|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 29, 2015 6:05:06 GMT
What if you had worked at Kipling's and you were a Christian and you had to ice cakes with "Bummer/Gay Festival 1999" on them? What is your get out clause then? I suppose if you felt strongly enough on the issue ( the extent of sticking to your principles) you would have to protest to management, then if no avail,try to gain support from fellow workers and if not successful resign.Alternatively I suppose that you could compromise if resigning, in the current employment market, is likely to cause a drastic disruption to your and your familiy's lifestyle(but some could argue that this would be hypocritical, even though you could take the issue up in different ways , afterwsrds
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 29, 2015 6:12:08 GMT
From the Guardian, May 22nd;
In the light of the Belfast ruling (Christian bakers lose ‘gay cake’ court case, 20 May), ask which of the following you would also be in favour of: 1) A gay bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice Old Testament or Qur’an verses against homosexuality on to a cake intended for a conservative Christian/Jewish/Muslim event; 2) A Jewish bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice antisemitic imprecations on to a cake for a neonazi/radical traditionalist Catholic/Islamist event; 3) A Palestinian bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice a celebration of the anniversary of the state of Israel on to a cake for a Zionist organisation.
Chomsky noted that “if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all” – but this applies no less to freedoms of belief and conscience. The gay couple in question were always free to express their beliefs: they could have sought out a baker sympathetic to their views to ice their cake, or iced it themselves. Instead, they used the law to force a person to express views he finds abhorrent. This issue has nothing to do with “equality” and everything to do with freedom of belief, conscience and expression – it being an implacable attack on these latter. It sets a dreadful precedent. The application of discrimination law to settle these questions of conflicts of belief is taking us away from a free society and towards one where a secular priesthood of judges, bureaucrats and activists regulate every aspect of our lives.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 29, 2015 6:23:30 GMT
From the Guardian, May 22nd; In the light of the Belfast ruling (Christian bakers lose ‘gay cake’ court case, 20 May), ask which of the following you would also be in favour of: 1) A gay bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice Old Testament or Qur’an verses against homosexuality on to a cake intended for a conservative Christian/Jewish/Muslim event; 2) A Jewish bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice antisemitic imprecations on to a cake for a neonazi/radical traditionalist Catholic/Islamist event; 3) A Palestinian bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice a celebration of the anniversary of the state of Israel on to a cake for a Zionist organisation. Chomsky noted that “if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all” – but this applies no less to freedoms of belief and conscience. The gay couple in question were always free to express their beliefs: they could have sought out a baker sympathetic to their views to ice their cake, or iced it themselves. Instead, they used the law to force a person to express views he finds abhorrent. This issue has nothing to do with “equality” and everything to do with freedom of belief, conscience and expression – it being an implacable attack on these latter. It sets a dreadful precedent. The application of discrimination law to settle these questions of conflicts of belief is taking us away from a free society and towards one where a secular priesthood of judges, bureaucrats and activists regulate every aspect of our lives. Great find John. Not only Chomsky but in The Guardian as well. :) Theres going to have to be some serious back tracking by a few of his disciples.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 22:17:26 GMT
From the Guardian, May 22nd; In the light of the Belfast ruling (Christian bakers lose ‘gay cake’ court case, 20 May), ask which of the following you would also be in favour of: 1) A gay bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice Old Testament or Qur’an verses against homosexuality on to a cake intended for a conservative Christian/Jewish/Muslim event; 2) A Jewish bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice antisemitic imprecations on to a cake for a neonazi/radical traditionalist Catholic/Islamist event; 3) A Palestinian bakery being penalised in law for refusing to ice a celebration of the anniversary of the state of Israel on to a cake for a Zionist organisation. Chomsky noted that “if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all” – but this applies no less to freedoms of belief and conscience. The gay couple in question were always free to express their beliefs: they could have sought out a baker sympathetic to their views to ice their cake, or iced it themselves. Instead, they used the law to force a person to express views he finds abhorrent. This issue has nothing to do with “equality” and everything to do with freedom of belief, conscience and expression – it being an implacable attack on these latter. It sets a dreadful precedent. The application of discrimination law to settle these questions of conflicts of belief is taking us away from a free society and towards one where a secular priesthood of judges, bureaucrats and activists regulate every aspect of our lives. Great find John. Not only Chomsky but in The Guardian as well. Theres going to have to be some serious back tracking by a few of his disciples. I think you can do a lot worse in life than not paying full respect to Noam Chomsky's unquestionable genius. You don't get to be Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at M.I.T. if you aren't fully aware of what goes on in this often very confusing world of ours.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 30, 2015 6:19:02 GMT
Great find John. Not only Chomsky but in The Guardian as well. :) Theres going to have to be some serious back tracking by a few of his disciples. I think you can do a lot worse in life than not paying full respect to Noam Chomsky's unquestionable genius. You don't get to be Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at M.I.T. if you aren't fully aware of what goes on in this often very confusing world of ours. I think you'll find that I've been agreeing with his thinking on this issue. It's those who continually bring up his name who seem to have the opposite opinion to him, a bit like the poster who has liked your post.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 30, 2015 7:55:39 GMT
I think you can do a lot worse in life than not paying full respect to Noam Chomsky's unquestionable genius. You don't get to be Emeritus Professor of Linguistics at M.I.T. if you aren't fully aware of what goes on in this often very confusing world of ours. I think you'll find that I've been agreeing with his thinking on this issue. It's those who continually bring up his name who seem to have the opposite opinion to him, a bit like the poster who has liked your post. I think Chomsky makes a very valid point and you can certainly question the application of the law. However I'm still of the opinion that being against gay marriage in our modern society because a book written ages says so is absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 8:00:52 GMT
I think putting a ring on someone's finger means nothing BUT...,putting your finger in someone's ring, now that means the world
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 30, 2015 8:55:16 GMT
I think you'll find that I've been agreeing with his thinking on this issue. It's those who continually bring up his name who seem to have the opposite opinion to him, a bit like the poster who has liked your post. I think Chomsky makes a very valid point and you can certainly question the application of the law. However I'm still of the opinion that being against gay marriage in our modern society because a book written ages says so is absolutely ridiculous. But Edge many people are opposed to Gay marriage ( I am not one, by the way) for different reasons, religious and non religious. In this particular case I think it is more to do with Chomsky's principle.As the Guardian said, earlier in the thread; "The application of discrimination law to settle these questions of conflicts of belief is taking us away from a free society and towards one where a secular priesthood of judges, bureaucrats and activists regulate every aspect of our lives"
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 30, 2015 8:59:51 GMT
I was going to make a gay joke butt fuck it
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 30, 2015 9:15:50 GMT
I think Chomsky makes a very valid point and you can certainly question the application of the law. However I'm still of the opinion that being against gay marriage in our modern society because a book written ages says so is absolutely ridiculous. But Edge many people are opposed to Gay marriage ( I am not one, by the way) for different reasons, religious and non religious. In this particular case I think it is more to do with Chomsky's principle.As the Guardian said, earlier in the thread; "The application of discrimination law to settle these questions of conflicts of belief is taking us away from a free society and towards one where a secular priesthood of judges, bureaucrats and activists regulate every aspect of our lives" I'm not quite sure what your point is bigjohn, I've already said that the application of the law can be questioned, whether or not they should have been found guilty of discrimination is a different debate entirely. I'm saying that anyone who is against gay marriage is wrong, regardless of whether its because of their religion or any other reason. A free society is one where gay people can get married should they wish to do so. stokeharry I've noticed that you've liked bigjohns post and I've got no idea why because yet again you're showing your hypocrisy. Even though Muslims believe in male and female segregation in public places that's wrong according to you and they should be forced to sit unsegregated (despite what they do not being against the law). By saying this you're saying you want to impose your will on other people's religious beliefs. And yet when it comes to gay people wanting a slogan on their cake supporting gay marriage you're suddenly saying its ok for people (the bakers) to stand by their religious beliefs even though such views have no place in a modern society.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 9:39:51 GMT
But Edge many people are opposed to Gay marriage ( I am not one, by the way) for different reasons, religious and non religious. In this particular case I think it is more to do with Chomsky's principle.As the Guardian said, earlier in the thread; "The application of discrimination law to settle these questions of conflicts of belief is taking us away from a free society and towards one where a secular priesthood of judges, bureaucrats and activists regulate every aspect of our lives" I'm not quite sure what your point is bigjohn, I've already said that the application of the law can be questioned, whether or not they should have been found guilty of discrimination is a different debate entirely. I'm saying that anyone who is against gay marriage is wrong, regardless of whether its because of their religion or any other reason. A free society is one where gay people can get married should they wish to do so. "Big john" Glad you're getting into the swing of things edge (Thumbs)
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 30, 2015 9:40:19 GMT
Edge, I think that you are right ... I don't think you understand what I am saying. 1 I don't think that the people on this thread are talking about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage. 2 They are talking about holding a view which has become a minority one in society 3 They are talking about being targeted for holding that view. 4 Hence adding to the belief that we have become a subtle police state, Religion being replaced by other types of zealots. 5 Interestingly I believe that Chomsky had in mind the protection of minority groups such as homosexuals, whose difference should be tolerated. 6 some believe that the balance has shifted from the silent minority, who legally have accepted gay marriage, but may wish to hold a different view. 7 For me ,if an evangelical Christian ( or Jewish or Muslim) group targeted and disrupted an ACTUAL gay marriage whilst it was taking place, I would have great sympathy for the Gay couple, who just wanted to live their lives according to their hard fought principles. 8 I honestly cannot put it any simpler than that , so if you still don't understand what I am saying ( which I feel is very simple) I cannot do much more about it 9 So ,it's a nice day out there and I just haven't got the time to revisit this until later, we may have to revert to ' agree to disagree' about the subject matter that we are discussing, let alone the differing stances. Up the Vale and have a good day Edge!
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 30, 2015 9:43:34 GMT
But Edge many people are opposed to Gay marriage ( I am not one, by the way) for different reasons, religious and non religious. In this particular case I think it is more to do with Chomsky's principle.As the Guardian said, earlier in the thread; "The application of discrimination law to settle these questions of conflicts of belief is taking us away from a free society and towards one where a secular priesthood of judges, bureaucrats and activists regulate every aspect of our lives" I'm not quite sure what your point is bigjohn, I've already said that the application of the law can be questioned, whether or not they should have been found guilty of discrimination is a different debate entirely. I'm saying that anyone who is against gay marriage is wrong, regardless of whether its because of their religion or any other reason. A free society is one where gay people can get married should they wish to do so. So you are saying Chomsky is wrong and that judges should be used to settle conflicts of belief? It seems that your arrogance has reached new highs, with you now calling your spiritual leader wrong. :) There is also a world of difference in being opposed to something and being forced to participate in something you do not believe in. Theres nothing wrong with the bakers having their own opinion and being against gay marriage. It is after all a free country we live in (just about). There also nothing wrong with a couple of blokes wanting to get married, if thats what they want to do. Why though should anybody be forced to participate in anything they don't agree with? Is this what happens in that communist dream world that you live in?
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 30, 2015 10:03:29 GMT
I'm not quite sure what your point is bigjohn, I've already said that the application of the law can be questioned, whether or not they should have been found guilty of discrimination is a different debate entirely. I'm saying that anyone who is against gay marriage is wrong, regardless of whether its because of their religion or any other reason. A free society is one where gay people can get married should they wish to do so. So you are saying Chomsky is wrong and that judges should be used to settle conflicts of belief? It seems that your arrogance has reached new highs, with you now calling your spiritual leader wrong. There is also a world of difference in being opposed to something and being forced to participate in something you do not believe in. Theres nothing wrong with the bakers having their own opinion and being against gay marriage. It is after all a free country we live in (just about). There also nothing wrong with a couple of blokes wanting to get married, if thats what they want to do. Why though should anybody be forced to participate in anything they don't agree with? Is this what happens in that communist dream world that you live in? I've already said twice now that I think Chomsky makes a valid point and whether or not they should have been found guilty of discrimination is a different debate entirely. What I'm saying is that morally the bakers and anyone else who are against gay marriage are wrong, they hold a belief that says that other people shouldn't be allowed to do something of their own choosing and free will. Quite ironic.
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on May 30, 2015 10:14:00 GMT
This thread is like the reading equivalent of asymmetric warfare. There are people arguing against people they agree with and others agreeing with views that they fundamentally disagree with. I'm out of here!
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 30, 2015 10:44:58 GMT
I'm not quite sure what your point is bigjohn, I've already said that the application of the law can be questioned, whether or not they should have been found guilty of discrimination is a different debate entirely. I'm saying that anyone who is against gay marriage is wrong, regardless of whether its because of their religion or any other reason. A free society is one where gay people can get married should they wish to do so. So you are saying Chomsky is wrong and that judges should be used to settle conflicts of belief? It seems that your arrogance has reached new highs, with you now calling your spiritual leader wrong. There is also a world of difference in being opposed to something and being forced to participate in something you do not believe in. Theres nothing wrong with the bakers having their own opinion and being against gay marriage. It is after all a free country we live in (just about). There also nothing wrong with a couple of blokes wanting to get married, if thats what they want to do. Why though should anybody be forced to participate in anything they don't agree with? Is this what happens in that communist dream world that you live in? Awesome post mate
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 30, 2015 10:50:50 GMT
So you are saying Chomsky is wrong and that judges should be used to settle conflicts of belief? It seems that your arrogance has reached new highs, with you now calling your spiritual leader wrong. There is also a world of difference in being opposed to something and being forced to participate in something you do not believe in. Theres nothing wrong with the bakers having their own opinion and being against gay marriage. It is after all a free country we live in (just about). There also nothing wrong with a couple of blokes wanting to get married, if thats what they want to do. Why though should anybody be forced to participate in anything they don't agree with? Is this what happens in that communist dream world that you live in? Awesome post mate Have you seen my reply? What do you think about that? Also I've shown up your continued hypocrisy a few posts back. You might want to pipe down
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 11:04:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 30, 2015 11:07:44 GMT
Awesome post mate Have you seen my reply? What do you think about that? Also I've shown up your continued hypocrisy a few posts back. You might want to pipe down I've seen your reply and like everything you say it's full of lies backtracking and nonsense. It's been a while now since I recommended that you visit mind for help with your confidence issues and it's obvious that you still haven't plucked up the courage to leave your bedroom . You think it's ok for certain groups to act a certain way but not for others and your hypocrisy and double standards are what let you down. Your inability to debate like an adult are why people are laughing at you and your lack of intelligence is why you can't see it. Your constant need for approval from certain posters and your constant need for validation is very sad and them are the reasons why you will always be a virgin . Girls don't like men (boy in your case) with insecurity issues bega friend and untill you deal with them and reality you will continue to embarrass yourself on here and you will continue to be owned by myself and others. You are wrong and I am right
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 30, 2015 11:09:59 GMT
But Edge many people are opposed to Gay marriage ( I am not one, by the way) for different reasons, religious and non religious. In this particular case I think it is more to do with Chomsky's principle.As the Guardian said, earlier in the thread; "The application of discrimination law to settle these questions of conflicts of belief is taking us away from a free society and towards one where a secular priesthood of judges, bureaucrats and activists regulate every aspect of our lives" I'm not quite sure what your point is bigjohn, I've already said that the application of the law can be questioned, whether or not they should have been found guilty of discrimination is a different debate entirely. I'm saying that anyone who is against gay marriage is wrong, regardless of whether its because of their religion or any other reason. A free society is one where gay people can get married should they wish to do so. stokeharry I've noticed that you've liked bigjohns post and I've got no idea why because yet again you're showing your hypocrisy. Even though Muslims believe in male and female segregation in public places that's wrong according to you and they should be forced to sit unsegregated (despite what they do not being against the law). By saying this you're saying you want to impose your will on other people's religious beliefs. And yet when it comes to gay people wanting a slogan on their cake supporting gay marriage you're suddenly saying its ok for people (the bakers) to stand by their religious beliefs even though such views have no place in a modern society. Come on then Comical, address the hypocrisy I'm accusing you of here. If you want to say the bakers are fine to hold their belief you have to admit that it's fine for Muslims to hold their belief about segregation
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 30, 2015 11:11:15 GMT
Have you seen my reply? What do you think about that? Also I've shown up your continued hypocrisy a few posts back. You might want to pipe down I've seen your reply and like everything you say it's full of lies backtracking and nonsense. It's been a while now since I recommended that you visit mind for help with your confidence issues and it's obvious that you still haven't plucked up the courage to leave your bedroom . You think it's ok for certain groups to act a certain way but not for others and your hypocrisy and double standards are what let you down. Your inability to debate like an adult are why people are laughing at you and your lack of intelligence is why you can't see it. Your constant need for approval from certain posters and your constant need for validation is very sad and them are the reasons why you will always be a virgin . Girls don't like men (boy in your case) with insecurity issues bega friend and untill you deal with them and reality you will continue to embarrass yourself on here and you will continue to be owned by myself and others. You are wrong and I am right It must be the 100th time you've posted this shit. Stop playing the man and play the ball.
|
|
|
Post by stokeharry on May 30, 2015 12:04:07 GMT
I've seen your reply and like everything you say it's full of lies backtracking and nonsense. It's been a while now since I recommended that you visit mind for help with your confidence issues and it's obvious that you still haven't plucked up the courage to leave your bedroom . You think it's ok for certain groups to act a certain way but not for others and your hypocrisy and double standards are what let you down. Your inability to debate like an adult are why people are laughing at you and your lack of intelligence is why you can't see it. Your constant need for approval from certain posters and your constant need for validation is very sad and them are the reasons why you will always be a virgin . Girls don't like men (boy in your case) with insecurity issues bega friend and untill you deal with them and reality you will continue to embarrass yourself on here and you will continue to be owned by myself and others. You are wrong and I am right It must be the 100th time you've posted this shit. Stop playing the man and play the ball. Not shit it's true and ill continue to post it untill you admit to your self that you have issues. I'm trying to help you bega friend
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 30, 2015 18:06:42 GMT
So you are saying Chomsky is wrong and that judges should be used to settle conflicts of belief? It seems that your arrogance has reached new highs, with you now calling your spiritual leader wrong. :) There is also a world of difference in being opposed to something and being forced to participate in something you do not believe in. Theres nothing wrong with the bakers having their own opinion and being against gay marriage. It is after all a free country we live in (just about). There also nothing wrong with a couple of blokes wanting to get married, if thats what they want to do. Why though should anybody be forced to participate in anything they don't agree with? Is this what happens in that communist dream world that you live in? I've already said twice now that I think Chomsky makes a valid point and whether or not they should have been found guilty of discrimination is a different debate entirely. What I'm saying is that morally the bakers and anyone else who are against gay marriage are wrong, they hold a belief that says that other people shouldn't be allowed to do something of their own choosing and free will. Quite ironic. Sorry, I thought this entire debate was about if they should of been found guilty of discrimination. Or is this some alernative reality when we're actually discussing ginger cake? It should be pretty simple to understand how some christians are against gay marriage. That anyone can then call them morally wrong, is perhaps the most ironic and intolerent thing in this entire thread. (bravo)
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 30, 2015 18:36:06 GMT
I've already said twice now that I think Chomsky makes a valid point and whether or not they should have been found guilty of discrimination is a different debate entirely. What I'm saying is that morally the bakers and anyone else who are against gay marriage are wrong, they hold a belief that says that other people shouldn't be allowed to do something of their own choosing and free will. Quite ironic. Sorry, I thought this entire debate was about if they should of been found guilty of discrimination. Or is this some alernative reality when we're actually discussing ginger cake? It should be pretty simple to understand how some christians are against gay marriage. That anyone can then call them morally wrong, is perhaps the most ironic and intolerent thing in this entire thread. Christians and anyone else who are opposed to gay marriage hold a belief that gay people who love each other should not be allowed to get married of their own choice and free will. If they had their way then gay people would not be allowed to get married. Why should those opposed to gay marriage be in any way concerned with what other people choose to do with their own lives, especially when that choice is simply legally declaring that you are in love with and committed to another person. Are you really trying to tell me that you don't think holding such a view isn't morally wrong? I take back what I said about you being intelligent the other day. As the wise man Ricky Gervais once said; "Everyone has the right to hold any belief. And anyone else has the right to find that belief fucking ridiculous"
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 30, 2015 19:01:35 GMT
Sorry, I thought this entire debate was about if they should of been found guilty of discrimination. Or is this some alernative reality when we're actually discussing ginger cake? It should be pretty simple to understand how some christians are against gay marriage. That anyone can then call them morally wrong, is perhaps the most ironic and intolerent thing in this entire thread. (bravo) Christians and anyone else who are opposed to gay marriage hold a belief that gay people who love each other should not be allowed to get married of their own choice and free will. If they had their way then gay people would not be allowed to get married. Why should those opposed to gay marriage be in any way concerned with what other people choose to do with their own lives, especially when that choice is simply legally declaring that you are in love with and committed to another person. Are you really trying to tell me that you don't think holding such a view isn't morally wrong? I take back what I said about you being intelligent the other day. Aww, don't be like that. The simplest thing to understand should be how some christians who follow whats written in the bible, are aginst same sex marriage due to their religious beliefs. I'm sure that most wish no harm to homosexuals but probably wish that they left, what they consider to be the christian act of marriage, to those who the bible say can be married. You trying to make them out as bigoted shows how intolerant you really are. As it happens my own view on same sex marriage is probably more similar to yours than theirs, but I can empathise with their point of view, and am not so arrogant as to impose my point of view on others who have a different opinion based on their religios belief. I think the phrase about not agreeing with what you say but defending your right to say it best covers it. A bit like you have the right to write bollocks day in, day out on this message board. :)
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 30, 2015 19:14:20 GMT
Christians and anyone else who are opposed to gay marriage hold a belief that gay people who love each other should not be allowed to get married of their own choice and free will. If they had their way then gay people would not be allowed to get married. Why should those opposed to gay marriage be in any way concerned with what other people choose to do with their own lives, especially when that choice is simply legally declaring that you are in love with and committed to another person. Are you really trying to tell me that you don't think holding such a view isn't morally wrong? I take back what I said about you being intelligent the other day. Aww, don't be like that. The simplest thing to understand should be how some christians who follow whats written in the bible, are aginst same sex marriage due to their religious beliefs. I'm sure that most wish no harm to homosexuals but probably wish that they left, what they consider to be the christian act of marriage, to those who the bible say can be married. You trying to make them out as bigoted shows how intolerant you really are. As it happens my own view on same sex marriage is probably more similar to yours than theirs, but I can empathise with their point of view, and am not so arrogant as to impose my point of view on others who have a different opinion based on their religios belief. I think the phrase about not agreeing with what you say but defending your right to say it best covers it. A bit like you have the right to write bollocks day in, day out on this message board. If you think it's ok for people to be opposed to gay marriage that's absolutely fine. My opinion is that holding such a view is fucking ridiculous and morally wrong. No point in discussing this further with you.
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on May 30, 2015 19:51:43 GMT
Aww, don't be like that. The simplest thing to understand should be how some christians who follow whats written in the bible, are aginst same sex marriage due to their religious beliefs. I'm sure that most wish no harm to homosexuals but probably wish that they left, what they consider to be the christian act of marriage, to those who the bible say can be married. You trying to make them out as bigoted shows how intolerant you really are. As it happens my own view on same sex marriage is probably more similar to yours than theirs, but I can empathise with their point of view, and am not so arrogant as to impose my point of view on others who have a different opinion based on their religios belief. I think the phrase about not agreeing with what you say but defending your right to say it best covers it. A bit like you have the right to write bollocks day in, day out on this message board. :) If you think it's ok for people to be opposed to gay marriage that's absolutely fine. My opinion is that holding such a view is fucking ridiculous and morally wrong. No point in discussing this further with you. Come on Edgie, I thought we were beginning to get somewhere then. What with Mo Choudry (sic) agreeing with me in the only true newspaper The Guardian. :)
|
|
|
Post by robstokie on May 30, 2015 20:06:44 GMT
Christians and anyone else who are opposed to gay marriage hold a belief that gay people who love each other should not be allowed to get married of their own choice and free will. If they had their way then gay people would not be allowed to get married. Why should those opposed to gay marriage be in any way concerned with what other people choose to do with their own lives, especially when that choice is simply legally declaring that you are in love with and committed to another person. Are you really trying to tell me that you don't think holding such a view isn't morally wrong? I take back what I said about you being intelligent the other day. Aww, don't be like that. The simplest thing to understand should be how some christians who follow whats written in the bible, are aginst same sex marriage due to their religious beliefs. I'm sure that most wish no harm to homosexuals but probably wish that they left, what they consider to be the christian act of marriage, to those who the bible say can be married. You trying to make them out as bigoted shows how intolerant you really are. As it happens my own view on same sex marriage is probably more similar to yours than theirs, but I can empathise with their point of view, and am not so arrogant as to impose my point of view on others who have a different opinion based on their religios belief. I think the phrase about not agreeing with what you say but defending your right to say it best covers it. A bit like you have the right to write bollocks day in, day out on this message board. Good post. Unfortunately, some people do take stuff written in the bible on face value, rather than a theoretical set of principals that can be applied to a plethora of situations. Personally, as an atheist, I see marriage as an act of love, rather than some form of religious obligation or gesture, and, because of that, then of course I believe that gay people have every right to marry. As for the cake business, im surprised that they refused business. OK, it might have gone against their religious beliefs, but, in business, you sometimes have to sacrifice your beliefs for the greater good. Following on from all the press coverage of what happened, I bet the bakery in question are regretting not serving the couple, due to all the negative publicity received, plus all the potential business they could have received from people who just happen to be gay or support gay rights, but could now end up boycotting the shop.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on May 30, 2015 20:31:37 GMT
If you think it's ok for people to be opposed to gay marriage that's absolutely fine. My opinion is that holding such a view is fucking ridiculous and morally wrong. No point in discussing this further with you. Come on Edgie, I thought we were beginning to get somewhere then. What with Mo Choudry (sic) agreeing with me in the only true newspaper The Guardian. Nothing more to be said.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 20:34:24 GMT
As another atheist I look at marriage in the way it is legally defined , as the Union of a man and a woman . That's not necessarily my own spin on it , but is the law .
How other individuals see it matters not .
As for the subject matter , it is one more example of how warped society has become that it is necessary to debate such a trivial issue to the degree it has been , but as we all know Queers / Gays never miss an opportunity to go centre stage in order to show how prioud they are of their sexuality , which is in direct contradiction to the general consensus of opinion going back several thousand years and encompassing many different regions all of which regarding it as a moral sin . A crime punished by death in many countries and was illegal in Northern Ireland until 1983 .
|
|