Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

UncleBuck said:

are you so stupid that you don't know that it is possible for gays to have their own children?

one partner gives their sperm/egg, and the other partner has someone in their family provide the egg/sperm.

it is biologically and gentically every bit their child.

i'll be waiting for you to start a petition to strip marriage rights form infertile couples, ya fucking bigot.

Click to expand...

Wtf are you talking about. I have never opposed same sex marriage. This discussion wasn't about that.

BigNBushy said:

Wtf are you talking about. I have never opposed same sex marriage. This discussion wasn't about that.

Click to expand...

you'll say two different things on two different days, so save your strength for making me a sandwich.

Padawanbater2 said:

So the benefits awarded to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are, but more importantly should be, based on that couples perceived benefit to society when they get married?

So what about a heterosexual couple that doesn't have any kids? Should they be awarded the same benefits as a heterosexual couple that does?



Then how is homosexuality immoral?



"Almost universally" wedding a child up until the 20th century was considered "normal", too. In some places TODAY it still is. Are we to let society judge what is moral and immoral in that instance? If not there then why here? Society has said it's "moral" for thousands of years..



Rights don't change with time. Rights are rights specifically because they do not change. Imo, you're opinion that rights are subject to change with age and the society in which they exist is simply wrong

Click to expand...

Benefits exist to promote specific actions. Those actions are typically seen to be of some utility or benefit to our society on the whole.

A heterosexual couple unable/unwilling to have kids should not be separated from the rest of the heterosexual couples for purposes of these benefits. Theoretically, you are right, but the amount of monitoring it would take to "police" this provision would be cost prohibitive. In essence, the benefit is distributed where the potential to create the societal good rests. Even a hetero couple who never has children has the potential to have the by virtue of their sex. The vast majority do. While it is an impossibility for a homosexual couple to produce a child.

It was mentioned that the benefit of producing the next generation of citizens could be accomplished by homosexual couples by adoption. This is a stupid statement. Adoption is not production of a child. A heterosexual couple has already produced that child, and were not able to raise it. Therefore the homosexual couple is doing a benefit, but not the one you mention. The benefit the receive for this is child tax credits.

Homosexuality is amoral because western society has said it was for about 1500 years, if not longer. Homosexuality found acceptance in peagan Europe, but not as practiced today. Men would marry women, and engage in homosexual activity with each other for shits and giggles. Rarely before in world history has there been a movement where homosexuals would decide to enter into the same type of relationship as men and women enter into. So at times when homosexual activity was accepted, what we might call a same sex marriage was still unacceptable to their societies. Greece and Rome come to mind here. So were talking amoral for 3000 years of western society here.

As I said, this morality seems to be changing. Time will tell. Marrying a child was ok, when it was ok. It's not ok anymore, because we nolonger think it is ok. Make sense?

You say rights don't change. Go tell Henry VIII, Nero, and the Spanish Inquisitors that.

BigNBushy said:

it is an impossibility for a homosexual couple to produce a child.

Click to expand...

no, it's not.

BigNBushy said:

Benefits exist to promote specific actions. Those actions are typically seen to be of some utility or benefit to our society on the whole.

A heterosexual couple unable/unwilling to have kids should not be separated from the rest of the heterosexual couples for purposes of these benefits. Theoretically, you are right, but the amount of monitoring it would take to "police" this provision would be cost prohibitive. In essence, the benefit is distributed where the potential to create the societal good rests. Even a hetero couple who never has children has the potential to have the by virtue of their sex. The vast majority do. While it is an impossibility for a homosexual couple to produce a child.

Click to expand...

So it's not the perceived benefit to society, it's the function of ability; heterosexual couples could do it "if they wanted to"... homosexual couples can't - that's what matters.

What about sterile heterosexual couples? Should they be denied the same benefits, too, because they don't have the ability to have kids?

BigNBushy said:

Homosexuality is amoral because western society has said it was for about 1500 years, if not longer. Homosexuality found acceptance in peagan Europe, but not as practiced today. Men would marry women, and engage in homosexual activity with each other for shits and giggles. Rarely before in world history has there been a movement where homosexuals would decide to enter into the same type of relationship as men and women enter into. So at times when homosexual activity was accepted, what we might call a same sex marriage was still unacceptable to their societies. Greece and Rome come to mind here. So were talking amoral for 3000 years of western society here.

As I said, this morality seems to be changing. Time will tell. Marrying a child was ok, when it was ok. It's not ok anymore, because we nolonger think it is ok. Make sense?

You say rights don't change. Go tell Henry VIII, Nero, and the Spanish Inquisitors that.

Click to expand...

You seem to believe that what is right is whatever the society of the time says is right. How do you not see the obvious flaw in this reasoning? Slavery was legal up until 1865, does that mean it was right because the society said it was in 1860?

Wavels said:

Ewww, I do not know which is worse, Red's horrible sociopathic idea, or the fact that I have to agree with a Pada post. Red's post is, at best, unsettling and vomit inducing, so Pada's post is preferable by a country mile...and I agree with him... Eewwwwww!

Click to expand...

You have no sense of humor.

Red1966 said:

You have no sense of humor.

Click to expand...

didn't sound like a joke to me.

Padawanbater2 said:

So the benefits awarded to heterosexual couples and homosexual couples are, but more importantly should be, based on that couples perceived benefit to society when they get married? So what about a heterosexual couple that doesn't have any kids? Should they be awarded the same benefits as a heterosexual couple that does? Then how is homosexuality immoral? "Almost universally" wedding a child up until the 20th century was considered "normal", too. In some places TODAY it still is. Are we to let society judge what is moral and immoral in that instance? If not there then why here? Society has said it's "moral" for thousands of years.. Rights don't change with time. Rights are rights specifically because they do not change. Imo, you're opinion that rights are subject to change with age and the society in which they exist is simply wrong

Click to expand...

"Rights don't change with time. Rights are rights specifically because they do not change. Imo, you're opinion that rights are subject to change with age and the society in which they exist is simply wrong" "Rights" do change, depending on time and location. Woman didn't always have the right to vote, for instance. "God given" is a phrase that doesn't reflect reality.

UncleBuck said:

no, it's not.

Click to expand...

pray-tell??? between the 2 of them, not a chance... if that's not the definition of un-natural, i don't know what is...
(now, let the insults begin, lol........)

Padawanbater2 said:

Another example of right wing science illiteracy..

Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^Another example of left wing science illiteracy^^^^^^^^^^

Silky Shagsalot said:

pray-tell??? between the 2 of them, not a chance... if that's not the definition of un-natural, i don't know what is...
(now, let the insults begin, lol........)

Click to expand...

i've already described exactly how, and you'd have to be really short on mental faculties to be unable to see how.

Red1966 said:

You have no sense of humor.

Click to expand...

Didn't take you for the human type Red.

Silky Shagsalot said:

pray-tell??? between the 2 of them, not a chance... if that's not the definition of un-natural, i don't know what is...
(now, let the insults begin, lol........)

Click to expand...

How does something being unnatural hold any relevance here?

GOD HERE said:

Didn't take you for the human type Red.

Click to expand...

You flatter me.

GOD HERE said:

Yours has been dry for the past 3 months. Every post is " wahhhh property rights, government coercion wahhhh. Murray Rothbard... 1984.... Voluntary contract... wahhhhhh"

Click to expand...

Well that would be a point of view thing. Simply because you don't like things I point out, doesn't make them false does it?

I would remind you the reason many people post here anonymously is largely because of the largest violation of property rights ever perpetrated on people. Perhaps you've heard....weed is illegal. I think you are a jealous god. Peace.

Rob Roy said:

Well that would be a point of view thing. Simply because you don't like things I point out, doesn't make them false does it?

I would remind you the reason many people post here anonymously is largely because of the largest violation of property rights ever perpetrated on people. Perhaps you've heard....weed is illegal. I think you are a jealous god. Peace.

Click to expand...

No, he's the response to a crappy young adult book. I always thought that category was funny. A real young adult is over 18, an 11 year old hasn't even hit puberty yet, but for marketing purposes you're a young adult. At heart?

UncleBuck said:

try all the word salad you want, rob.

oi have you on record defending the denial of service that blacks had to endure in the south pre-civil rights. an ugly chapter of our history that caused harm to blacks.

you defend the racist business owners at the expense of the blacks.

your attempts to redefine and revise history will not change what happened, nor will it change the consequences of your views. you are laughable and pathetic in your attempts to do so.

Click to expand...

Word salad? I think you are the one that practices deceit with words. My position is plain and simple. All people deserve to be left alone on their own property and own their own body. Nobody owns another person or their property. I'd say that's meat and potatoes.

Just because you don't like it when you are exposed as a control freak doesn't change my position.

What specifically do you disagree with about ALL people controlling their own property and their own body?

Canna Sylvan said:

No, he's the response to a crappy young adult book. I always thought that category was funny. A real young adult is over 18, an 11 year old hasn't even hit puberty yet, but for marketing purposes you're a young adult. At heart?

Click to expand...

Hate to rain on your parade, but both genders hit puberty when they are under 10; they both hit the end under 17. This is the average, of course, but they both hit biological adulthood before the age of 18.

kpmarine said:

Hate to rain on your parade, but both genders hit puberty when they are under 10; they both hit the end under 17. This is the average, of course, but they both hit biological adulthood before the age of 18.

Click to expand...

But Margaret didn't, she was almost 12 before she hit puberty!

BigNBushy said:

Heterosexuality is the null hypothesis. In other words, it's the norm, it is assumed, and it is the morally superior orientation. All moral codes that have ever existed make this determination. Furthermore, heterosexuality is in the interest of the state. Heterosexual relationships are better for the economy, and produce the next generation of citizens.

Homosexuals spend very little money on children, resulting in greater accumulations of wealth. Accumulations of wealth are good for the person, not good for the economy. Economy is money in motion. Most heterosexuals largest expense is their children, on local services such as child care.

Populations need a 2.1 birth rate for population maintenance, a higher rate for growth. Homosexuals do nothing to this. Adoption by homosexual couples could be an answer to the first point, but not this one.

Heterosexuality is the norm, and most beneficial to society.

Homosexuals should be free to be what they are, that is not in dispute, but their benefits to society are far less. And don't give me any bullshit about the arts.

Click to expand...

I object to your last line. The benefits are impossible to measure. First, you'd need to qualify what a "benefit" is. If heteros started more more wars or threw more virgins in volcanoes is that a detriment that goes on the hetero ledger?

I think you have issues with people being gay. You have every right to feel that way, but I'm not buying your analysis. What "benefits society" is leaving people alone to choose their own path. Also anything that is in the interest of the state, is not a benefit. The state is a taker of rights, not a provider of rights.