RaiderPride
12 years ago
"A learned behavior or something you are born with?"

I am forking out big dollars every month for my daughters Masters Degree at Queens University right now, so believe me I have done some serious research over the last couple of years on what courses are being offered and what her options are to get her where she wants to be in life..

No where have I ever seen a course, class, seminar, or home study course on "How to be gay?"

Being gay is not a learned skill.
""People Will Probably Never Remember What You Said, And May Never Remember What You Did. However, People Will Always Remember How You Made Them Feel."
Formo
12 years ago


Being gay is not a learned skill.

Originally Posted by: RaiderPride 



Of course not. No one ever said that. They said 'learned behavior'. Skill =/= behavior.

I'm one to believe that being gay is not something one is 'born with'. Now, it has been shown that there ARE chemical imbalances that can attribute to one's sexual preference. But I also read a snippet on some studies that have shown that some really 'effed upbringing have had just as much, if not more, effect on one's sexual preferences than said chemical imbalances.

To me, saying gays are 'born that way' is like saying they were born 'retarded', black, or missing limbs.

My sister is gay. She wasn't always as such. She's had flings and she eventually fell in love with a douchebag that had a beautiful little girl. The guy treated my sister like shit for years of their on-again, off-again relationship. My sister, after multiple attempts to 'fix' her douchebag boy-toy, ultimately decided that guys suck and 'fell in love' with one of her friends (who also ironically had young kids). Knowing my sis, in her mass confusion thanks to douchenozzle, 'fell' for the first person who didn't treat her like crap.

I'm not saying my sister is really straight and is just on a fling or anything. I'm just saying that her homosexuality was a learned behavior.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

I'm not saying my sister is really straight and is just on a fling or anything. I'm just saying that her homosexuality was a learned behavior.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



Let's roll with that, does that mean she should be excluded from the right of marriage?
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
12 years ago
I don't support gay marriage, straight marriage, plural marriage, or any other kind of marriage. I don't want the government recognizing marriage at all, because what the government recognizes, the government regulates, and the last thing I want is the government's snotty nose in my bedroom or anyone else's. As far as I am concerned, the government should not be in the business of subsidizing lifestyle choices, which is exactly what it does when it confers tax advantages on the married at the expense of the single. Marriage should simply be regarded as a private contract between people and should not require government sanction of any kind. Conducting marriage ceremonies should be left to private organizations -- or the spouses themselves -- with the government intervening only in cases of fraud or coercion. That means if a Catholic priest wants to refuse to preside over a marriage between two men or between a man and his second wife, so be it. If a Unitarian minister wants to bless the union of two women or preside over a polygamous ceremony (as one did for us), that is her prerogative. If a pagan priestess wishes to celebrate a polyamorous marriage, she is free to do so. As long as no deception or other criminal activity is taking place, there is no reason for the government to even take notice of a private arrangement.

All the noise about tax and insurance complications is foolish blather and purely a diversionary tactic. People should be taxed at the same rates whether they are married or single. Insurance companies have found ways to insure the most bizarre of situations; an unconventional marriage is tame by comparison.

So it could be said that I hew a pretty libertarian line on this issue.

That being said, I refuse to support the gay-rights movement, not only because I don't think the government should be involved in marriage, but also because the gay-rights movement has stabbed the polygamy-rights movement in the back. With few notable exceptions, gay rights advocates, instead of recognizing that the two movements make natural allies and resolving to work together, have made a pathetic ploy to attain some measure of legitimacy by proclaiming to the world that they want nothing to do with polygamy and really want to be good little monogamists. Of course, even among gays, polygamy would always be a fringe lifestyle choice, but that doesn't change the fact that one can hardly be justified in demanding tolerance for one's own lifestyle at the expense of another alternative lifestyle. As long as the gay movement in general continues to exhibit this petty parochialism, I won't do anything to advance their cause. I am not saying I will do anything to impede or oppose it -- I just won't be wasting any of my time or money on such a bigoted group.
UserPostedImage
Formo
12 years ago

Let's roll with that, does that mean she should be excluded from the right of marriage?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



My stance on this has changed lately. The right of marriage from WHOM? That is the question. From the Gubment? I'm kinda with Rourke on this. Get the Gubment out of that section of our lives. Now, that said.. Who defines the 'right of marriage'? And I'd respond with, whatever church/institution one wants to get married by. And that should be up to the church/institution.

As it stands now, since my little fantasy world would probably never happen, I will answer your question with a simple answer. Yes, she should be excluded, not because it was a learned behavior but because I truly enjoy being called a homophobe, bigot, etc.

It gets my rocks off.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
Gubment?

BTW, you did collapse in the second half, props for being consistent.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
12 years ago

Let's roll with that, does that mean she should be excluded from the right of marriage?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 




No, but she made a choice to live as a gay person. That choice is no marriage rights as of right now. Either live with what you choose or get off your ass and change the laws. I'm with Non on this one, I really don't give a shit and I'm not putting forth any effort to get gay people their supposed rights they are currently denied.

Who gives a flying fuck about right and wrong in this world anymore? It's all about what you can prove in a court room or what politician you can buy. Having a sense of right and wrong is for suckers like those of us that reside in this forum.


UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
12 years ago
Read the topic of the thread and try again.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
12 years ago

My stance on this has changed lately. The right of marriage from WHOM? That is the question. From the Gubment? I'm kinda with Rourke on this. Get the Gubment out of that section of our lives. Now, that said.. Who defines the 'right of marriage'? And I'd respond with, whatever church/institution one wants to get married by. And that should be up to the church/institution.

As it stands now, since my little fantasy world would probably never happen, I will answer your question with a simple answer. Yes, she should be excluded, not because it was a learned behavior but because I truly enjoy being called a homophobe, bigot, etc.

It gets my rocks off.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



Everyone's a bigot to somebody. I've been called that word before too. I also got called a homophobe by a real ugly looking gay guy who I think liked me. Yuck.

The closest political person to me when it comes to this stuff is Ralph Nader. "I don't get involved in gonadal politics." In an ideal world, none of this should be an issue. If you want four wives and three husbands and a dog, if you can find a church to marry you, it should be fair game.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
DakotaT
12 years ago

Everyone's a bigot to somebody. I've been called that word before too. I also got called a homophobe by a real ugly looking gay guy who I think liked me. Yuck.

The closest political person to me when it comes to this stuff is Ralph Nader. "I don't get involved in gonadal politics." In an ideal world, none of this should be an issue. If you want four wives and three husbands and a dog, if you can find a church to marry you, it should be fair game.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 




I disagree, if you want four wives, the states attorney should start legal proceedings into your 90 day committal to the state mental institution for a complete evaluation.
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
Fan Shout
dfosterf (7h) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (14h) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (15h) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (15h) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (19h) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (21h) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (21h) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (21h) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (21h) : Against tbd
dfosterf (21h) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (21h) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (21h) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (21h) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (21h) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (21h) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (22h) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (22h) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (22h) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Hip drop is not. Super confusing. Referees job is harder
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Swivel hip drop is banned
dfosterf (25-Mar) : The hip drop enforcement will be in the form of fines, etc. Not flags
dfosterf (25-Mar) : A major foul will be enforced on the offense if there are offsetting penalties in a change of possession situation
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Teams will receive a 3rd challenge if 1 was successful. Previously, it took 2
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

19h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.