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

Frightful Boar · 13 Jul 2014 at 11:35

Castiel said:
But you did....

Above all else it is in fact the welfare of the child that is preferable....which you stated was nonsense and are now agreeing with...

I think it was your lack of comprehension that created the problem you seem to have with my reply to the above quoted post by you, along with your inherent need to justify your prejudices.

You never actually get to the point, that wasn't part of our conversation!

The preference is that a child be with it's biological parents.

Can you prove that is not the case?

No fancy arguments, no quotes, can you or not?

Castiel · 13 Jul 2014 at 11:41

Frightful Boar said:
You never actually get to the point, that wasn't part of our conversation!

The preference is that a child be with it's biological parents.

Can you prove that is not the case?

No fancy arguments, no quotes, can you or not?

Again a classic strawman, as you stated "above all else" and are now changing your argument to suit. That post was the only part of our conversation as it was the one I quoted, replied to and challenged.

Originally Posted by Frightful Boar :

He didn't say "fare just as well". He said "need".

While neither are true, it's preferable above all else that it be a mother and a father raising their child, when it comes to adoption I can see how it might be viewed as positive if they're adopted by anyone who can pass the requirements set. Most children are brainwashed into believing nonsense anyway, not that much different if they're given unusual sexual mores (if that even happened).

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Castiel:

Its preferable above all else that the person(s) tasked with raising a child are both loving and capable...what sex or sexuality they are is completely irrelevant.

I think you need to take a breather as you are getting confused with what you are actually writing down as opposed to what you want to say...

I have already proven that "above all else" the biological status of the parent is not the overall determining factor, but the welfare of the child. If you disagree with this then illustrate why? What I didn't say is that the relationship of the parents to the child is not an important consideration in determining their welfare, it's simply not the defining one as you stated and have now attempted to backtrack on.

MrMarvelous · 13 Jul 2014 at 12:14

Wonder how long it'll take the gays to rage about this.

http://time.com/2975573/who-hiv-aids-gay-men-homosexual-epidemic-rise/

TheLegendOfMart · 13 Jul 2014 at 12:22

Unless you can get HIV eating a cake not sure what this has to do with original topic?

Unless it's a sly dig at "the gays" spreading HIV, straight people catching HIV (2880 or 45%) in 2012 was nearly as high gays catching HIV (3250 or 51%) in the UK source

PMKeates · 13 Jul 2014 at 12:26

TheLegendOfMart said:
Unless you can get HIV eating a cake not sure what this has to do with original topic?

I read in the Daily Mail you can get cancer from eating cake, so HIV isn't out of the question!

estebanrey · 13 Jul 2014 at 12:29

MrMarvelous said:
Wonder how long it'll take the gays to rage about this.

http://time.com/2975573/who-hiv-aids-gay-men-homosexual-epidemic-rise/

Organisation financed by Pharmaceutical Industry promotes scheme to sell more drugs and create a dependent market.

Hmmmm

Castiel · 13 Jul 2014 at 13:31

estebanrey said:
Organisation financed by Pharmaceutical Industry promotes scheme to sell more drugs and create a dependent market.

Hmmmm

To quote Christy Feig, Director of Communications at the World Health Organization :

Relating to the two year budget 2010-2011.

An organisation funded through the United Nations by the Member States (most notably the US) and various NGO's. 80% of the WHO is funded either directly (53%) or indirectly (21%) through other UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNDP and UNAIDS. Philanthropic foundations such as the UN Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation made up 18% of the funding....7% of the funding comes form non-governmental organisations, and the largest of those is Rotary International for work directly on Polio. That leaves 1% from Private Industry. Half of this was for a specific donation from Japanese organisation to finance costs of offices in Kobe, the other half for research into neglected and tropical disease.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...ah/setting-the-record-straight-on-who-funding

drunkenmaster · 13 Jul 2014 at 13:50

TheLegendOfMart said:
Unless you can get HIV eating a cake not sure what this has to do with original topic?

Unless it's a sly dig at "the gays" spreading HIV, straight people catching HIV (2880 or 45%) in 2012 was nearly as high gays catching HIV (3250 or 51%) in the UK source

Not to make a big deal of it, but nearly as high, is not good. If they were identical that would be fine if the population was 50% gay, but if it's more like I don't know, 5% of the population was gay then accounting for half the new cases in one year is hugely hugely disproportionate.

Dis86 · 13 Jul 2014 at 13:54

drunkenmaster said:
Not to make a big deal of it, but nearly as high, is not good. If they were identical that would be fine if the population was 50% gay, but if it's more like I don't know, 5% of the population was gay then accounting for half the new cases in one year is hugely hugely disproportionate.

This. Whilst it is off-topic it does need to be clarified that it is massively disproportionate. There's also the likely theory that it was unprotected sex between homo/bi-sexual men (through the belief it wasn't required due to no possibility of pregnancy) that caused the original cases of AIDS in the west.

PMKeates · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:17

Maybe God went back on his word and HIV via the gays is his next 'flood'?

Discuss

Frightful Boar · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:29

Castiel said:
Again a classic strawman, as you stated "above all else" and are now changing your argument to suit. That post was the only part of our conversation as it was the one I quoted, replied to and challenged.

I think you need to take a breather as you are getting confused with what you are actually writing down as opposed to what you want to say...

I have already proven that "above all else" the biological status of the parent is not the overall determining factor, but the welfare of the child. If you disagree with this then illustrate why? What I didn't say is that the relationship of the parents to the child is not an important consideration in determining their welfare, it's simply not the defining one as you stated and have now attempted to backtrack on.

Yup, as I thought. You have no leg to stand on so you come up with all your fluffy crap.

The fact is that every court in the land, every land, would rather a child grow up with his/her biological parents. They might now allow if because the parents could be unsuitable for some reason, but they would certainly prefer it. You talk about determining factors like this is anything to do with my assertion. My assertion is the preference of the people who can make a decision about this.

Nothing else, no other flim flam in a feeble attempt to "win", just some proof that my assertion is false.

Edited so even the very simple can understand. I love this forum, but often the length you have to go to in order to explain things is incredible.

tbyeah · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:38

No. They would prefer they have a loving environment.

In the UK, a child is born. If the parents are abusive, they child is taken by Social Services and (ideally) adopted by a loving family. This clearly shows that they would rather a loving environment than have the biological parents if need be.

No flimflam. Concise, to the point. This is what Castiel is saying as well. What is incorrect?

dirtychinchilla · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:40

Frightful Boar said:
Edited so even the very simple can understand. I love this forum, but often the length you have to go to in order to explain things is incredible.

You have some very extremist and fringe views, so it's hardly surprising that people fail to comprehend them; they're too astounded to make sense of what you're talking about.

Tombo · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:43

I wouldn't class thinking it's best to have children stay with their biological parents as an extreme or fringe view. The problem is you're criticising his words when you all know full well that he doesn't mean even if they are abusive parents but whatever it takes to win an argument.

tbyeah · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:44

dirtychinchilla said:
You have some very extremist and fringe views, so it's hardly surprising that people fail to comprehend them; they're too astounded to make sense of what you're talking about.

Indeed. I personally can't understand why you would want a child to remain with two abusive biological parents, instead of being adopted by two parents of the same sex who will love the child.

The only two differences are:
-one set of parents loves the child
-one set of parents have the same genetalia.

dirtychinchilla · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:44

tbyeah said:
Indeed. I personally can't understand why you would want a child to remain with two abusive biological parents, instead of being adopted by two parents of the same sex who will love the child.

The only two differences are:
-one set of parents loves the child
-one set of parents have the same genetalia.

That's really not what he's saying, but I agree with you nonetheless.

tbyeah · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:46

And kegde, how the hell are you any more valid to be saved than us if you won't even identify as a Christian?

Castiel · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:47

Frightful Boar said:
Yup, as I thought.

You didn't think, and that is the problem.

Frightful Boar said:
The fact is that every court in the land, every land, would rather a child grow up with his/her biological parents. They might now allow if because the parents could be unsuitable for some reason, but they would certainly prefer it. You talk about determining factors like this is anything to do with my assertion. My assertion is the preference of the people who can make a decision about this.

You don't even know any-more what your assertion was...You stated categorically that it's preferable above all else that it be a mother and a father raising their child, and that has been shown to be incorrect and a simplification, when in fact the preference above all else is the Welfare of the Child. Clearly you have realised the truth of this and you are now trying with all your might to extricate yourself from the statement with your logical fallacies and denials of what you stated, even when it is shown to you.

Frightful Boar said:
Nothing else, no other flim flam in a feeble attempt to "win", just some proof that my assertion is false.

You have pretty much admitted yourself that your original assertion was false, It just hasn't sunk in yet. That is the stripped down truth, above all else the welfare of the child comes first, not the parents relationship to them.

tbyeah · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:47

dirtychinchilla said:
That's really not what he's saying, but I agree with you nonetheless.

What is he saying then? He said that biological parents > above all else.

Frightful Boar · 13 Jul 2014 at 14:55

tbyeah said:
No. They would prefer they have a loving environment.

In the UK, a child is born. If the parents are abusive, they child is taken by Social Services and (ideally) adopted by a loving family. This clearly shows that they would rather a loving environment than have the biological parents if need be.

No flimflam. Concise, to the point. This is what Castiel is saying as well. What is incorrect?

We're not talking about abuse. We're talking about preference. Courts always prefer that the child lives with the natural parents.

dirtychinchilla said:
You have some very extremist and fringe views, so it's hardly surprising that people fail to comprehend them; they're too astounded to make sense of what you're talking about.

So what? This is a very simple statement. Castiel will argue with anything, we all know that.

The preference is that a child be with its biological parents. Nobody can provide any proof that this isn't the case.

The vast majority of children do live with their biological parents, even sometimes when they are horribly unfit.

Castiel said:
You didn't think, and that is the problem.

You don't even know any-more what your assertion was...You stated categorically that it's preferable above all else that it be a mother and a father raising their child, and that has been shown to be incorrect and a simplification, when in fact the preference above all else is the Welfare of the Child. Clearly you have realised the truth of this and you are now trying with all your might to extricate yourself from the statement with your logical fallacies and denials of what you stated, even when it is shown to you.

You have pretty much admitted yourself that your original assertion was false, It just hasn't sunk in yet. That is the stripped down truth, above all else the welfare of the child comes first, not the parents relationship to them.

Duck the question again why don't you.

If you don't agree with my assertion, which has been the same all throughout- The preference is that a child is with its biological parents - then please show me where this isn't the preference. You claimed you could but then haven't. You quoted stuff about abuse, but that's nothing to do with what I'm asserting.

I'm asking, again, for you to prove that the law, courts, etc wouldn't prefer a child be with its biological parents.

My assertion is that they would, you claim otherwise. So c'mon, let's see the proof.