Lutherans allow Sexually Active Gay Priests...

Southern Man said:
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?
Click to expand...

Embarrased for me? YOu are using biological generalities to explain why the gov't discriminates, and you are embarrassed for me? lol

I understand it just fine. What part of "that does not matter here" can you not understand? The fact that a straight couple and a gay couple provide the same benefits to society is something you are trying to ignore.

You say that my using "contemporary minority examples" is why I am wrong, and then in your next post you want to talk about what happens at Gay Pride parades? (because there are not any events in which anything but an extreme minority of gays are present)


Your very own argument has boiled down to what is best for society and how straight marriages benefit society.


What do straight married couples do that is beneficial for society that gay couples do not? Tell us what benefit there is to straight couples, in a long term, monogamous relationship, getting married, that does not also apply to gay couples.
 
Southern Man said:
Look what typically happens when gay men get together in large gatherings. Is this your vision of a stable society?
Click to expand...

Besides, for every example of negative things going on at large gatherings of gay men, I can give you just as many (if not more) for large gatherings of straight men. Lets face it, the campground around a NASCAR event is not exactly what I would call a good vision of a stable society either.
 
Last edited:
WinterBorn said:
Besides, for every example of negative things going on at large gatherings of gay men, I can give you just as many (if not more) for large gatherings of straight men. Lets face it, the campground around a NASCAR event is not exactly what I would call a good vision of a stable society either.
Click to expand...
Like most liberal men, I can see that you would be intimidated by a gathering of non-liberal men. *shrug*
 
WinterBorn said:
Embarrased for me? YOu are using biological generalities to explain why the gov't discriminates, and you are embarrassed for me? lol

I understand it just fine. What part of "that does not matter here" can you not understand? The fact that a straight couple and a gay couple provide the same benefits to society is something you are trying to ignore.

You say that my using "contemporary minority examples" is why I am wrong, and then in your next post you want to talk about what happens at Gay Pride parades? (because there are not any events in which anything but an extreme minority of gays are present)


Your very own argument has boiled down to what is best for society and how straight marriages benefit society.


What do straight married couples do that is beneficial for society that gay couples do not? Tell us what benefit there is to straight couples, in a long term, monogamous relationship, getting married, that does not also apply to gay couples.
Click to expand...

Post 90 man. It was a slam-dunk to your argument. Here we are 30 some-odd posts later and you still haven't addressed it. Yet you're getting more shrill. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Post 90 man. It was a slam-dunk to your argument. Here we are 30 some-odd posts later and you still haven't addressed it. Yet you're getting more shrill. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Shrill? Are you saying that you hear what I am typing? Because you certainly want to try and make it look as though you can read my emotional state. You have failed at that.

Now, concerning post #90. It reads as follows:
"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."

Bearing children is of little or no consequence to this discussion. Single women give birth to nearly 40% of babies born. And gay men and women have made arrangements to have children via sperm donors and surrogate mothers.

The basic instincts of men and women, while fascinating in an anthropological sense, has no bearing here. Gay couples could have contributed to a stable society just as well, except they were attacked and discriminated against in the times when the the biological generalities would have mattered.



So the argument you presented in post #90 really did not answer what straight couples have to offer that gay couples do not.
 
Southern Man said:
You're the one who brought up a NASCAR campfire. I've never even been to a race. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I brought up a prime example of straight men, just as you would selectively choose something negative as a gay men's gathering.
 
WinterBorn said:
Shrill? Are you saying that you hear what I am typing? Because you certainly want to try and make it look as though you can read my emotional state. You have failed at that.

Now, concerning post #90. It reads as follows:
"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."

Bearing children is of little or no consequence to this discussion. Single women give birth to nearly 40% of babies born. And gay men and women have made arrangements to have children via sperm donors and surrogate mothers.

The basic instincts of men and women, while fascinating in an anthropological sense, has no bearing here. Gay couples could have contributed to a stable society just as well, except they were attacked and discriminated against in the times when the the biological generalities would have mattered.



So the argument you presented in post #90 really did not answer what straight couples have to offer that gay couples do not.
Click to expand...

Wow you're really grabbing for straws here.

First of all, we all see the results of single women having kids out of wedlock. Statistics prove, by a huge margin, that those kids won't be as successful in life. In fact many of them end up in prison.

Second you claim that "Gay couples could have contributed to a stable society just as well", yet you have no historical basis for that claim.

Third, you again refuse to address the key issue raised, that men by themselves create disastrous societies. They need the nurturing of their mothers in their formative years, along with the tempering effects of their wives throughout most of their adulthood in order to form and function within stable societies.
 
Southern Man said:
Wow you're really grabbing for straws here.

First of all, we all see the results of single women having kids out of wedlock. Statistics prove, by a huge margin, that those kids won't be as successful in life. In fact many of them end up in prison.

Second you claim that "Gay couples could have contributed to a stable society just as well", yet you have no historical basis for that claim.

Third, you again refuse to address the key issue raised, that men by themselves create disastrous societies. They need the nurturing of their mothers in their formative years, along with the tempering effects of their wives throughout most of their adulthood in order to form and function within stable societies.
Click to expand...

I did not need to grasp at straws to sink your argument.

The comment about single mothers was not to point to them as a stable element in society, but to prevent you from using having children as a reason straights help society while gays do not.

YOu want historical basis for gay couples benefiting society? There have been a significant number of gay couples living in long term relationships for years. These couples work, pay taxes, buy homes, spend money in the local economy, attend local churches, participate on elections, and do everything that the straight couples do. The historical basis is there, you have only to look at what straight couples do for society and you can safely assume gay couples do the same. There is absolutely no evidence that gay couples in long term relationships behave any differently than straight couples in long term relationships.

I disagree that men will necessarily create disastrous societies. That may have been true in the past, but not in modern society. The world has changed since the days of the neanderthal. There are groups and clubs that are exclusively male that have not created any disastors at all. Granted, there is an element within society that might create such disastrous societies. But, by and large, this would be the same element who would attack men because they are gay.
 
T&A said:
All of our clergy are required to remain celibate anyway...
Click to expand...
And if that doesn't work then the church is required to try to hide the fact they priests are buggering little boys at least till the statute of limitations run, or so says a memo from the Pope when he was still a cardinal.
 
WinterBorn said:
...
I disagree that men will necessarily create disastrous societies. That may have been true in the past, but not in modern society. The world has changed since the days of the neanderthal. ....
Click to expand...

The world has changed because of the effects of traditional marriage. And that is why the government honors the institution. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
The world has changed because of the effects of traditional marriage. And that is why the government honors the institution. *shrug*
Click to expand...

That is a great explanation for the history of marriage. But offers absolutely no reason for gay couples to be refused the benefits of marriage.
 
Southern Man said:
For the same reason we don't give gold medals to also-rans.
Click to expand...

Now who is grasping at straws?

You are going to continue to try and ignore the fact that gay couples in long term relationships provide the same benefits to society that straight couples in long term reltionships do?

And yet you cannot offer any proof of a benefit that straight couples provide that gay couples do not, except for your claim that men without women become barbarians.

It would have been nice if you had offered up something substantial. I think your debating skills are slipping. There was a time when you would have waited a few posts before doing exactly what you accused me of doing that made my argument worthless.
 
Southern Man said:
Now you're being silly by simply ignoring my argument, again. So unless you have anything new to add...
Click to expand...

I have addressed every point of your argument over, and over, and over again.

You, however, are continuing to ignore my point that there is absolutely no reason for gay couples to be refused the benefits of marriage.

The gold medal reasoning is funny, but hardly appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top