Ukip offers legal protection to Christians who oppose same-sex marriage

[Diego Napier]

No, just stating a fact.

Nope, stating your bigoted opinion.

 

[Hamilton]

Did you miss the part in my original post where I said I wasn't passing judgement ? To try to pretend homosexuality is normal is quite clearly wrong , some people are homosexual , some people are heterosexual, get over it, heterosexual is quite clearly the norm, you reveal the usual bigotry and intolerance of those on the left by attempting to paint me as possessing these traits with no evidence in my post that would suggest this, either that or you're just not very bright and that is the limit of your argument.

I reveal the fact that you don't know what the word 'abnormal' means.

If you can't be bothered to master the English language then don't blame me if I take what you say at face value.

So, do you mean 'abnormal', or do you mean that homosexuality is not as prevalent in society as heterosexuality?

Also, I think you'll find that I didn't reflect any bigotry or intolerance in my post to you, I merely highlighted the bigotry you'd displayed through your use of your word 'abnormal'. This would be open to anyone, be they on the left or the right of politics.

 

[dingodan]

You are correct that individuals have rights based on humanity outside of the law but the point you are missing is that the law imposes duties on their citizens which may well infringe on their individual rights for the good of society.

Duties infringing on peoples rights for the good of society is not supposed to be how we roll.

Like I explained, we once had a duty to report homosexuals to the police. For the good of society.

If I had been arguing back then for the rights of homosexuals to be defended, the very same "good of society" argument would have been used against me.

 

[alfredmizen]

I reveal the fact that you don't know what the word 'abnormal' means.

If you can't be bothered to master the English language then don't blame me if I take what you say at face value.

So, do you mean 'abnormal', or do you mean that homosexuality is not as prevalent in society as heterosexuality?

Also, I think you'll find that I didn't reflect any bigotry or intolerance in my post to you, I merely highlighted the bigotry you'd displayed through your use of your word 'abnormal'. This would be open to anyone, be they on the left or the right of politics.

I do know what abnormal means, and I've used it correctly, the same can't be said for you.

 

[sir albion]

Are you being intentionally stupid, on a wind up or are you just thick? (I know it's ok to say that last one because you're always telling us how you wouldn't be offended by name calling)

The issue is the Christians being offended by something different. So, what exactly do you think is 'spot on'??

Fact is most Christians are anti gay as well as most religions to be frank...Lets not kid ourselves.They should be respected for their views on homersexuality.

I

 

[Hamilton]

I do know what abnormal means, and I've used it correctly, the same can't be said for you.

Can I just check then, this is your understanding of the word abnormal as recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary?

Abnormal: deviating from the ordinary type, esp. in a way that is undesirable or prejudicial; contrary to the normal rule or system; unusual, irregular, aberrant.

 

[alfredmizen]

Nope, stating your bigoted opinion.

Nothing bigoted about what I said, I haven't got a problem with homosexuality, but to try to pretend it's normal is farcical.

 

[dingodan]

You are right, but what if we look at this from the grounds for refusal angle. I have no right to the cake if I am unreasonable in my requests, or if the supplier can not deliver to my time, price or location. Also, if I were to use the product or service to break the law, then that is good grounds for refusal. But my colour, my gender, my sexuality? That is not good grounds for refusal. If someone is going to offer cakes for public purchase then they need to be held to account for their grounds for refusal if they are irresponsible surely?

The truth is that a person refusing to sell a cake to someone for some arbitrary meaningless reason is baring a cost. No cake sold means no money. It's a transaction, it's voluntary on the part of both parties, it's not a right.

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

can anyone remember which NSCer said that he'd disown his son if he came out as gay?

 

[Hamilton]

Nothing bigoted about what I said, I haven't got a problem with homosexuality, but to try to pretend it's normal is farcical.

No. I granted you the fact that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. That is fact. What we are taking issue with you over is your use of the word 'abnormal'. I think you just need to admit that you used it incorrectly and then we can all move on.

 

[alfredmizen]

Can I just check then, this is your understanding of the word abnormal as recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary?

Abnormal: deviating from the ordinary type, esp. in a way that is undesirable or prejudicial; contrary to the normal rule or system; unusual, irregular, aberrant.

Yes, it's all of the things I've highlighted.

 

[Creaky]

Duties infringing on peoples rights for the good of society is not supposed to be how we roll.

Like I explained, we once had a duty to report homosexuals to the police. For the good of society.

If I had been arguing back then for the rights of homosexuals to be defended, the very same "good of society" argument would have been used against me.

Of course it is how we roll.

For example you have the right to walk on public land - specifically though you are prohibited from doing so on the motorway.

As you pointed out in a previous post, rights not to be discriminated against are not given by laws but are inherent in humanity. The laws against homosexuality imposed duties which did indeed infringe on certain individuals rights. The repeal of those laws removed those infringements.

Laws which define the duties of citizens regarding discrimination do NOT infringe anyone's rights. There is, nor ever has been, any right for individuals to discriminate against others based on human traits. The law may have allowed such discrimination in so far as it did not impose a duty on citizens in regards to discrimination but the right not to be discriminated against has always existed.

 

[Hamilton]

The truth is that a person refusing to sell a cake to someone for some arbitrary meaningless reason is baring a cost. No cake sold means no money. It's a transaction, it's voluntary on the part of both parties, it's not a right.

Rosa Parks didn't see it that way though did she? She was offered a seat on the bus, but just not a seat which was reserved for whites only. Same difference surely?

 

[alfredmizen]

No. I granted you the fact that there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. That is fact. What we are taking issue with you over is your use of the word 'abnormal'. I think you just need to admit that you used it incorrectly and then we can all move on.

I haven't got to 'admit' I used it incorrectly because I didn't.

Edit, how very gracious of you to 'grant' me a fact, cock.

 

[Hamilton]

Yes, it's all of the things I've highlighted.

You can't select the parts you want! If you could, then I could freely call you an idiot and not worry about it.

Idiot: a stupid person.

(you are all the things I've highlighted)

Please prove to me that I don't have to highlight the middle word as well.

 

[sir albion]

Does make me cringe seeing two blokes kiss....just doesn't seem right lol

 

[dingodan]

Of course it is how we roll.

For example you have the right to walk on public land - specifically though you are prohibited from doing so on the motorway.

As you pointed out in a previous post, rights not to be discriminated against are not given by laws but are inherent in humanity. The laws against homosexuality imposed duties which did indeed infringe on certain individuals rights. The repeal of those laws removed those infringements.

Laws which define the duties of citizens regarding discrimination do NOT infringe anyone's rights. There is, nor ever has been, any right for individuals to discriminate against others based on human traits. The law may have allowed such discrimination in so far as it did not impose a duty on citizens in regards to discrimination but the right not to be discriminated against has always existed.

Nobody has a "right to discriminate" and nobody has a right "not to be discriminated against". These things have little to do with rights.

In fact, I cannot think of any circumstance in which a right can be abrogated by someone not doing something.

Your rights mean that nobody can take away from you, they do not mean that anyone has to give to you.

 

[alfredmizen]

You can't select the parts you want! If you could, then I could freely call you an idiot and not worry about it.

Idiot: a stupid person.

(you are all the things I've highlighted)

Please prove to me that I don't have to highlight the middle word as well.

Very good, you're still wrong.

 

[Diego Napier]

Nothing bigoted about what I said, I haven't got a problem with homosexuality, but to try to pretend it's normal is farcical.

So your use of the term "abnormal" is totally compliant with the definition used by the Cambridge dictionary?

"different from what is usual or average, especially in a way that is bad"

 

[Hamilton]

Very good, you're still wrong.

To use teenage vernacular, OMG!

You really are being stupid.