Lutherans allow Sexually Active Gay Priests...

Southern Man said:
1. I don’t have to satisfy your baseless opinion.
2. Actually, the issue is why governments give benefits to traditional married couples, therefore your point is moot.
3. Actually, my reference to documentation is logical, while your lack of documentation is an example of Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
4. Procreation cannot be accomplished by a gay couple themselves, as you just admitted. You asked me to “describe any benefit that society receives from straight marriages”; which I did, your Non Sequitur notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

2) No, the topic began with me asking what effect the gay marriage would have on your marriage, and your reply of claims of what the effect of gay marriage on society.

Now, the next step of all of this came when you claimed that a gay marriage would denigrate traditional marriages because it does not provide the historical benefits to society that straight marriages do. That is total bunk. The "historical" part is of absolutely no value. The gay marriages were not allowed then, so of course they have no historical contributions. But they offer the same contributions that straight marriages do.

3) The denial of benefits to gay couples is not justified by the claims that the synergy of men & women being well documented. Unless you can document that the synergy does not exist for gays, you have committed one of your logical fallacies.

4) Procreation is not a valid reason for denial of benefits, and you know it. The fact that married couples who do not procreate receive the same benefits is proof of this. And gay couples can indeed procreate. In the same way that straight couples make use of medical technologies and outside help, so would the gay couple.

The benefit to society would be the same, whether the child is born via artificial insemination, surrogate mother, or natural methods. So procreation is not a benefit to society that is received from straight married couples that would not be received from gay married couples.
 
Southern Man said:
Sure, that's why you're getting hissy.
Click to expand...

On what do you base this? "Hissy" is an emotional reaction. I have not posted any differently than I have in the past. And yet you claim to be able to determine my emotional reaction?

No SM, its just a lie and an attempt to divert the topic again.
 
WinterBorn said:
2) No, the topic began with me asking what effect the gay marriage would have on your marriage, and your reply of claims of what the effect of gay marriage on society.

Now, the next step of all of this came when you claimed that a gay marriage would denigrate traditional marriages because it does not provide the historical benefits to society that straight marriages do. That is total bunk. The "historical" part is of absolutely no value. The gay marriages were not allowed then, so of course they have no historical contributions. But they offer the same contributions that straight marriages do.

3) The denial of benefits to gay couples is not justified by the claims that the synergy of men & women being well documented. Unless you can document that the synergy does not exist for gays, you have committed one of your logical fallacies.

4) Procreation is not a valid reason for denial of benefits, and you know it. The fact that married couples who do not procreate receive the same benefits is proof of this. And gay couples can indeed procreate. In the same way that straight couples make use of medical technologies and outside help, so would the gay couple.

The benefit to society would be the same, whether the child is born via artificial insemination, surrogate mother, or natural methods. So procreation is not a benefit to society that is received from straight married couples that would not be received from gay married couples.
Click to expand...
2. Again, you’re question was irrelevant, so I answered the question that should be asked, and that’s what we’ve been talking about since.
3. The issue is not the denial of benefits to gay couples, but the special benefits given to traditional married couples and denied to all others, not just gays.
4. I never claimed that procreation by itself was never claimed to be a basis for special benefits given to traditional married couples, and you know it, thus your Non Sequitur.
 
WinterBorn said:
On what do you base this? "Hissy" is an emotional reaction. I have not posted any differently than I have in the past. And yet you claim to be able to determine my emotional reaction?

No SM, its just a lie and an attempt to divert the topic again.
Click to expand...
Your wordy responses. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
2. Again, you’re question was irrelevant, so I answered the question that should be asked, and that’s what we’ve been talking about since.
3. The issue is not the denial of benefits to gay couples, but the special benefits given to traditional married couples and denied to all others, not just gays.
4. I never claimed that procreation by itself was never claimed to be a basis for special benefits given to traditional married couples, and you know it, thus your Non Sequitur.
Click to expand...

And once again we see that "Diversion Dance" by Southernman.

The discussion started as yada yada yada.


The point of the discussion was why would gays be denied the benefits given to straight couples who marry. You have talked about historical perspectives (which does not address the issue), about synergy between men & women (which does not say whether the same exists for gay couples), about men being hunters ect ect (which does not address the issue, and have finally come down to you arguing about what the discussion is about rather than arguing a point.


Your main point seems to have been that straight married couples offer some benefit to society that gays would not (if they were allowed to marry).

And yet you have not offered anything on that.




Now, if you can offer any valid benefit that society receives from straight married couples that it would not receive from gay married couple, please do so.

In fact, I challenge you do to do.



I would also challenge you to provide any negative impact on society that allowing gay couples to marry would have.


Quite dancing and dodging, and give some real answers of substance.
 
Southern Man said:
Your wordy responses. *shrug*
Click to expand...

:rofl:


So the fact that I use more words is the reason you claim I am having a hissy fit?

But if I don't add all those extra words, you will try and dance thru the gaps, no matter what had been said previously in the thread. For example, I kept using the added phrase about the exception being biological children. When I didn't, you tried to use that as a valid reason.

I have debated with you long enough to know that I have to cover more and more bases when you start avoiding the topic, otherwise you will try and squirm out instead of answering the question.

I am a southerner, SM. And I am an educated southerner. We tend to be more verbose. Now, since you are a yankee, you might not have realized this. But, thanks to me, you can consider yourself educated. :rolf:
 
WinterBorn said:
:rofl:


So the fact that I use more words is the reason you claim I am having a hissy fit?

But if I don't add all those extra words, you will try and dance thru the gaps, no matter what had been said previously in the thread. For example, I kept using the added phrase about the exception being biological children. When I didn't, you tried to use that as a valid reason.

I have debated with you long enough to know that I have to cover more and more bases when you start avoiding the topic, otherwise you will try and squirm out instead of answering the question.

I am a southerner, SM. And I am an educated southerner. We tend to be more verbose. Now, since you are a yankee, you might not have realized this. But, thanks to me, you can consider yourself educated. :rolf:
Click to expand...

Yup. :)
 
Gat marriage advocates will now be exposed.

Carrie Prejean’s attorney, Charles S. LiMandri announced today that the former Miss California USA is filing a complaint in the Superior Court of California against Miss California USA officials Keith Lewis and Shanna Moakler, and publicist Roger Neal. The complaint cites damages to Miss Prejean including libel, public disclosure of private facts, religious discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Click to expand...
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/b...action-against-miss-california-usa-officials/
 
Southern Man said:
Yup. :)
Click to expand...

So you must have been saying that Dixe throws the biggest hissy fits of all, considering that his posts make mine look tiny.

A hissy fit is about getting upset or angry. The number of words I write has no bearing on that.
 
Southern Man said:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black; you completely ignored my numbered points. LOL
Click to expand...

I addressed the points. The fact that I do number each point is different from trying to divert the topic.

Try reading for comprehension.

Actually, try providing answers to my questions and this thread could have ended pages ago.
 
WinterBorn said:
I addressed the points. Does not having them numbered mean anything?

Try reading for comprehension.

Actually, try providing answers to my questions and this thread could have ended pages ago.
Click to expand...

I'm having too much fun watching you through a hissy fit though. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top