Lutherans allow Sexually Active Gay Priests...

WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL Now you're hissy fit is getting more hissy. :)

You got a historical perspective that directly addresses the points being made: "...benefits of marriage ... flow from the inherent complementarity of the sexes ... Rome fell for several reasons, two of which were the rapid increase in divorce and the undermining of dignity and sanctity of the home."
 
Southern Man said:
LOL Now you're hissy fit is getting more hissy. :)

You got a historical perspective that directly addresses the points being made: "...benefits of marriage ... flow from the inherent complementarity of the sexes ... 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...

Your attempts to attribute my posts to a hissy fit is a rather transparent attempt to sound like you have made a point. You haven't. I am not throwing a hissy fit. I am refuting your points. That may make you mad, but it does not make me throw a hissy fit.

"The inherent complementarity"? What? "Complementarity" is not even a word. Check the Miriam-Webster website.

Rome fell for several reasons. But the reasons listed were not among them. The barbarians and Vandals had a much greater effect on the fall of Rome. Incompetent emperors had a greater effect. The rise of Christianity taking authority from the leaders of Rome had a greater effect. Economic factors had a much greater effect on the fall of Rome. The decay of the military had a much greater effect. In other words, the fall of Rome is not attributed to an increase in divorce by any credible historians.




The institution of marriage, from a religious perspective is very different from the marriage in a gov't point of view. The gov't gives benefits based on the value to the society. Not a historical value, but a real value in the modern world.

But gay marriages will provide the same benefits. Unless you can provide some value provided by straight marriages that is not provided by gay marriage?
 
WinterBorn said:
Your attempts to attribute my posts to a hissy fit is a rather transparent attempt to sound like you have made a point. You haven't. I am not throwing a hissy fit. I am refuting your points. That may make you mad, but it does not make me throw a hissy fit.

"The inherent complementarity"? What? "Complementarity" is not even a word. Check the Miriam-Webster website.

Rome fell for several reasons. But the reasons listed were not among them. The barbarians and Vandals had a much greater effect on the fall of Rome. Incompetent emperors had a greater effect. The rise of Christianity taking authority from the leaders of Rome had a greater effect. Economic factors had a much greater effect on the fall of Rome. The decay of the military had a much greater effect. In other words, the fall of Rome is not attributed to an increase in divorce by any credible historians.




The institution of marriage, from a religious perspective is very different from the marriage in a gov't point of view. The gov't gives benefits based on the value to the society. Not a historical value, but a real value in the modern world.

But gay marriages will provide the same benefits. Unless you can provide some value provided by straight marriages that is not provided by gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Hissy enough to blow up since you don't know the definition of a word. :)

com·ple·men·tar·i·ty
n.
The state or quality of being complementary: "This is where the complementarity of the masculine and the feminine so acutely emerges. They are the necessary poles of a dialectic process" (Therese Namenek).
Click to expand...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/complementarity
 
Southern Man said:
Hissy enough to blow up since you don't know the definition of a word. :)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/complementarity
Click to expand...

"complementarity
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complementarity

I looked in the dictionary that has been the standard for american english for several decades. I guess they don't keep up with invented words as well as some newer dictionaries do.



You still haven't offered any benefits that straight marriages offer society that gay marriages do not also offer.

But nice try at diverting the topic.
 
WinterBorn said:
"complementarity
The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complementarity

I looked in the dictionary that has been the standard for american english for several decades. I guess they don't keep up with invented words as well as some newer dictionaries do.



You still haven't offered any benefits that straight marriages offer society that gay marriages do not also offer.

But nice try at diverting the topic.
Click to expand...

Germanic languages are constantly evolving. Your internet source is abridged. Check the unabridged version for the latest words and derivatives.
 
Southern Man said:
Germanic languages are constantly evolving. Your internet source is abridged. Check the unabridged version for the latest words and derivatives.
Click to expand...

I suppose that would be more productive than waiting for you to answer my question.


What benefits do straight married couples offer society that gay married couples would not?
 
WinterBorn said:
I suppose that would be more productive than waiting for you to answer my question.


What benefits do straight married couples offer society that gay married couples would not?
Click to expand...

Yes it most definitely would. That, avoiding hissy fits and understanding that your question has been answered many times already. The latest version: "...benefits of marriage ... flow from the inherent complementarity of the sexes ..."
 
Southern Man said:
Yes it most definitely would. That, avoiding hissy fits and understanding that your question has been answered many times already. The latest version: "...benefits of marriage ... flow from the inherent complementarity of the sexes ..."
Click to expand...

That is not an answer, and you have not answered my question once.

If straight married couple provide any benefits that the gay married couple would not, then list them.

Vague references to there being benefits from one but not the other is not the same as listing them.

The article you referenced claimed "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.".

But it, like you, does not offer any specific benefits derived from the marriage of straight couples that would not also be derived from marriages of gay couples.

I have been asking this same question since we started this discussion, and you have yet to offer anything other than vague references to history.
 
I've answered; you just don't like the answer. Repeating the question over and over won't moot the answer either. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
I've answered; you just don't like the answer. Repeating the question over and over won't moot the answer either. *shrug*
Click to expand...

No, you have not answered the question. You have tried to pass of rewards for historical nonsense as an answer. Now you are trying to use that vague reference in the article as an answer.

But you have been unable to give specific benefits that society receives from straight married couples that it would not receive from gay married couples.

And you have talked about "hissy fits", dictionaries, and tried to say you have answered the question.

But you have given no specifc examples in this entire discussion. I know why you haven't given them. Because they do not exist. If you will just be a man and admit that, we will be done here.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, you have not answered the question. You have tried to pass of rewards for historical nonsense as an answer. Now you are trying to use that vague reference in the article as an answer.

But you have been unable to give specific benefits that society receives from straight married couples that it would not receive from gay married couples.

And you have talked about "hissy fits", dictionaries, and tried to say you have answered the question.

But you have given no specifc examples in this entire discussion. I know why you haven't given them. Because they do not exist. If you will just be a man and admit that, we will be done here.
Click to expand...
You should be a man and admit that you have been bested, again. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
You should be a man and admit that you have been bested, again. *shrug*
Click to expand...

:rofl:

You claim you won with THAT argument?? Even you have to admit this is a joke.

You claim a historic perspective is enough, even though by your own Logical Fallacies list you have no argument. Perhaps you should go to your favorite reference page and look up: Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

And the article you listed for evidence does not even list any details reasons. It just claims that there ARE reasons. It doesn't actually give any reasons, it just says that there are reasons.

And you say I should just admit that I have been bested? My surrender on the topic would be the ONLY way you would be able to claim you won this debate.
 
WinterBorn said:
:rofl:

You claim you won with THAT argument?? Even you have to admit this is a joke.

You claim a historic perspective is enough, even though by your own Logical Fallacies list you have no argument. Perhaps you should go to your favorite reference page and look up: Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

And the article you listed for evidence does not even list any details reasons. It just claims that there ARE reasons. It doesn't actually give any reasons, it just says that there are reasons.

And you say I should just admit that I have been bested? My surrender on the topic would be the ONLY way you would be able to claim you won this debate.
Click to expand...

The article explained why Rome fell.
 
Southern Man said:
The article explained why Rome fell.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Southern Man said:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Click to expand...

So you DO maintain that Rome fell, not because of constant invaders or incompetent emperors, but because of a high divorce rate? lmao

And I should point out that "Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false" fits your position concerning the causes of the fall of Rome more than it fits any of my points.


If this is the best argument you have to offer, we should have gay weddings in no time.
 
Southern Man said:
Are you going to marry maineman?
Click to expand...

I can see you have no real argument.

A gay wedding would be for two gay people. Since I am not gay, it would not apply. But if your current arguments are the best you can do, I see gay weddings in the future for our great nation.

So I guess this means you have no further arguments (other than the historical perspective, christian blather, and nonsense about the fall of Rome)?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top