'If gays don't like it, they can choose another pasta': Barilla pasta faces global boycott after chairman says brand would never feature a homosexual

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeanF1989
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I apologize for phrasing the post in a way which made it specifically personal rather than an attack on the behaviour of “hypocrisy” and “bigotry” in general.

Now, returning to your post.
I have never heard the term ‘‘same-sex individual’’ before. Where did you first encounter this expression?

.
 
Elizium23 said:
In your own** deleted post,** which quoted IVFAustralia.
Click to expand...
Lol…even if it was a deleted post, obviously the person who said “same-sex individual” was referring to an individual with same-sex attraction. You are just being obtuse about someone’s awkward phrasing.
 
It’s a glimpse of the new normal, because gay or homosexual are too thorny to apply to themselves, they are going to be “same-sex people” now in their same-sex “marriages”.

Back in the Usenet days of Internet, the homosexualist gathering point was called soc.motss.
 
The point remains, if governments offer tax payer funded IVF services, it would be discriminatory NOT to allow same-sex couples to take advantage of this.

Whether or not you think homosexuals are technically “infertile” is irrelevant.

…in much the same way as it is irrelevent whether you think people who have abortions are entitled to the government baby bonus that bereaved parents
of still-born babies receive.
 
Elizium23 said:
It’s a glimpse of the new normal, because gay or homosexual are too thorny to apply to themselves, they are going to be “same-sex people” now in their same-sex “marriages”.

Back in the Usenet days of Internet, the homosexualist gathering point was called soc.motss.
Click to expand...
Honestly, the only times I’ve ever heard the terms “same-sex” ------ are from the media or from Catholic sources. Conservative Protestants use “homosexual,” liberal Protestants use “gay,” and gays use “gay” or so-called “marriage equality.” “Same-sex” anything would indicate the source is probably outside the community, even if they try to service the community.
Lion_IRC said:
The point remains, if governments offer tax payer funded IVF services, it would be discriminatory NOT to allow same-sex couples to take advantage of this.

Whether or not you think homosexuals are technically “infertile” is irrelevant.

…in much the same way as it is irrelevent whether you think people who have abortions are entitled to the government baby bonus that bereaved parents
of still-born babies receive.
Click to expand...
I still doubt IVF is used almost at all in the gay community; it is free to use the turkey baster method, and ridiculously expensive to use IVF. Gay men have their choice of female surrogates, and lesbians have 2 possible mothers, increasing fertility chances. And of course there’s gay adoption as well.

It could be considered discriminatory I guess? I would just argue that I wouldn’t issue IVF services unless both donors were listed as the parents on the birth certificate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top