Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

What defines a "religious area?"

Permitted by WHO?

 

No idea on that one but I would agree that the percentage among gays would be much higher than in the average population.

 

What? People should have the right to end their life. I’m not chasing down this strawman you have created any further.

Use some logic. Only religious areas and politicians advance abstinence only. The areas in question are largely southern in the Bible Belt. Would you like a heat map?

ok I give up. It doesn’t. No one in biblical times promoted it. It was completely unheard of until modern times. It was never acceptable in any religion ever invented by man. You win

 

I’m done. I am tired of having to s-p-e-l-l common sense items out and still have you respond with a one word question. Please don’t respond to me in the future. Thanks

 

Fever swamp science maybe. There's no science, other than internet quack claims, that suggests that the two develop differently that I'm aware of.

 

I understand the why no better than you, but the fact remains that gay men develop the same as non gay men. They aren't "under libidoed" as you suggest (you've obviously never known any - I knew many back in the day) and they aren't weirdos "living a contrary lifestyle". This is just ignorance talking.

I'm no gay advocate. If it was down to me there'd be no public gay behaviour and none of the BS gay rights championing and flag waving. But like it or not they're the same as the rest of us with unfathomable but naturally occurring orientation.

 

I made my statement and you had to twist it to something you could argue with. Marriage is a religious invention and is declining along with religion. Now, it is nothing more than a business contract.

 

Actually they are nothing like us in that heterosexual relationships are responsible for the perpetuation of the human species while homosexual relationships perpetuate orgasms and little else.

 

Marriages existed independent of religion long before religion adopted it. In ancient Mesopotamia marriage was separate from religion and similar to the purchase of a slave. Except in marriage you got your money back if your wife didn't produce a child.

 

I didn't twist anything. You said that marriage equality had been achieved, but the only way for that to be achieved would be for everyone's personal definition to be recognised in law.

So you were never bothered about same sex marriage being recognised in law?

 

"The two' what?

 

Exactly, you completely made up your own definition of "religious area!" And you have failed to back up that polygamy "was permitted throughout the Bible!" It looks like I too am done!

 

They PROMOTED it, but that doesn't mean that it was PERMITTED IN THE RELIGION! They were doing the wrong thing!

 

Marriage is not a religious invention. It is a rather universal concept practiced in many forms across history and cultures. It has and does include polygyny, polyandry, simple polygamy, same sex and opposite sex marriage and even ghost marriages. Throughout most of human history it has been a business contract. Marrying for love as a standard is, historically speaking, a recent development.

 

Procreation is an act that can, and is not infrequently, done without relationships and marriage. Procreation has nothing to do with the relationships and attractions one has. So yes, straight, gay and bi are pretty much all the same.

 

Incorrect. Equality is where the factors that are inherent in individuals are not used as a factor in law. Along with that concept is that only those with the capacity to make informed decisions can engage in such activities as, but not limited to, sex, contracts, and marriage. Therefore, the legal version of marriage, quite seperate from the religious or social versions, cannot not use age (except in determining ability of informed consent), skin color, orientations, gender/sex, genetic or legal relationship, ability to procreate, sexual desire or lack thereof, or any other such factor is determining who gets married. Now many of these things have been used throughout history as limiting factors for legal marriage, thus preventing marriage equality. Someone's definition of marriage to include an animal or a child, whom are not capable of providing informed consent, not being allowed by law does not take away from marriage equality.

 

Well, a business contract that closely related couples are prohibited from entering according to some old testament prohibition

 

Yeah just the old testament prohibition against closely related people from marrying.

 

????? Did you read what I wrote and you quoted? Still heterosexual relationships are responsible for the perpetuation of the human species while homosexual relationships perpetuate orgasms and little else. And the fact that Heterosexual couples can procreate with or without marriage doesn't alter that fact.

 

Well same sex marriages were limited to those such as Nero and Elagabalus.

Like same sex marriages in the US that occurred in ceremonies performed before marriage was extended to gays. The type of marriage that many here insist is not a marriage because the law doesn't recognize them.

 

While there is an issue with some states that proscribe such relations that are legal only and not genetic (such as adoption), the proscription against such closely related people due to potential genetic faults, however blown out of proportion they may be, is a valid secualr reason, not a religious one.

 

See above

 

Agreed that heterosexual actions are the only ones, outside of science/medical intervention, that produce offspring. That, however, has nothing to do with relationships and marriage, or even child raising. Homosexuals have and will engage in heterosexual activity for the purpose of creating offspring. We are all still the same in that we seek companionship and engage in sex for the purpose of pleasure.

 

Limiting your examples to one culture is rather disingenuous.

Marriage of a wide variety of types have been seen across our history. Additionally, and especially since many (not necessarily limited to you specifically) try to argue religious basis against civil law, we have to acknowledge that there are various... let's use classes for a different word... as well. A religion by no means is required to recognize a marriage that happens solely under a government form. Likewise, just because they were married under some deity, the government doesn't recognize a marriage unless they jumped through the legal hoops. Furthermore, while having gone neither before the government nor any cleric, it is not uncommon for people to recognize as married those who have lived together for decades, raised children together and have established a stable household.

When we talk about the legality of marriage, only the lawn of the land matters. We can use history to see the various types and classes of marriage, legal or otherwise. But to try to claim that only one type or class has ever existed is simply untrue.

 

Well. The courts reasoning is dependent upon the claim that marriage doesn't have anything to do with procreation. That marriage was never limited to men and women because only men and women procreate but was instead so limited to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. Heights of hypocrisy to now insist two brothers must be excluded from marriage because they might produce genetic faults. Their evidence that the limitation to men and women wasn't based upon procreation was the fact that the law allows infertile couples that cannot procreate to marry, so therefor the limitation must be motivated by animus towards homosexuals. And yet you want to exclude two brothers because they might procreate. At least be honest and just admit you are just bitterly clinging to one of your favored old testament prohibitions.