You're against gay marriage. That's my agenda if you like. That's why I say you must be homophobic and I'll also add that this homophobia comes from your religious beliefs.
Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
You're against gay marriage. That's my agenda if you like. That's why I say you must be homophobic and I'll also add that this homophobia comes from your religious beliefs.
Give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure he'll be along later to thoroughly explain and substantiate his position. He's clearly busy doing things and stuff at the moment.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
I don't have time to be writing more than necessary as I have to explain the simplest of things in great depth for some the rocket scientists on this forum.
I'm quite selfish yes. Boohoo.
I'd be disappointed.
I'd be happy for them.
Do you feel better about yourself now?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Well I've time to pick up a few things here and there, yes. I've not the time to set out a structured and comprehensive answer, no.
I've already answered the specific question, so what precisely are you unclear of?
perfectly acceptable, can i ask that you simply quote me or write tefal in the post when you explain your deductions about the negatives when you egt round to it, just means it will come up when i search my name (quickly lets you find people who've replied for you)
as i am genuinely interested in your reasoning for your position mainly because its rare for someone to have reasoning usually falling back on a purely religious argument or non at all so an alternate reasoned view point (even if different to my own reasoning) will be an interesting read.
I don't need you to spell things out for me, I just thought you'd rather do yourself a favour by expanding on why you would be unhappy if your child told you they were gay, instead of simply saying 'of course' thus making you seem like a homophobe.
Clearly not, so no worries.
How it trivialises marriage?
I would think that allowing people who are in loving and committed relationships to marry would help strengthen marriage rather than further trivialise it.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
Ahh ok, so you make up anything you fancy to advance that agenda?
Can you please quote me saying that I'm against "gay marriage"?
Are you against equal marriage? Two men?
I prefer the term equal marriage personally, but I guess it's all the same concept.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
I don't need to prove I'm not a homophobe. Do you? Does anyone? Is there an inquisition?
So you'd be momentarily disappointed that your child wouldn't give you grandchildren, then you would support and love your child in the same way you always had if he were homosexual?
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
I believe that the term "gay marriage" is homophobic and not a phrase I would use. That's why I put it in quotes but I don't expect you to understand subtleties in communication.
I'm not against any marriage. A woman can marry a walrus if she so desires. It's gross, but not my problem.
Still waiting for Sliver to apologise for making up lies about what I believe.
To be honest, I don't know why gay people are so interested in wanting to get married, because of the highly religious connotations, and the typical religious persecution that usually comes with it, I would have thought most of them would want to distance themselves from it.
I can't stand the term homophobe, it implies an explicit fear of gay people, which most of the time it isn't a fear.
You more or less said it yourself here, any rational person reading this would conclude you are not pro gay marriage, and therefore you harbour homophobic views on the subject:
I've heard this line of reasoning too many times, and it always comes from anti gay stance people. What the rest of us refer to as, homophobes.
Is a woman marrying a walrus somehow analogous to a woman marrying another woman? If not, why make the comparison in the first place?
You don't even know me, how are you able to determine what I'm able and unable to determine?
You continue waiting for Silver to apologise. You sound highly mature.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
The primary purpose of marriage is to create a stable familial relationship for the upbringing of children. We give marriage a special status to encourage people to create these stable relationships and produce the next generation of workers. Love has no real value to society, I don't care if married couples love each other or not. I care that they create stable relationships, raise their kids well and contribute to society.
Marriage is more of a business proposition, one which is intended to endure the ups and downs of romance. The love stuff is just what gets it going. You've only to read the relationship thread on here to see how fickle love is.
A marriage where children are not produced is essentially pointless. It's great that two people are in love and can spend their lives together, I'd even be willing to recognise that as a civil union for legal reasons. But society has no real stake in that sort of relationship, nevermind giving it a tax break!
Think we have discovered an underlying sexual interest in the Walrus species.