Lutherans allow Sexually Active Gay Priests...

Were you hoping I would protest you insulting me? Then you could go with your usual "If being gay is ok why do you call it an insult?"

Sorry to ruin that for you too.
 
WinterBorn said:
It gave bogus reasons why Rome fell that are not repeated in the 5 or 6 historical sites that I checked.

High rate of divorce caused an empire to fail? Are you serious?

The Barbarians & Vandalls chopping it up, the economy failing, incompetent emperors, vastly different and inferior training for the military, and other things didn't cause the fall. But a high divorce rate did?

:rofl:

Thats why I called that article a joke. It is a collection of lies, vague references, and fundamentalist blather.

You actually believe that Rome fell because of "rapid increase in divorce and the undermining of dignity and sanctity of the home."?????

And just one more point, the gay couple are already in homes and having families. The divorce rate has been climbing for decades. And since the gay couples cannot marry, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of straight couples.
Click to expand...

this is true.....SM....how exactly did divorce, alone, cause the fall of an empire? furthermore...i don't believe that many gays were married under roman law, not that it was unlawful, rather, it just was heavily frowned upon.

IMO....allowing gays to form a legally binding union, marriage as it stands now in the US, is a good thing. isn't part of the claim against homosexuality..... promiscuity and wouldn't this serve to diminish that? i mean, isn't part of marriage to decrease hetrosexual promiscuity, to be beholden to one, spiritually and in this country legally, which of course if you break the contract, there are consequences.
 
Yurt said:
this is true.....SM....how exactly did divorce, alone, cause the fall of an empire? furthermore...i don't believe that many gays were married under roman law, not that it was unlawful, rather, it just was heavily frowned upon.

IMO....allowing gays to form a legally binding union, marriage as it stands now in the US, is a good thing. isn't part of the claim against homosexuality..... promiscuity and wouldn't this serve to diminish that? i mean, isn't part of marriage to decrease hetrosexual promiscuity, to be beholden to one, spiritually and in this country legally, which of course if you break the contract, there are consequences.
Click to expand...

Well said, Yurt.
 
Yurt said:
this is true.....SM....how exactly did divorce, alone, cause the fall of an empire? ....
Click to expand...
Frankly Yurt I'm surprised that you would fall for Solitary/ Winterborn's standard tactic of making a straw man out of an argument. Here's the original posts that put his panties in a wad (#90 and #157).

Man's basic instinct is to be a hunter; a predator, to sow his seed widely and command vast territories, regardless of who may make claim to them. Woman's basic instinct is to be a gatherer, a nurturer, to consolidate her holdings and seek cooperation among her neighbors. Separated, the sexes develop disastrous societies, if they develop at all.
Click to expand...

Marriage is the most fundamental human institution of our society. It is not a creation of the law. Rather, it is recognized by the law. The legal and financial benefits of marriage do not flow simply from the presence of two people and government recognition of their relationship. Instead, they flow from the inherent complementarity of the sexes and the power of lifelong commitment. ...

Sociologist Kingsley Davis has stated that in no time in history with the possible exception of Imperial Rome, has the state of marriage been more problematic than it is today. According to Edward Gibbon in his classic work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Rome fell for several reasons, two of which were the rapid increase in divorce and the undermining of dignity and sanctity of the home.
Click to expand...
As you can see, for the purpose of his response, Winterborn eliminated the words "several reasons", substituting in "one reason".
 
OTE=Southern Man;505981]Frankly Yurt I'm surprised that you would fall for Solitary/ Winterborn's standard tactic of making a straw man out of an argument. Here's the original posts that put his panties in a wad (#90 and #157).
Click to expand...


strawman? i just responded to what he said....and now i'll follow your back links.....

i see no reason my response is a strawman.....to winterborn's comment, not your comment, but winterborn's.......so what you are telling me is....divorce alone did not cause the downfall.....fair enough....


As you can see, for the purpose of his response, Winterborn eliminated the words "several reasons", substituting in "one reason".
Click to expand...

that seems irrelevent to wb's comment:

And just one more point, the gay couple are already in homes and having families. The divorce rate has been climbing for decades. And since the gay couples cannot marry, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of straight couples.
Click to expand...

you were making an argument against homosexuality and included divorce stats.....since gays cannot marry, how is that homosexuality has any significance in the divorce factor? hetero's cheat all the time.....and the divorce rate in this country is only calculated as hetro divorce rate as only hetro's can marry......

i just don't see the correlation between homosexuality and divorce rates
 
Southern Man said:
Frankly Yurt I'm surprised that you would fall for Solitary/ Winterborn's standard tactic of making a straw man out of an argument. Here's the original posts that put his panties in a wad (#90 and #157).



As you can see, for the purpose of his response, Winterborn eliminated the words "several reasons", substituting in "one reason".
Click to expand...

I did indeed. I took a page from your playbook. Whats wrong? Don't like it?

The simple fact is, SM, that you have yet to make even a beginning of a case against gay marriage. Yes, I left out that it was 2 of however many. But the fact that any weight is given to a high dvorce rate and an undermined dignity and sanctity of the home as an actual cause of the fall of one of the largest, best organized empires the world had seen is just laughable.
 
Southern Man said:
Its not OK by me, but you seem to be enthralled by it.
Click to expand...

I have just seen you call people gay and then use the "if liberals consider it normal why do you think its an insult" routine numerous times.

I know you are disappointed by my response.

Enthralled by homosexuality? Hardly. Repulsed by the bigotry displayed by those who rail against it? Certainly.
 
Yurt said:
strawman? i just responded to what he said....and now i'll follow your back links.....

i see no reason my response is a strawman.....to winterborn's comment, not your comment, but winterborn's.......so what you are telling me is....divorce alone did not cause the downfall.....fair enough....




that seems irrelevent to wb's comment:



you were making an argument against homosexuality and included divorce stats.....since gays cannot marry, how is that homosexuality has any significance in the divorce factor? hetero's cheat all the time.....and the divorce rate in this country is only calculated as hetro divorce rate as only hetro's can marry......

i just don't see the correlation between homosexuality and divorce rates
Click to expand...

very well said yurt. I tried to give you a positive rep, but they said I had to spread it around
 
Yurt said:
strawman? i just responded to what he said....and now i'll follow your back links.....

i see no reason my response is a strawman.....to winterborn's comment, not your comment, but winterborn's.......so what you are telling me is....divorce alone did not cause the downfall.....fair enough....
....
Click to expand...
Not your response, Winterborn's is a straw man. Do you agree or disagree? Even he admitted it in post 188.
 
WinterBorn said:
I have just seen you call people gay and then use the "if liberals consider it normal why do you think its an insult" routine numerous times.

I know you are disappointed by my response.

Enthralled by homosexuality? Hardly. Repulsed by the bigotry displayed by those who rail against it? Certainly.
Click to expand...
So when's the wedding?
 
Southern Man said:
Not your response, Winterborn's is a straw man. Do you agree or disagree? Even he admitted it in post 188.
Click to expand...

If you are still insisting that the high divorce rate and the loss of dignity & sanctity of the home (however they measure THAT) are anywhere near significant reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire, I can see why you would want to shift the topic away.
 
Southern Man said:
So when's the wedding?
Click to expand...

You must have missed post #180. I guess you are just eager to be a bridesmaid? Or are you hoping to be the maid-of-honor? Or just to catch the bouquet?

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to marry your sweetheart.
 
WinterBorn said:
If you are still insisting that the high divorce rate and the loss of dignity & sanctity of the home (however they measure THAT) are anywhere near significant reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire, I can see why you would want to shift the topic away.
Click to expand...
Again, we are talking about the historical basis for state sanctioned marriage. The fact that you liberals have denigrated marriage and society in general doesn't change that, or give reason to denigrate marriage further.
 
WinterBorn said:
You must have missed post #180. I guess you are just eager to be a bridesmaid? Or are you hoping to be the maid-of-honor? Or just to catch the bouquet?

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to marry your sweetheart.
Click to expand...
You say that you're not gay but since you and maineman seem to have this little love-fest going I'm not so sure. LOL
 
Southern Man said:
Again, we are talking about the historical basis for state sanctioned marriage. The fact that you liberals have denigrated marriage and society in general doesn't change that, or give reason to denigrate marriage further.
Click to expand...

You are trying to make up reasons, and that is all.

Using a historical perspective for some things is fine. But to use the historic perspective for making the determination for who gets the benefits and who does not, is not one of those times. Unless you can list actual reasons straight marriages provide benefits to society that a gay marriage would not, you are basing your stance of bigotry not facts.


"The fact that you liberals have denigrated marriage and society in general doesn't change that, or give reason to denigrate marriage further" speaks volumes.

"The fact that you liberals have denigrated marriage..." WTF? How have liberals denigrated marriage?


"...or give reason to denigrate marriage further." How, exactly, does gay marriage denigrate marriage at all? How does it effect it at all? It doesn't. And that is the simple fact.
 
Southern Man said:
You say that you're not gay but since you and maineman seem to have this little love-fest going I'm not so sure. LOL
Click to expand...

Your attempts at diversion are amusing, but a waste of bandwidth. What "love-fest" are you referring to, exactly? The fact that he agrees with me on this subject? He and I have not had half a dozen exchanges, and yet you and he have had hundreds.

I think you secretly have the hots for him, but don't know how to express it. So you got with the elementary school method.
 
WinterBorn said:
You are trying to make up reasons, and that is all.

Using a historical perspective for some things is fine. But to use the historic perspective for making the determination for who gets the benefits and who does not, is not one of those times. Unless you can list actual reasons straight marriages provide benefits to society that a gay marriage would not, you are basing your stance of bigotry not facts.


"The fact that you liberals have denigrated marriage and society in general doesn't change that, or give reason to denigrate marriage further" speaks volumes.

"The fact that you liberals have denigrated marriage..." WTF? How have liberals denigrated marriage?


"...or give reason to denigrate marriage further." How, exactly, does gay marriage denigrate marriage at all? How does it effect it at all? It doesn't. And that is the simple fact.
Click to expand...

I gave you a reason grounded in historical fact. Now stop being so hissy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top