Lutherans allow Sexually Active Gay Priests...

Southern Man said:
Answered previously. *shrug*
Click to expand...

No, you offered no valid reason why gays cannot marry.

This "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." is not even close to a valid reason.

You have tried to say that without women in the mix men become barbarians. That is utter nonsense.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, you offered no valid reason why gays cannot marry.

This "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." is not even close to a valid reason.

You have tried to say that without women in the mix men become barbarians. That is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

you previously pointed out to me that arguing with this moron is like punching the tarbaby.... I would gladly return the favor by making the same observation for YOUR benefit.
 
Southern Man said:
Sure that's why I had to back you into a corner first, it took you two days and you feel the need to insult me on your way out, Dooood. *shrug*

By the way, what's a "shurg"?
Click to expand...

And since the recorded post and their chronological order do not support your little fantasy here, I suggest you dispense with the silly tag phrases and see that psychiatrist ASAP.

You're done, bunky.....have the last useless word, as it's so important to you (regardless of actual worth).:cof1:
 
Southern Man said:
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.

Your church gym, again, fosters brotherhood within your church; your pastor provides overall moral guidance; something your therapist can't do. Aren't these charitable causes?
Click to expand...

L
O
L

T
H
I
S

P
O
S
T

This post wins the coveted Fish "Best of Thread" Award. :cool:
 
Fish said:
L
O
L

T
H
I
S

P
O
S
T

This post wins the coveted Fish "Best of Thread" Award. :cool:
Click to expand...
Your therapist can't give you moral guidance, really!!!!! This is news to me, really!

Hmmm charitable causes...
 
Taichiliberal said:
And since the recorded post and their chronological order do not support your little fantasy here, I suggest you dispense with the silly tag phrases and see that psychiatrist ASAP.

You're done, bunky.....have the last useless word, as it's so important to you (regardless of actual worth).:cof1:
Click to expand...
You failed to answer the question.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, you offered no valid reason why gays cannot marry.

This "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." is not even close to a valid reason.

You have tried to say that without women in the mix men become barbarians. That is utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
"Government have recognized marriage between a man and a woman is the basic building block of society, and just like home ownership, rewards its citizens for partaking. Entering into a gay marriage or renting an apartment doesn't provide an equivalent societal benefit." link
 
Southern Man said:
"Government have recognized marriage between a man and a woman is the basic building block of society, and just like home ownership, rewards its citizens for partaking. Entering into a gay marriage or renting an apartment doesn't provide an equivalent societal benefit." link
Click to expand...

That is a bogus claim if ever I have seen it.

There is no benefit to society from straight marraiges that is not also a benefit received from gay people in a long term relationship.

It is not the equivelent of home ownership or renting an apt. In that case there is a big difference in what the society gets.
 
Just a quick tip, repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.

You have yet to provide any benefit that society receives from straight marriages that it would not also receive from a gay marriage.

The only thing would be bearing children, but that is so easily dismissed as to not be worthy of mentioning.
 
WinterBorn said:
That is a bogus claim if ever I have seen it.

There is no benefit to society from straight marraiges that is not also a benefit received from gay people in a long term relationship.

It is not the equivelent of home ownership or renting an apt. In that case there is a big difference in what the society gets.
Click to expand...
Again, it is a recognition of the historical impact of traditional marriage on society.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, it is a recognition of the historical impact of traditional marriage on society.
Click to expand...

Giving bona fide benefits based on recognition of the historical impact is nonsense. You want to give them a certificate, thats fine.

But you are saying you think the government gives tax breaks, ability to make medical decisions, freedom from being forced to testify against their mate, ability to have joint custody of children, and many other benefits, and give them automatically to any 20something straight couple who buys a marriage licence, but denied them to a gay couple who have been in a committed, monogamous relationship for decades?

And you claim the gov't does this out of recognition of the historical impact on society?




That is about as absurd an excuse as I have ever seen.
 
Do you have any evidence of this idea that the benefits are given based on recognition of historical contributions?
 
WinterBorn said:
Do you have any evidence of this idea that the benefits are given based on recognition of historical contributions?
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...
http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles Apr04/Art_Apr04_oped1.html
 
Southern Man said:
http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles Apr04/Art_Apr04_oped1.html
Click to expand...

An article in the Christian Examiner that is against gay marriage. What a shocker!

Lets look at some of the stuff in that article.

"Homosexual couples want these same benefits of marriage, however homosexual relationships have no comparable benefit for society. In reality, they impose substantial costs on society."
This is a blatant lie. Homosexuals give the same benefits and do not provide the "substantial costs on society" that the article claims.



"Homosexual couples claim that committed same-sex relationships would offer a healthy environment for children, but social science repeatedly disproves this claim."
Every study I have seen shows that there is no difference in the impacts of children raised by gays or straights. The only impact that has been noted is the negativity from the bigotry shown to the gay parents.




"A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands, the first country to legalize same-sex "marriage," found that not only was the average length of a steady partnership no more than 2 years, but homosexual men in these partnerships had an average of eight casual sex partners per year."
The Netherlands? They used sexual behavior in the Netherlands as an example? The Netherlands is one of the most liberal in their sexual attitudes. The rates of casual sex for straights is even higher in the Netherlands. Should we ban straight marriages for this reason?






Using an article written by the man in charge of a crackpot group who's main goal is the preservation of traditional marriage is not evidence of anything except the bigotry that gays face.





The fact remains that you have shown no logical reason why gays should not marry.

You have not given a single benefit to society by straight marriages that would also not be given by gay marriages.
 
Last edited:
You ask for historical perspective and that's what you got. Now you attack the messenger in a long-winded hissy fit. What a surprise. :rolleyes:
 
Southern Man said:
You ask for historical perspective and that's what you got. Now you attack the messenger in a long-winded hissy fit. What a surprise. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

YOu did not give me historical perspective. You gave me an attack paper by a fundamentalist homophobe.

I didn't address all of the flaws or inaccuracies in the article. You want to call it a "hissy fit" because you know that my critique is accurate.

Are you going to try and claim that "...homosexual relationships have no comparable benefit for society" as the article said?

Are you going to claim that gay marriage would impose substantial costs on society, as the article claims?



If you are, I would love to see you detail that info. Because what the article said was nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top