if they do not wish to. As I said, if it were a wedding cake (assuming same sex marriage was legal) and they refused that, then that would be legally discriminatory, but the opposition of Same Sex Marriage is not and in Northern Ireland at least Same Sex Marriage is still illegal and I can understand why a company would not want to be associated with such a controversial argument.

The law in Northern Ireland is different to the law in the rest of the UK, their anti discrimination laws also include political opinion.

Also there is a small, somewhat pedantic but quite important point. Same Sex marriage is not illegal in Northern Ireland, it just isn't legal. If they were illegal then UK Same Sex marriages would not be recognised, they are, they are given the same protection as Northern Ireland civil partnerships.

 

[Tefal]

Incorrect and gross. The nature of a pair bond is that it's a male and a female. You may as well refer to a keyboard as a monitor if you want to just refer to anything as anything else you so desire.

That's your reasoning mate. You can't draw a conclusion from what I've said and then say correctly that it's my reasoning. Do you even understand how reality works?

no its your reasoning. you said children are necessary for the bond.

gay people are perfectly capable of loving each other and the chemical process to achieve a pair bond is identical in them as it is you.

if you are saying children are not nessecery then how do you say gay people cannot have it? they certainly seem to think they do.

and as i said before from my experience there's little to no difference between male or females as far as bonding goes or love.

 

[Sliver]

So I didn't say that. Are you able to understand now? Why do I have to explain everything in such depth?

Because you're not making your self clear about your position, a position which from reading your posts, needs to be challenged.

 

[spoffle]

Sliver. I think you have a problem. I not once stated that anyone would be doing anyone a disservice. In fact adoption seems like a lovely thing.

So I didn't say that. Are you able to understand now? Why do I have to explain everything in such depth?

Either nearly everyone misunderstood what you said in the exact same way, or now you're backpedaling on what you meant.

It seemed pretty obvious that you were claiming that a family couldn't be as strong as a "normal" hetero family who have naturally conceived a child, just based on the virtue of it being a hetero couple who have conceived a child together, and that was it.

 

[Frightful Boar]

Why? Would having a homosexual child make you less of a father, or them less of a human being?

Surely you would love your child unconditionally regardless of who they fancied?

Wow, you're clever. In your own mind anyway.

I would be unhappy because that would mean no grandchildren. Who would be happy with that?

I didn't say anything about not loving them. That's part of your feeble attempt to trap me.

Your other two questions are even stupider.

 

[Tefal]

Of course.

would you still love them equally and unconditionally or would they drop below the other children?

 

[Tefal]

I would be unhappy because that would mean no grandchildren. Who would be happy with that?

except it doesn't, surrogacy for gay people has gone on for a long time now you would be perfectly capable of having a genetic heir if your child so wished.

So now thats cleared up youd no longer be unhappy yes?

 

[Frightful Boar]

Either nearly everyone misunderstood what you said in the exact same way, or now you're backpedaling on what you meant.

It seemed pretty obvious that you were claiming that a family couldn't be as strong as a "normal" hetero family who have naturally conceived a child, just based on the virtue of it being a hetero couple who have conceived a child together, and that was it.

OMG. Can you not read?

I stated that I didn't say what Sliver said. Something about a disservice. I didn't say that.

Did I?

 

[wndsr]

Wow, you're clever. In your own mind anyway.

I would be unhappy because that would mean no grandchildren. Who would be happy with that?

I didn't say anything about not loving them. That's part of your feeble attempt to trap me.

Your other two questions are even stupider.

Don't be patronising just because I asked you to expand on your rather feeble attempt at answering my first question. If you'd have bothered to respond with more than 'Of course' perhaps I wouldn't need to ask stupid questions to draw out stupid answers.

So you'd be unhappy because you wouldn't get grandchildren? Isn't that rather selfish?

What if your heterosexual kids didn't want grandchildren?
What if your homosexual kids wanted to adopt?

 

[Sliver]

OMG. Can you not read?

I stated that I didn't say what Sliver said. Something about a disservice. I didn't say that.

Did I?

No but the implication was clear from your post. Stop wriggling around and tap dancing around the truth. Just admit that your view is homophobic and everything else you say in this topic stems from that view.

 

[Frightful Boar]

would you still love them equally and unconditionally or would they drop below the other children?

Another one who thinks he's clever. I wouldn't have thought it would affect my love for anyone.

except it doesn't, surrogacy for gay people has gone on for a long time now you would be perfectly capable of having a genetic heir if your child so wished.

So now thats cleared up youd no longer be unhappy yes?

It's not cleared up, I didn't say anything about a genetic heir. You internet arguers are pathetic. You'll argue anything to "win"

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Shameful copout. Can't answer cause you know you're trying to defend an indefensible position.

Nonsense. I've given the headline answer: it trivialises marriage. If you want a more verbose answer, you will need to wait. Not because I am incapable of answering the question, but because I don't currently have the time to write a more verbose answer.

 

[spoffle]

OMG. Can you not read?

I stated that I didn't say what Sliver said. Something about a disservice. I didn't say that.

Did I?

You never said it explicitly, however the essence of your post is how I laid it out.

 

[Frightful Boar]

No but the implication was clear from your post. Stop wriggling around and tap dancing around the truth. Just admit that your view is homophobic and everything else you say in this topic stems from that view.

What have I said that's homophobic, genius? Claiming that my love for my child is greater than the love I have for anyone else is homophobic.

What's your agenda?

 

[Sliver]

Nonsense. I've given the headline answer: it trivialises marriage. If you want a more verbose answer, you will need to wait. Not because I am incapable of answering the question, but because I don't currently have the time to write a more verbose answer.

But you still have time to read all the posts and reply selectively when you feel like it. Pull the other one m8.

 

[wndsr]

Nonsense. I've given the headline answer: it trivialises marriage. If you want a more verbose answer, you will need to wait. Not because I am incapable of answering the question, but because I don't currently have the time to write a more verbose answer.

I think the heterosexual population has already done a fantastic job of trivialising marriage.

Edit: The vast majority of my friends around my age see no point in getting married as they fail to see what exactly it will bring to their lives. They know they love somebody, they need nobody else to tell them it's "official"

 

[spoffle]

except it doesn't, surrogacy for gay people has gone on for a long time now you would be perfectly capable of having a genetic heir if your child so wished.

So now thats cleared up youd no longer be unhappy yes?

The thing I find funny about people who hate gays so fervently is that they're usually utter raging bumders so far in the closet that they're practically living in Narnia.

 

[Tefal]

Another one who thinks he's clever. I wouldn't have thought it would affect my love for anyone.



It's not cleared up, I didn't say anything about a genetic heir. You internet arguers are pathetic. You'll argue anything to "win"

you did?

you said you'd be upset because it meant you cannot have grandchildren, i simply said you could, i used the term genetic heir to indicate that it would be your biological grandchild not an adopted child. sorry for any confusion i was simply trying to be clear.

so if your gay son had a child and a stable partner you would not be unhappy anymore due to his gayness?



not trying to "win" i was simply trying to inform you that gay couples can and do have genetic children and have for a long time.