Gay marriage is adult's pretending

Certainly that is your prerogative, just as it is mine to refuse to do so.

Now I've chosen to respond to your other post here, as I don't know that my response is quite appropriate for a welcome thread:

You understand absolutely nothing of economics; and it could hardly be otherwise in someone who rejects the very idea of morality, and with it any understanding of the human condition.

I'm afraid it's a helluva lot worse than that; but elaboration is perhaps not appropriate in this case, never mind PF rules.

It is lamentable, to put it mildly, that a 14 year old, if that's what you are, should wax so emulative of Pilate; yet it does serve to highlight the complete absence of common ground between you and me. I won't be engaging you further before I see in your posts at least a trace of human consciousness; so in case I don't live long enough for that, happy trails.

 

Rape and fraud are illegal. *shrug*



​

 

​

 

The reality that words change definition due to social usage changes is not an opinion it is fact e.g. the word awfull in it's original definition meant full of awe, now it it's definition is almost the exact opposite of that, gay is another word that has changed, it's original definition was full of joy, merry, light hearted or care free, I doubt very much that when you or all the other anti SSM folk say gay-sex you mean sex that is full of joy.

The reality is that the word marriage has NEVER been under the sole usage of the religious , where as holy matrimony IS under the sole usage of religion and has not been changed at all.

With the advent of SSM the responsibilities have become the same as far as government is concerned, all this fuss about SSM by predominantly religious people is naught but a red herring as the reality is the state's acceptance of SSM under law in no way, shape or form has ANY effect on the religious ideology of holy matrimony.

The rest of your response has nothing to do with what I said.

 

The above has nothing at all to do with marriage the case was brought against the baker for discrimination under public accommodation laws which do not allow discrimination based orientation, the hefty find was imposed due to the numerous threats, including death threats that the couple received after the business owners released their names and address to the public without their permission, which in itself is also a crime.

What definition of marriage you have in your head is completely irrelevant to the legal standing of SSM, further more you idea of marriage is in fact the idea of holy matrimony and not marriage per se.

 

Wedding cake has absolutely nothing to do with what a marriage is under law, neither is it a requirement for holy matrimony.

Wedding is a marriage ceremony, especially considered as including the associated celebrations, as can be plainly seen there is no religious indication or mention in the definition - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/wedding now you are free to imagine what ever you wish marriage is or what wedding cake is associated with, the reality is neither are under the sole usage of religion.

 

... so if in your mind it's OK to kill people, the government can't punish you for doing that?



​

 

Here we go again.

*deep breath in*

I'm assuming that when you bring up "my prerogative" you're referring to my leaving aside my disagreement with the notion of self-evidence. The reason that I did that was so that we could discuss the topic at hand without going off on a tangent, and if you actually read my post for once, you would see that I assumed that self-evidence is indeed a coherent concept and made an argument for why, assuming that entities can be self-evident, a god would still not qualify as such. I went out of my way to find some common ground with you so that we could have a productive discussion. But you obviously wouldn't understand that since it's evident that you've never had an intellectually honest debate in your life.

You know what's immoral? You continuously posting baseless dross. Because all this headdesking is going to give me a concussion.

Now for the last fucкing time, why don't you give me an actual logical justification for your claims? Why don't you give me an argument which I can try to refute, instead of a load of bombast and assumptions which would have had Ockham rolling in his grave? Why don't you deign to address my points or give me a logical reason why they're misinterpretations or otherwise not worth addressing?

Thanks for all that hot air. I should remember to always read your posts after washing my hair.

I'm glad that my disbelief in morality can elicit such a reaction from you. I'm glad that it's shocked you so much that you can't intelligently reply to my points and can only muster the strength to write meaningless bombast.

Well bye then; enjoy living in your little bubble until it intellectually suffocates you (or maybe it's already done so).

 

That is not true, i.e. it is lie.
1. words like gay, awe etc did not have legal meaning.
2. government presumes man as a father if man and woman have heterosexual relationship. that is not the case for homosexual relationship.

 

According to your definition wedding is a celebration.
You cannot e.g. force Christians to celebrate Ramadan or Muslims to celebrate Easter.
In case of Masterpiece Cakeshop government forced Christian to celebrate something that they do not celebrate.

 

I am not talking about illegal activity.
Wedding celebration is legal, but everyone understand celebration differently.
If you want to force people to celebrate something that they do not want to celebrate you commit act of repression.

- - - Updated - - -

If it is not requirement for marriage why government forced those people from Masterpiece Cakeshop to celebrate gay wedding?

 

They make wedding cakes for weddings.
As soon as the state recognized the legality of same sex marriages, the business should have
decided whether they would continue to supply wedding cakes. Most business did.

Why should the gay couple have to suffer discrimination because the business was too lazy to make a business decision to adhere to
state law.

Most people defending this business are just defending lazy business practices by the bakery owner.

 

Google about Boris Becker and his relationship with Angela Ermakova.

- - - Updated - - -

The same way Muslim bakeries are not required to celebrate Christmas.

 

Asinine post. If the Muslim bakery has never produced Christmas pastries for ANYONE - then that is not discriminatory. Why do have
such a difficult time grasping this concept?

 

Government presumes that couple is sexual.
That is why government does not provide marriage benefits to relatives who live together.

 

Exactly right Masterpiece Cakeshop has never produced Gay Wedding cakes, but it was forced to by the government.
E.g. the word religion have different meaning for different religion and government has no authority to modify people's brains.

 

They are not. And Aaron Klein is not required to celebrate this wedding. That's different that refusing to sell a cake because the customers are gay or Christian.




​

 

nothing different.
wedding cake is something different for different people.

 

A cake marries no one. It is a piece of dough with frosting and things.
It is used to feed guests after the wedding ceremony is completed. Has nothing to do with the actual ceremony.

 

Cakes aren't gay.



​

 

Problem is, that in the eyes of the law, a gay wedding is just A WEDDING. The bakery decided they would not bake A WEDDING CAKE for
just one type of person.

End of story. All else is asinine quibbling.

 

You need to stop making things up to interpret.

Gay relationships and marriage are real, legal... and obviously that is more than your current perspective/view of reality can accommodate. That really isn't everyone's problem, it is yours.

If you don't accept it morally, I get it. But please, you are essentially beating on a stone with a hammer made of 'cloth'... trying to cause some major effect on the rock. It's not going to work; it simply isn't.

 

It was in the eye of corrupt judge, not in the eye of the law.

 

No one is contesting you.
The fact is however that government is discriminating heterosexual couples providing them same benefits but demanding more responsibilities.
It would not hurt to provide public awareness of this fact.

- - - Updated - - -

"Wedding cake" has special meaning, and that is a problem.

 

"Wedding cake" has special meaning.
That where we have a battle.
Government sides with gays, and is trying to force their point of view on the whole population, punishing anyone who disagreed.
It is political repression.