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

Frightful Boar said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
wndsr said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Sliver said:
But you still have time to read all the posts and reply selectively when you feel like it. Pull the other one m8.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Thompson_NCL said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
Frightful Boar said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
I've already answered the specific question, so what precisely are you unclear of?
Click to expand...

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.
 
wndsr said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't need to prove I'm not a homophobe. Do you? Does anyone? Is there an inquisition?
 
wndsr said:
Are you against equal marriage? Two men?

I prefer the term equal marriage personally, but I guess it's all the same concept.
Click to expand...

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.
 
wndsr said:
Are you against equal marriage? Two men?

I prefer the term equal marriage personally, but I guess it's all the same concept.
Click to expand...

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.

Frightful Boar said:
I don't need to prove I'm not a homophobe. Do you? Does anyone? Is there an inquisition?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Frightful Boar said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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:

Frightful Boar said:
It seems to me that two parents with children conceived naturally would be a far stronger family unit, on the whole, than a couple of gay fellas. Gays just don't have the same sorts of drive to pro-create and raise a family. That drive to reproduce is the primal desire behind wanting to mate and gays don't really mate do they?

Creating a child with a person makes a bond that is phenomenally powerful in my experience. Not to mention the profound and unconditional love I think it's only possible to have for your own child.
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
Frightful Boar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is a woman marrying a walrus somehow analogous to a woman marrying another woman? If not, why make the comparison in the first place?
 
Frightful Boar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RDM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom