Lutherans allow Sexually Active Gay Priests...

[DamnYankee]

It's still summer time. We grill. I can even bake a cake on my grill...

Grilling is awesome as well, but this new stir fry pan does a better job on many garden vegetables. We've had a bumper crop of yellow squash this year and I've cooked them many different ways including on the grill, and my kids like the stir fry with soy or teriyaki best. I cook them very hot with 2 tbs of peanut oil, which does not smoke. I saute in garlic and spices, and after about 15 minutes hit them with soy or teriyaki, and sometimes some white wine that's been "over aged".

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm talking about basic instincts, that if it were not for a structured society, would overwhelm all other facets of that society. The fact that we allow feminized men to prosper at all is a testament to the success of the tempering effect of women.

If you played softball within a school or charitable organization then it would be tax deductible.

And the structure of our society would not change by allowing gays to marry. They are already living together in long term, monogamous relationships. The difference is a licence and benefits they get. Our society would be the same.

I did not play in a school or church league.

 

[DamnYankee]

And the structure of our society would not change by allowing gays to marry. They are already living together in long term, monogamous relationships. The difference is a licence and benefits they get. Our society would be the same.

....

Again, that's not the point. The point is that the government recognizes the benefits to society by a one man- one woman traditional marriage, wants to encourage these type of relationships and therefore rewards the couples who enter into them. Homosexual relationships offer no equivalent benefit to society.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, that's not the point. The point is that the government recognizes the benefits to society by a one man- one woman traditional marriage, wants to encourage these type of relationships and therefore rewards the couples who enter into them. Homosexual relationships offer no equivalent benefit to society.

Other than bearing biological children, it offers the exact same benefits.

 

[DamnYankee]

Other than bearing biological children, it offers the exact same benefits.

Again, since this is a societal issue, the correct way to look at this is as society as a whole. The beneficial impacts of women in long-term, monogamous relations with men and vice-versa is the defining issue. Without these impacts, society as we know it would cease to exist.

 

[maineman]

Again, since this is a societal issue, the correct way to look at this is as society as a whole. The beneficial impacts of women in long-term, monogamous relations with men and vice-versa is the defining issue. Without these impacts, society as we know it would cease to exist.

and if gay marriage somehow precluded or prevented heterosexual marriage and procreation, you might have a point.

 

[DamnYankee]

and if gay marriage somehow precluded or prevented heterosexual marriage and procreation, you might have a point.

You missed the point completely, which is that government honors the institution of traditional marriage because of its tremendous benefit to society. Gay marriage offers no such grand societal impact.

I realize its difficult for liberal men to understand this, being that they have many feminine traits themselves. But without the influence of mothers and wives many of us would simply be vicious, predatory animals. *shrug*

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, since this is a societal issue, the correct way to look at this is as society as a whole. The beneficial impacts of women in long-term, monogamous relations with men and vice-versa is the defining issue. Without these impacts, society as we know it would cease to exist.

How is it so beneficial to society that a woman be in a long term relationship with a man, yet not beneficial if she is in a long term relationship with another woman?

What difference is there for society as a whole. Both form a household and a home. Both work, play, pay taxes, and have the same basic life. The only difference is whether the genitals match or are different.

Other than having biological children (and artificial insemination can fix this one) there is absolutely no difference.

 

[DamnYankee]

How is it so beneficial to society that a woman be in a long term relationship with a man, yet not beneficial if she is in a long term relationship with another woman? ....

Because of the reasons already stated in post 90. I realize that it represents a devastating argument to gay enablers such as yourself, but you can't simply ignore it in a debate. *shrug*

 

[WinterBorn]

Because of the reasons already stated in post 90. I realize that it represents a devastating argument to gay enablers such as yourself, but you can't simply ignore it in a debate. *shrug*

Post #90:
"Bearing children is certainly an important component in the basic building block of society, but not the only one, or perhaps even the most important. It's a difficult thing for liberal men to understand due their feminization, and difficult for liberal women due to their twisted view of equality.

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."


I have already addressed these points and they are not valid reasons for not allowing gay marriages.

Your generalizations of gender roles is outdated and obsolete. These roles can be reversed without any harm to society. And both roles can also be held by a single gender in a committed and monogamous relationship.

And your stereotyping the roles and claiming it is a reason not to allow gay marriage ignores the fact that the gay men & women who would marry are already living as couples and society has not been effected.



The simple truth is that these couples already hold the roles you discussed. The only difference is whether or not they can marry. The fact that they are already in these roles and society has not been harmed shows your argument to be invalid.

 

[DamnYankee]

....
Your generalizations of gender roles is outdated and obsolete. These roles can be reversed without any harm to society. ....

Even if this were true, it is a moot point to my argument, which is that the government honors the institution of traditional marriage since without it men by themselves or women by themselves could not have formed the stable societies which we now enjoy.

So sorry, but you have not addressed my argument. Perhaps as a "progressive" man you simply can't fathom men's basic animal instincts.

 

[WinterBorn]

Even if this were true, it is a moot point to my argument, which is that the government honors the institution of traditional marriage since without it men by themselves or women by themselves could not have formed the stable societies which we now enjoy.

So sorry, but you have not addressed my argument. Perhaps as a "progressive" man you simply can't fathom men's basic animal instincts.

LOL! Trying to make underhanded insults is not a particulkarly effective argument. I understand men's basic animal instincts as well as you do. But, unlike you, I also understand that they do not apply to every man. And your archaic ways of attempting to catergorize men & women is unsuitable for a modern society.

Your insistence that the gov't honors traditional marriage because it is the ONLY way a stable society could be formed is questionable at best. Even if that were true, it still does not present a valid argument.

Gay men and women are already living as couples in long term, monogamous relationships. They have not harmed our society by doing so. If the gov't recognizes one couple's relationship, then it is only right to recognize another couple's relationship, if the only difference is whether or not the genitals match or do not match.

You are arguing about what society is based upon, but ignoring the fact that these gay couples are already living together as if they were married. They are already contributing to society in an identical manner as the straight couples (except for biological children). The only difference is the benefits of the gov't are bestowed on one couple and denied to another.

 

[DamnYankee]

Again you have failed to address the argument. To an outside observer, my argument has done this to yours:

[youtube]RyFKSqVsnKw[/youtube]

 

[charver]

Again you have failed to address the argument. To an outside observer, my argument has done this to yours:

[youtube]RyFKSqVsnKw[/youtube]

Considering your position on the issue was it wise to post a video which, from the still shot, appears to show one chap preparing to give the other fellow a frightfully good rimming?

 

[WinterBorn]

Again you have failed to address the argument. To an outside observer, my argument has done this to yours:

[youtube]RyFKSqVsnKw[/youtube]

I have addressed your argument and flush it.

You want to claim that the gov't honors the straight marriage because it is the only way we could have formed a stable society.

But you fail to address why couples who have been living in a long term, committed, monogamous relationship, and who have made the exact same contributions to society (with the exception of biological children) should be denied the same benefits given other couples.

You have not addressed how the gay couples living in monogamous relationships being given the benefits of a marriage would have any effect on our society.

You simply keep posting about biological generalities concerning males & females, and insisting that the straight married couple is the only thing that allowed a stable society.

 

[DamnYankee]

Considering your position on the issue was it wise to post a video which, from the still shot, appears to show one chap preparing to give the other fellow a frightfully good rimming?

Leave it to you to think of that. LOL

 

[DamnYankee]

I have addressed your argument and flush it.

You want to claim that the gov't honors the straight marriage because it is the only way we could have formed a stable society.

But you fail to address why couples who have been living in a long term, committed, monogamous relationship, and who have made the exact same contributions to society (with the exception of biological children) should be denied the same benefits given other couples.

You have not addressed how the gay couples living in monogamous relationships being given the benefits of a marriage would have any effect on our society.

You simply keep posting about biological generalities concerning males & females, and insisting that the straight married couple is the only thing that allowed a stable society.

Again, my argument is about historical biological generalities between the sexes and you're trying to confront that with contemporary minority examples. That tactic isn't working. Perhaps that's why you're starting another hissy fit, as evidenced by the grammatical error in your first sentence.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, my argument is about historical biological generalities between the sexes and you're trying to confront that with contemporary minority examples. That tactic isn't working. Perhaps that's why you're starting another hissy fit, as evidenced by the grammatical error in your first sentence.

Not with the hissy fit nonsense again. *sigh*

You are talking about what benefits society. And you have yet to tell me why straight marriages are beneficial to society and gay marriages are not.

Whatever advantages there are for a society to have straight people marry, the same advantages are there for gay people to marry. So, other than some vague historical references, you have explained nothing.

 

[DamnYankee]

I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you man. What part about basic instincts of men and women, and their interactions with each other, do you find difficult to understand?

Look what typically happens when gay men get together in large gatherings. Is this your vision of a stable society?

 

[Cancel5]

I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you man. What part about basic instincts of men and women, and their interactions with each other, do you find difficult to understand?

Look what typically happens when gay men get together in large gatherings. Is this your vision of a stable society?

I have been to such a gathering, what are you implying? Gay men aren't stable?

Your stereotypes run deep!