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

spoffle · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:06

elmarko said:
One could also reasonably assert that by believing it "trivialises marriage" - it in some way implies that homosexual relationships are inferior or somehow unworthy of the same respect (by examining the meaning of trivialises).

A view which is frankly bigotry.

I think it's pretty clear that is what he was asserting.

Tefal · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:09

RDM said:
I think it is important to challenge the myth that it is a religious thing especially in a country where it patently isn't. It is that sort of language that allows religious conservatives to try and force their narrow view of what marriage is on to non religious people.

Thompson_NCL said:
You misunderstand. I said it has no value to society, obviously it may have value to them personally.

It's very tedious having to state everything twice. If you just read things properly and tried to understand them, I'd have more time to answer the posters who present intelligent points.

It does not however show that it is a negative to society.

them being married or unmarried does nothing to affect t your proposed "business" marriage

Schlong&Stable · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:09

Sliver said:
My sister and her husband, despite not be able to have kids of their own, ARE a value to society and I find it offensive that you think they are not. Wind your neck in. My sister is a probation worker helping young offenders rehabilitate and if it wasn't for her husband being there to support her every day, she'd probably not cope. Her marriage gives her the strength to continue in a very difficult job, which HELPS society.

Are you being willfully stupid? I didn't say they had no value to society, I said their marriage doesn't. Please try to read and comprehend.

Nothing you describe is exclusive to marriage. It could have occurred from cohabitation alone.

Tefal · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:11

Thompson_NCL said:
Are you being willfully stupid? I didn't say they had no value to society, I said their marriage doesn't. Please try to read and comprehend.

Nothing you describe is exclusive to marriage. It could have occurred from cohabitation alone.

Happy workers are productive workers

Would be the reasoning that a childless marriage is still a benefit to society

dirtychinchilla · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:11

Thompson_NCL said:
Are you being willfully stupid? I didn't say they had no value to society, I said their marriage doesn't. Please try to read and comprehend.

Nothing you describe is exclusive to marriage. It could have occurred from cohabitation alone.

Why does their marriage have no value in society?

Schlong&Stable · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:13

Tefal said:
It does not however show that it is a negative to society.

them being married or unmarried does nothing to affect t your proposed "business" marriage

Correct, because they parrot the ideal of marriage despite their unfortunate circumstances. Homosexuals cannot really parrot heterosexuals, which is where it begins to trivialise things.

Tefal · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:15

Thompson_NCL said:
Correct, because they parrot the ideal of marriage despite their unfortunate circumstances. Homosexuals cannot really parrot heterosexuals, which is where it begins to trivialise things.

Sure they can society says the end goal of a relationship is marriage hence many people even gays are happier if they can have thier marriage.

So they ar e more productive and so a benefit to society and may not be encouraged to leave to go where they can marry.

Again a benefit to society.

From your business only point of view gay marriage and childless marines are still benefits.

You have yet to state a single negative.

Schlong&Stable · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:15

Tefal said:
Happy workers are productive workers

Would be the reasoning that a childless marriage is still a benefit to society

Yes, you're right. And I would not want said couple to be unhappy. But we're talking about the difference between giving and inch and a mile.

Tefal · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:16

Thompson_NCL said:
Yes, you're right. And I would not want said couple to be unhappy. But we're talking about the difference between giving and inch and a mile.

Both the inch and the mile are positives for society though so both are a good measure to take.

spoffle · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:19

Thompson_NCL said:
Yes, you're right. And I would not want said couple to be unhappy. But we're talking about the difference between giving and inch and a mile.

What are your views based on, and (again) why do you feel you have the right to state what is acceptable and what isn't?

Tefal · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:20

So now your saying thier marriage does have value?

Your stance seem inconsistent and seemingly made up on the spot.

Frightful Boar · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:22

spoffle said:
I asked you a question, so that you would qualify your statements. You don't seem to take very well to being questioned, and seem to think someone questioning you is an attack on your views. But I also asked it because what you said has the context of anti-gay activism, in that a lot of them try to equate gay couples being allowed to marry, as people being allowed to marry animals, which I'm sure you can see, looking back was a reasonable assumption considering, hence why I asked you to clarify it.

I don't take well to being questioned in this fashion:

Is a woman marrying a walrus somehow analogous to a woman marrying another woman? If not, why make the comparison in the first place?

The first question is fine, but when you ask more than one like that, it feels like being badgered and pressed. Were you to ask me two questions like that in real life without waiting for an answer for the first one I would probably be even ruder.

As for the rest of it, I care as little about anti-gay activists and their opinions as my fellow forum members know about anthropology.

Sliver · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:22

spoffle said:
When you start hinting at violence as a means to resolve a verbal dispute, you've lost.

Who mentioned violence? Did I ? No. You just did. So as you were the first person to mention it. I guess you lost eh ?

As an aside, when someone tries to tell me that my sister's marriage has no value to society like he did, I get angry.

dirtychinchilla · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:25

Frightful Boar said:
I don't take well to being questioned in this fashion:

Is a woman marrying a walrus somehow analogous to a woman marrying another woman? If not, why make the comparison in the first place?

The first question is fine, but when you ask more than one like that, it feels like being badgered and pressed. Were you to ask me two questions like that in real life without waiting for an answer for the first one I would probably be even ruder.

As for the rest of it, I care as little about anti-gay activists and their opinions as my fellow forum members know about anthropology.

Yeah it's a pretty outrageous; clearly you did not mean that they are analogous...your agenda goes to far, spoffle.

Castiel · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:25

I simply cannot understand why anyone would be opposed to equality in marriage other than them holding deep religious convictions, with the latter whilst being understandable, it not being a reasonable position with which to deny such rights. The only requirement for any marriage, be it man and woman, a same sex couple or men and women or any combination therein, should be the equal and freely given consent of all parties wishing to commit to such a union.

That is all the State should ensure, if a religious organisation wishes to not conduct such weddings then they should be free to not do so, equally the State should ensure provision is available to ensure everyone has access to such provision.

Marriage is about value to the individuals within the marriage, not whether a marriage has value to society..the fact that the individual finds value in it by associating gives it value to society.

Schlong&Stable · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:26

Tefal said:
Sure they can society says the end goal of a relationship is marriage hence many people even gays are happier if they can have thier marriage.

So they ar e more productive and so a benefit to society and may not be encouraged to leave to go where they can marry.

Again a benefit to society.

From your business only point of view gay marriage and childless marines are still benefits.

You have yet to state a single negative.

So to make a small number of people happy, we have to trivialise a socio-economic institution which has been at the heart of civilization for thousands of years, further removing it from its intended function?

I consider that the very opposite of positive.

Tefal · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:28

*the equal and freely given consent of all pastries wishing to commit to such a union.*

I giggled

Sliver · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:28

Frightful Boar said:
Hilarious!!

Sliver makes up lies about fellow forum members and now starts threatening people. You don't even know him dude, he could be nails!

Hinting at violence doesn't necessarily mean you've lost. He just might not have the time to continue arguing. It is nearly 5pm and nobody wants to argue in their own time.

Why are people talking about me being violent all of a sudden ? I never said anything about violence. You guys are the ones talking about violence. I never threatened physical abuse on any one. Go re read my posts. All I wanted was a five minute face to face discussion. :confused:

spoffle · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:29

Frightful Boar said:
I don't take well to being questioned in this fashion:

Is a woman marrying a walrus somehow analogous to a woman marrying another woman? If not, why make the comparison in the first place?

The first question is fine, but when you ask more than one like that, it feels like being badgered and pressed. Were you to ask me two questions like that in real life without waiting for an answer for the first one I would probably be even ruder.

As for the rest of it, I care as little about anti-gay activists and their opinions as my fellow forum members know about anthropology.

It's a discussion forum, you are putting forth views, and they are being questioned. You have questioned other people, but get in a flap when you are questioned back? Lawd.

Also, why should I wait for an answer to spare you feeling your feelings? I had 2 questions, I asked them. You seem to want to provide a script for how an acceptable conversation should go.

You weren't being rude, you were being whiney.

Also, "real life"? What's not real about this conversation exactly? Is anything text based "Not real life" but some alternate existence that is only loosely related to the "real" on you're living?

Sliver said:
Who mentioned violence? Did I ? No. You just did. So as you were the first person to mention it. I guess you lost eh ?

I said suggest, not mention.

As an aside, when someone tries to tell me that my sister's marriage has no value to society like he did, I get angry.

Well this suggests you did intend it in the way it read.

Tefal · 10 Jul 2014 at 16:29

Thompson_NCL said:
So to make a small number of people happy, we have to trivialise a socio-economic institution which has been at the heart of civilization for thousands of years, further removing it from its intended function?

I consider that the very opposite of positive.

Again you have yet to state how it trivialises it or how trivialisen is a negative.

I posted reasoning demonstrating the trivialiseation of it was a positive.

You again failed to refute that.

You said that social marriage was nothing more than a business proposal to increase productivity.

Since that's the case then even small gains from appeasing small numbers are again a social positive.