Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
9 years ago


What did I leave out? Oh yeah, Rights. First of all, benefits: giving homosexual marriage all of those bennies opens up a huge can of worms that arguably would or at least could end up actually harming the position of real homosexuals - I cite the movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" - to illustrate that hahahaha - sure it was just a movie, but the scenario was valid. As for actual RIGHTS, I ask, where do you get a "right" to practice homosexuality - or for that matter, a "right" of marriage - either gay or straight? There certainly is no Constitutional right of homosexuality; It absolutely fails as a "God-given" right; And it most certainly is not a "natural" right. So what kind of "right" do you assert that it is?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



"Right" is an interesting word, isn't it?

Re: homosexuality or marriage as "civil rights": Either could be created by civil society (usually done through the state, though not necessarily". Certainly it is in the power of the state, acting on behalf of that society, to make laws creating new rights if they so want, provided that they don't violate some other superior law. So, unless there is a Constitutional provision being violated thereby, Massachusetts or Iowa or Podunkville, IA can make buggery or homosexual marriage or anything else they want a "right."

And if they want to say "all Americans have a right to health care or a right to special treatment in insurance or welfare or AFDC if married or whatever," they can do that too. And bear the social consequences thereby incurred when more people demand fulfillment of that right.

IMO, arguments that "if we allow gay marriage, society will have to pay too much for X, Y, and Z" are the kinds of problem you get when you approach law as a system of entitlement and privilege. When "rights" to drive, to fuck, to travel or to co-habitate are merely "privileges" granted by the state, then rights are nothing more than a question of power and influence. Or, to put it another way, they are not rights at all.

Re: homosexuality and marriage as "natural rights": This is tougher. What is "natural"? I seem to remember reading somewhere that biologists have evidence that individuals of other species also associate/bond in same-gender ways, that it isn't merely a "human" thing.
Moreover, if we go down the "homosexuality-as-disease" route, how do we decide what constitutes a natural disease and what does not?

But, it seems to me, this "is it natural or not" question actually misses the role the state and civil society is to play with respect to natural rights. Jefferson's point, Madison's point, is that the role of the state is one of protection not definition. The state is to protect the individual's exercise of his or her rights of liberty and property. And nothing is more our property, nothing is more "owned by ourselves" than our bodies. The state's role is to protect against infringement of our exercise and use and ownership of our bodies. It is not to legislate what we use our bodies for or don't use them for, as long as we harm no one else's use of theirs by how we use ours.

And it is not my use of my body that harms yours when you are told to pay taxes to fund health or social programs that I take advantage of, it is those who have insisted on legislating those programs and appropriating tax revenues. It is taxation and redistribution that determines whether one person's sexual practices (or one's abstention, for that matter) "harms" another.


Re: homosexuality as "God-given rights": Well, its that free will thing isn't it. God gave us freedom to choose. He gave us the freedom to sin. To do not just the things He approves us doing (loving him with all our hearts, etc.) but to do the things He doesn't approve of. So, regardless of whether buggery or homosexual marriage or whatever is on His approved list, if it is something we can do with our body, and if it isn't something that by the act of doing harms another's freedom, then, God has given us the "power" to do it.

Homosexuality may not be right in the sense of "correct" or "without sin", but it is in the sense of "endowed with the power to exercise". Or, if you will, "God-given."
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
texaspackerbacker
9 years ago
I'm off to play tennis - I will say more later about all of your posts, Wade - most of which are excellent.

For now, you do realize, right? that your last line flies in the face completely of Mi_key's major tenet - that homosexuals are born that way/don't have any choice but to be homosexuals.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
mi_keys
9 years ago

Dungy had built up credit with the stinking PC people - the Vick thing, etc., so his career probably hasn't been ruined. The same is not true for a lot of others daring to speak out against homosexuality

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Right, we already know you want the freedom to be an asshole to people without the risk of being called an asshole. If you and people like you are going to continue to slander an entire segment of the population, it's unreasonable to expect zero retaliation.

- or just innocently speaking their mind without even intending to upset anybody.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



This sounds like people who preface an insult with "no offense, but..." For instance, if I were to go up to a woman and tell her, "no offense, but you're a bit of a cunt"; she proceeds to slap me for calling her a cunt; and then I protest, "but... I said no offense!"

As I said, I don't consider my saying "God damn" or "God damned" to be "profaning God", as I am sincerely asking God to or expressing the view that God already has condemned to hell various concepts, things, and people.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



I already granted you that there are arguments that go a variety of ways on this, conceding that yours is an argument I've heard. And again, if you are seriously asking your god to condemn someone else, or an entire group of people, to an eternity of burning in a lake of fire, then you're playing judge, which is also outlawed in the Bible.

I absolutely am asserting that homosexuality is not natural. It says something about how far the pro-homosexuality crowd has come in dragging things down that this is even considered debatable..

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



It is found in nature. We have observed animals participating in sexual acts with same-sex partners. The definition of natural is existing in nature. Hence, homosexuality is natural.

And as I said, I further assert that the large majority of those pushing that crap are NOT homosexual themselves, but instead, have a different agenda - a minority, like yourself that are "do-gooders" wanting to help unfortunates, but a majority of whom consciously intend to drag down America and western civilization - yeah, I know you disagree, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Per the theme of your arguments, you have zero evidence to back this up. By the way, openness to differing world views and people has typically been productive for societies over the course of history, not counterproductive. You want to see a perfect example of this, look at the golden age of the middle east in the 9th through 11th centuries and open they were versus their fall in the 12th and the focus on their turn to fundamentalism. Look at the Renaissance in Europe versus the dark ages. If these people wanted to drag America down, their tactics are utter shit.

And if you want to fall back on the natural right of "pursuit of happiness" to include homosexuality, then I will fall back on asserting the moral equivalence of homosexuality with some other pretty abominable behaviors that some people do to pursue happiness - pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc. - Would you also refuse to call THOSE things perversions?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Pedophilia and bestiality are necessarily rape: children and animals don’t have the capacity to consent to sex. Point me to one proponent of gay rights that wants legal protection for gay people to break into your house and assfuck you against your will.

Incest has the potential to lead to birth defects. There’s also examples of incest in the bible which are deemed okay.

Now we get to the heart of the argument: your assertion/the falsehood pushed so strongly by homosexuality proponents - that they "can't help it" - that they are somehow genetically or whatever prone to the behavior. THAT is unproven, and I would suggest that the burden of proof is definitely on those claiming something so radically different than what has long been prevailing thought. Back in the day, there was a term no longer used by PC people and homosexuality proponents: Latent Homosexuality - the idea that while somebody might actually be predisposed to the behavior, they can - and in some cases did/do resist what society saw back then as abominable. Your argument about Greeks, Romans, etc. in certain contexts practicing homosexuality tends to support that also - that the behavior can be turned on or turned off - voluntarily practiced or not practiced, depending on the context or environment.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



There are people who are bisexual. Obviously, they can choose. Someone who is strictly homosexual or heterosexual, cannot suddenly change. I can’t suddenly decide to be aroused by cock any more than you can. My gay friends and family can’t suddenly decide to be aroused by pussy.

And as for my example of the Romans and Greeks, not everyone took part; and there were certainly people who were predisposed towards one or the other (or both if they were bisexual, but bisexuals don’t choose to be so, they are).

And if it were a choice, why would anyone choose to be part of a class of people that have been historically oppressed and discriminated against. Do you think anyone would’ve chosen to be black during any part of American history pre-1960s?

Hating the sin and not the sinner absolutely is NOT a "cop out". It is merely recognizing normalcy as it existed before the sick damn change mongers set about to drag down our way of life - while still following the very Christian (or Buddhist or Hindu or humanist) point of view of live and let live/don't bash poor misguided sinful people - which, of course, we all are.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



No one is out to change your way of life. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you to suck a dick. No one is telling you that you can’t be Christian. No one is telling you who you can and cannot marry.

The only thing they are asking to change is that the gay community have the same access and rights that everyone else has. Hating the sin, in this context, requires you to hate it when a gay man or a gay woman has found his or her partner in life. You can’t separate the “sin” and the “sinner” in this context. And if your lot were actually living by the live and let live point of view, there wouldn’t be 31 states still banning gay marriage.


Born and bred a cheesehead
DarkaneRules
9 years ago
I am very supportive of gay rights because I support anything somebody does that doesn't hurt themselves or those close to them. Gay people getting married has absolutely no effect on me. "Let it be."
Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance
texaspackerbacker
9 years ago

I am very supportive of gay rights because I support anything somebody does that doesn't hurt themselves or those close to them. Gay people getting married has absolutely no effect on me. "Let it be."

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules 



That's a valid point of view and the reason why I consider this whole topic to be way down the list in importance. Just the same, most people, most societies for most of human history have seen homosexuality as disgusting and bad - and not just for religious reasons. I would suggest that at best, it's pretty arrogant of present-day supporters of homosexuality to go against that, and at worst, it is an intentional effort to drag down human standards. But I agree, it doesn't really affect me either - the same as Abbrederis or Barkley's ACL or Rodgers' collarbone last year or the Packers losing in the playoffs. I guess you could say that stuff didn't affect me either, same as the shit perpetrated on our way of life like homosexuality being promoted and mainstreamed so successfully. Come to think of it, there's a lot of crap that doesn't really have an effect on me ......... but it still pisses me off. You too? Or not?


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
texaspackerbacker
9 years ago
Wade, a lot of what you said - the religious stuff, I wish I had said. It's too easy to forget the forgiveness and salvation aspect of our religion.

I did overlook the kind of "rights" that are merely legislated. If that's what the "let the bastards have their rights" crowd is talking about, I guess it's just another way of advocating that sinister word that Obama loves so much and the Republicans sickly keep spouting also: CHANGE.

Why people fall for that crap - CHANGING what is so great in the greatest country in the world/the greatest culture in the world - I really don't know. God bless and maintain the magnificent status quo - and that prayer includes the topic of this thread - in this case, the status quo of a few decades ago - before the change mongers worked their evil.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
texaspackerbacker
9 years ago

Right, we already know you want the freedom to be an asshole to people without the risk of being called an asshole. If you and people like you are going to continue to slander an entire segment of the population, it's unreasonable to expect zero retaliation.



This sounds like people who preface an insult with "no offense, but..." For instance, if I were to go up to a woman and tell her, "no offense, but you're a bit of a cunt"; she proceeds to slap me for calling her a cunt; and then I protest, "but... I said no offense!"



I already granted you that there are arguments that go a variety of ways on this, conceding that yours is an argument I've heard. And again, if you are seriously asking your god to condemn someone else, or an entire group of people, to an eternity of burning in a lake of fire, then you're playing judge, which is also outlawed in the Bible.



It is found in nature. We have observed animals participating in sexual acts with same-sex partners. The definition of natural is existing in nature. Hence, homosexuality is natural.



Per the theme of your arguments, you have zero evidence to back this up. By the way, openness to differing world views and people has typically been productive for societies over the course of history, not counterproductive. You want to see a perfect example of this, look at the golden age of the middle east in the 9th through 11th centuries and open they were versus their fall in the 12th and the focus on their turn to fundamentalism. Look at the Renaissance in Europe versus the dark ages. If these people wanted to drag America down, their tactics are utter shit.



Pedophilia and bestiality are necessarily rape: children and animals don’t have the capacity to consent to sex. Point me to one proponent of gay rights that wants legal protection for gay people to break into your house and assf*ck you against your will.

Incest has the potential to lead to birth defects. There’s also examples of incest in the bible which are deemed okay.



There are people who are bisexual. Obviously, they can choose. Someone who is strictly homosexual or heterosexual, cannot suddenly change. I can’t suddenly decide to be aroused by cock any more than you can. My gay friends and family can’t suddenly decide to be aroused by pussy.

And as for my example of the Romans and Greeks, not everyone took part; and there were certainly people who were predisposed towards one or the other (or both if they were bisexual, but bisexuals don’t choose to be so, they are).

And if it were a choice, why would anyone choose to be part of a class of people that have been historically oppressed and discriminated against. Do you think anyone would’ve chosen to be black during any part of American history pre-1960s?



No one is out to change your way of life. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you to suck a dick. No one is telling you that you can’t be Christian. No one is telling you who you can and cannot marry.

The only thing they are asking to change is that the gay community have the same access and rights that everyone else has. Hating the sin, in this context, requires you to hate it when a gay man or a gay woman has found his or her partner in life. You can’t separate the “sin” and the “sinner” in this context. And if your lot were actually living by the live and let live point of view, there wouldn’t be 31 states still banning gay marriage.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



I detect a bit of slippage in your logic as well as in your civility in this latest post, mi_keys. Why would you make a statement like that I want to be an asshole to anybody? What brought that on? How many times do I have to say the "hate the sin, not the sinner" thing. And yeah, I will stipulate that I am sinful myself - who other than Jesus Himself isn't. However, I'm pretty careful to not include in my sins personally mistreating people - verbally or otherwise. If I ever do, it is counter-punching - which admittedly doesn't religiously justify it, but is a fact just the same.

"No one is out to change your way of life." If that "your" is the plural "you" - Americans/Christians/what I call "good normal people", then you are resoundingly WRONG. Just what do you think the damn homosexual agenda is all about if not CHANGING (that sick damn word) OUR way of life? And for about a generation or so now, they have been disgustingly effective in that rotten change. I still don't know exactly how old you are, but if you are any less than 50 or so, your whole generation is evidence of that.

Why would anybody choose to be black prior to the 1960s? That doesn't sound just a little bit racist to you hahahaha? I suggest you ask a few black people that question. As for homosexuals being categorized with black people, I suggest you bring THAT comparison up to a few black people too hahahaha.

As for the whole debacle of "progress" toward mainstreaming and promoting homosexuality and its effect on me and other good normal people, I refer you to my reply to darkane.

You are slipping deeper into a hole full of depravity as well as departing more and more from logic with your comments about homosexuality being "found in nature". The items you referred to as necessarily involving rape, in addition to a LOT of other things I doubt you would advocate occur regularly in nature. If your goal is to justify homosexuality that way, well, you're opening the door to all the other crap in nature too. You are on similarly shaky ground with your comments about bisexuality, etc.

One major point of mine that you did not comment on is the old concept of LATENT homosexuality - people who might be predisposed to the arousal thing, just as you say, but CHOOSING to avoid the behavior - possibly because of past or even residual present day societal or religious negatives, but in many cases because they themselves realize that what they may feel like doing is disgusting and rotten - dare I say "abominable"? Whether you acknowledge it or not, that scenario definitely does exist, and in no small numbers. And speaking of numbers, I haven't really heard any percentages or estimates from you, but those on your side in this argument generally have (IMO) an EXTREMELY inflated idea of how many homosexual practicers there actually are in this country or the world in general - those estimates being self-serving to promote their cause. And by "their", I mean the promoters of the whole sick agenda, the large majority of which (IMO) are not even homosexual. As I have said, I know some decent (other than the abomination they practice in a low key quiet way) homosexual people, and they tend to be kinda embarrassed if not outright upset by the efforts of non-homosexual change-mongers to stir up controversy that often brings shit down on them. For the most part, they just want to be left alone.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
mi_keys
9 years ago
Tex,

To start with your comment regarding civility and logic slipping, the asshole comments have everything to do with you repeatedly referring to gays as abominations, evil, perversions and otherwise denigrating an entire group of people based an absolute fuck all but for a couple lines cherry picked from a book you don't otherwise seem to know or understand. You sling shit at them and then act incredulous that you get shit thrown back you're way. As for the logic, that's rich as you haven't used a shred of logic I this entire discussion, just baseless assertion after baseless assertion, often in the face of evidence to the contrary.

And speaking of baseless assertions, you continue the line that virtually everyone ever has hated homosexuality. Despite zero evidence and examples to the contrary. But even if that is the case, the majority of societies once discriminated against women. Is it arrogant to give women equal rights/treatment? Did doing so tear down society? No.

The majority of people once thought the world was flat. They were objectively wrong. A majority of people once thought the world was the center of the universe. They were objectively wrong. Just because a majority believed something, doesn't make it so.

And ironically, you lambast us for arrogance when you keep bleating on and on about how all we need to stay the best is maintain the status quo, as if everything has already been perfected and no one can ever catch us. We didn't get to be the best country in the world by accepting the status quo and that line of thinking will ultimately end up relegating us to being second tier behind our competitors.

To that point, your aversion to change for the sake of aversion to change is just as nonsensical as the morons that pedal change for the sake of change. I get the impression you assume that if we give gays equal rights we have to accept every other change left-leaning politicians push. If that's the case you couldn't be anymore wrong. Judge this issue on its own. You bang on about dragging this country down. What the flying fuck is treating gays equally going to do to damage the country?

On the black comment, the only point was that they were both classes of people that have been discriminated against. Not to the same degree, but they both have been. Who sticks there hand up and volunteers for discrimination?

The point about found in nature is effectively irrelevant to whether or not homosexuality is okay. It was just yet opportunity to point out a factual inaccuracy of yours.

And on your question about latent homosexuality, if you meant to imply homosexuality could be reversed, you're wrong. If you mean intense societal pressures can make someone behave utterly contrary to their nature, that is true. Religious, familial and societal pressures do cause gay people to try god act straight. Look at someone who gets married, has kids, and then finally comes out as gay. You don't see that happen the other way around. It can also be damaging to the individual. At its worst, conversion therapy, or pray away the gay camps, has been shown to be completely ineffectual in changing underlying homosexual attractions. It has led to cases of depression and suicide. So ultimately, not only is the viewpoint that you can change an individual's sexuality wrong, it's dangerous. You end up fucking people in the head. For levity's sake, there's a particularly funny South Park episode on this.

To back out to a high level view, at its most rudimentary, my stance holds that homosexuals are human beings and all human beings deserve equal treatment. Hell, our country's Declaration of Independence starts off with that premise.

The holding of your viewpoint has led discrimination against homosexuals. It's divided families. It's led to bullshit therapy that's ultimately only ever capable of causing depression and suicide. It's led to millions if dollars wasted in legal costs. It's led to senseless assaults. And for what end? What the hell do you or anyone else in this country get for it? What benefit outweighs those costs?

I challenged you earlier to this, but name one valid, logical reason why homosexuals should be the subject of the bile, the slander, and the discrimination that your ilk throws at them.

I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
Born and bred a cheesehead
texaspackerbacker
9 years ago

Tex,

To start with your comment regarding civility and logic slipping, the asshole comments have everything to do with you repeatedly referring to gays as abominations, evil, perversions and otherwise denigrating an entire group of people based an absolute f*ck all but for a couple lines cherry picked from a book you don't otherwise seem to know or understand. You sling shit at them and then act incredulous that you get shit thrown back you're way. As for the logic, that's rich as you haven't used a shred of logic I this entire discussion, just baseless assertion after baseless assertion, often in the face of evidence to the contrary.

And speaking of baseless assertions, you continue the line that virtually everyone ever has hated homosexuality. Despite zero evidence and examples to the contrary. But even if that is the case, the majority of societies once discriminated against women. Is it arrogant to give women equal rights/treatment? Did doing so tear down society? No.

The majority of people once thought the world was flat. They were objectively wrong. A majority of people once thought the world was the center of the universe. They were objectively wrong. Just because a majority believed something, doesn't make it so.

And ironically, you lambast us for arrogance when you keep bleating on and on about how all we need to stay the best is maintain the status quo, as if everything has already been perfected and no one can ever catch us. We didn't get to be the best country in the world by accepting the status quo and that line of thinking will ultimately end up relegating us to being second tier behind our competitors.

To that point, your aversion to change for the sake of aversion to change is just as nonsensical as the morons that pedal change for the sake of change. I get the impression you assume that if we give gays equal rights we have to accept every other change left-leaning politicians push. If that's the case you couldn't be anymore wrong. Judge this issue on its own. You bang on about dragging this country down. What the flying f*ck is treating gays equally going to do to damage the country?

On the black comment, the only point was that they were both classes of people that have been discriminated against. Not to the same degree, but they both have been. Who sticks there hand up and volunteers for discrimination?

The point about found in nature is effectively irrelevant to whether or not homosexuality is okay. It was just yet opportunity to point out a factual inaccuracy of yours.

And on your question about latent homosexuality, if you meant to imply homosexuality could be reversed, you're wrong. If you mean intense societal pressures can make someone behave utterly contrary to their nature, that is true. Religious, familial and societal pressures do cause gay people to try god act straight. Look at someone who gets married, has kids, and then finally comes out as gay. You don't see that happen the other way around. It can also be damaging to the individual. At its worst, conversion therapy, or pray away the gay camps, has been shown to be completely ineffectual in changing underlying homosexual attractions. It has led to cases of depression and suicide. So ultimately, not only is the viewpoint that you can change an individual's sexuality wrong, it's dangerous. You end up f*cking people in the head. For levity's sake, there's a particularly funny South Park episode on this.

To back out to a high level view, at its most rudimentary, my stance holds that homosexuals are human beings and all human beings deserve equal treatment. Hell, our country's Declaration of Independence starts off with that premise.

The holding of your viewpoint has led discrimination against homosexuals. It's divided families. It's led to bullshit therapy that's ultimately only ever capable of causing depression and suicide. It's led to millions if dollars wasted in legal costs. It's led to senseless assaults. And for what end? What the hell do you or anyone else in this country get for it? What benefit outweighs those costs?

I challenged you earlier to this, but name one valid, logical reason why homosexuals should be the subject of the bile, the slander, and the discrimination that your ilk throws at them.

I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



Your mischaracterization of my words and positions is getting annoying. I don't know if you just don't read too well, or if you are intentionally distorting - which, of course, is tantamount to lying. How many times do I have to say it, my position is that homosexuality clearly is evil/unnatural/an abomination/a perversion. I don't think I have ever either personally or as a group denigrated or whatever the practicers of homosexuality. In fact, I have gone out of the way to differentiate the SIN from the SINNER - a concept which you - ignorantly IMO - have denigrated. YOUR perspective in this is the same as if I stated YOU were denigrating Christians because of your position that the Bible is NOT as they/we believe, one entity, the inspired word of God. To make it clear, I'm not accusing you of that, just pointing out that it is exactly equivalent to your words and tactics.

Should homosexuals be bashed or ridiculed or mildly criticized or whatever? I don't know; Should gamblers or prostitutes or practicers of incest, pedophilia, or bestiality or embezzlers or white collar criminals or petty thieves (I've met nice people in all three of those categories) be bashed or ridiculed or mildly criticized? Those are ALL sins. As Wade pointed out, it is for God to judge, not us, what if any is the hierarchy of sins. Similarly, we ALL are sinners, and God can judge who or what is worse. The bottom line, however, for Christians - which you may or may not claim to be - is that ALL of us sinners can be saved by faith in Christ - thanks again, Wade, for the reminder about that.

"Why homosexuals should be the subject of the bile, the slander, and the discrimination that your ilk throws at them?" Because they commit what the holy book of the one and only TRUE religion calls an abomination - THAT is reason enough. Why should they not be called out for their sinful practice? Because we all sin, and because the Bible says judgment lies with God. THAT is why I do NOT bash or denigrate them - judge? occasionally - sorry for MY sin there; ridicule? sometimes - I think most people, even a lot of supporters of the practice do that, and as far as I know, the Bible doesn't say "thou shalt not ridicule ....". Anyway, I would appreciate you NOT repeatedly mischaracterizing my position on the topic. I occasionally AM an asshole - I don't shy away from that, but NOT in the way you have repeatedly and falsely stated.

Latent homosexuality - a common term a few decades ago - didn't (to my knowledge) have anything to do with "conversion therapy". It just referred to a large segment of the TINY homosexual community who MAY feel an urge to commit the sin, but avoid giving in to that urge. I think modernists are applying the same thinking nowadays to alcoholism and a possible genetic link.

I will save your Status Quo/Change comments for a different post except to just say, no, advancing the homosexual agenda would not tear down society - neither would treating them as criminals, which I'm not suggesting, but as you know, used to be the law. THAT is why I'm on record as saying this whole topic just isn't very important in the grand scheme of things.

I will be out of town for a couple of days - a tennis tournament in Dallas, so you reply can stand unchallenged for that long anyway hahahaha.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
mi_keys
9 years ago

Your mischaracterization of my words and positions is getting annoying. I don't know if you just don't read too well, or if you are intentionally distorting - which, of course, is tantamount to lying. How many times do I have to say it, my position is that homosexuality clearly is evil/unnatural/an abomination/a perversion.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



While you have not directly said gay people are evil, you have reasonably implied as much, which I will touch on shortly. And yes, I'm saying calling homosexuality evil is denigrating gay people.

I'm also bringing in some generalities of what certain segments of the population who also say such things follow up with doing (e.g. petitioning to block gay marriage rights, which you seemingly aren't doing actively). I've admittedly not been clear about this.

Still, I reiterate that calling homosexuality evil, abomination, etc. is denigrating gay people. This is only consistent with my stance below regarding your "hate the sin, not the sinner" line.

I don't think I have ever either personally or as a group denigrated or whatever the practicers of homosexuality. In fact, I have gone out of the way to differentiate the SIN from the SINNER - a concept which you - ignorantly IMO - have denigrated.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Call me ignorant all you want, it's a bullshit stance. You've put forth zero reason for the person or the act to be criticized. Zero. And you've not addressed the point that in decrying the act you are necessarily decrying a gay man or woman finding a significant other with which to spend the rest of his or her life. That's a pretty big fuck you to someone.

It's this stance--the we love you but hate how you are and what you're attracted to so we're going to change you--that led people (here's where I'm talking generally, not necessarily you) to set up the whole "conversion therapy" and "pray away the gay camps" that have done nothing to change sexual tendencies but have led to causes of depression and, in rare cases, suicide. It's this shit that leads people to petition against gay marriage rights. It IS bullshit.

Should homosexuals be bashed or ridiculed or mildly criticized or whatever? I don't know; Should gamblers or prostitutes or practicers of incest, pedophilia, or bestiality or embezzlers or white collar criminals or petty thieves (I've met nice people in all three of those categories) be bashed or ridiculed or mildly criticized? Those are ALL sins. As Wade pointed out, it is for God to judge, not us, what if any is the hierarchy of sins. Similarly, we ALL are sinners, and God can judge who or what is worse. The bottom line, however, for Christians - which you may or may not claim to be - is that ALL of us sinners can be saved by faith in Christ - thanks again, Wade, for the reminder about that.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



When you set homosexuals on the same level as rapists and criminals you don't see how that can be reasonably construed as condemning them?

"Why homosexuals should be the subject of the bile, the slander, and the discrimination that your ilk throws at them?" Because they commit what the holy book of the one and only TRUE religion calls an abomination - THAT is reason enough.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Ah, because they don't share the same world view as you. Got it.

By the way, is this the same book from which you blatantly cherry pick? If the sole authority is the literal word of this book then are you okay with slavery as laid out in Leviticus? Do you think women are second class citizens at best and property at worst? Do you think we should take every NFL employee from the coaches down to the beer man working the stands and bludgeon them to death with big fucking rocks for working on the sabbath? Are you against mixed fabrics and shellfish and pork? I can cherry pick all day from that book too and find shit you don't agree with.

You can't point to one line in the bible as your sole justification for a stance and then ignore other parts. Otherwise, that line is nothing more than an excuse to hide behind so you don't have to take responsibility for your baseless, bigoted opinion.

Why should they not be called out for their sinful practice? Because we all sin, and because the Bible says judgment lies with God.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



If you believe judgment lies with god then you probably shouldn't be calling out what you have cherry picked to be a sin.

THAT is why I do NOT bash or denigrate them - judge? occasionally - sorry for MY sin there; ridicule? sometimes - I think most people, even a lot of supporters of the practice do that, and as far as I know, the Bible doesn't say "thou shalt not ridicule ....". Anyway, I would appreciate you NOT repeatedly mischaracterizing my position on the topic. I occasionally AM an asshole - I don't shy away from that, but NOT in the way you have repeatedly and falsely stated.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



You don't bash/denigrate but you ridicule?

You believe judgment is reserved for god but you go ahead and say sorry for sinning but I'm going to judge them?... yet again reminds me of saying "no offense..." only to proceed to offend.




Again. One valid reason why homosexuals or homosexuality should be condemned. One.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    beast (2h) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word
    Nonstopdrivel (2h) : Not THAT f-word.
    Zero2Cool (2h) : fuck
    beast (3h) : 49ers are Cap Tight
    beast (3h) : Fuck
    Mucky Tundra (4h) : Kanata, I will be when I'm on my lunch later
    TheKanataThrilla (4h) : Love you NSD
    Nonstopdrivel (4h) : Huh. I guess the F-word is censored in this fan shout.
    Nonstopdrivel (4h) : Anyone who doesn't hang out in the chat probably smokes pole.
    TheKanataThrilla (4h) : GoPackGo Thinking CB is the pick tonight
    TheKanataThrilla (4h) : Anyone hanging out in the chat tonight?
    Zero2Cool (5h) : whoa...49ers have had trade conversations about both Deebo Samuel and Brandon Aiyuk
    Zero2Cool (5h) : I hope they take a Punter at 9th overall. Be bold!
    Mucky Tundra (6h) : I may end up eating those words but I think they need a lot more talent then their 4 picks can provide
    Mucky Tundra (6h) : I really hope they stand pat and Draft a WR
    Mucky Tundra (6h) : @DMRussini
    Mucky Tundra (6h) : The Chicago Bears are very open for business at 9 and telling teams they are ready to move for the right price, per source
    buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend Penei Soul 4yrs - 112mil
    buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend St. Brown 4 years 120mil and
    Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : Now look, trading up to 13 to take a TE might not seem like a good idea later but it will be later!
    dfosterf (24-Apr) : (Your trade up mock post)
    dfosterf (24-Apr) : Mucky- The only thing fun to watch would be me flipping the f out if Gute goes up to 13 and grabs Brock Bowers, lol
    beast (24-Apr) : DT Byron Murphy II, Texas... whom some believe is the next Aaron Donald (or the closest thing to Donald)
    Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : What? And who?
    Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : *sad Mucky noises*
    Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : @JoeJHoyt Murphy said he’s been told he won’t slide past pick No. 16.
    wpr (23-Apr) : Just about time to watch Sonny Weaver stick it to the seahags. I never get tired of it.
    Martha Careful (23-Apr) : *game plan
    Martha Careful (23-Apr) : IMHO, not even close. He is not a guy you game play around.
    Mucky Tundra (23-Apr) : is Aiyuk worth a 1st rounder?
    Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : 49ers are seeking a 1st round pick in exchange for WR Brandon Aiyuk
    Mucky Tundra (22-Apr) : Based on Gutes comments, now I don't feel as silly having 13 picks in my mock the other day
    Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Zach Wilson to Broncos.
    Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Gutekunst says he'd love to have 13 or 14 picks. He's trading back huh lol
    beast (22-Apr) : Someday we'll have a draft betting scandal
    beast (21-Apr) : Sometimes looking extremely amazing, sometimes looking extremely lost
    beast (21-Apr) : I haven't looked into the QBs, but some have suggested Maye has some of the most extremely inconsistent tape they've seen
    beast (21-Apr) : Well it also sounds like Patriots are listening to trade offers, not that seriously considering any, but listening means they aren't locked
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Maye needs to be AFC
    Mucky Tundra (21-Apr) : Not liking the idea of the Vikings getting Maye
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Vikings HC joked that he may or may not have sent flowers to Bob Kraft. That's where rumor came from.
    beast (21-Apr) : Can't tell if this is real or BS, but some rumors about a possible Patriots/Vikings trade for #3 overall
    dfosterf (21-Apr) : One playbook to my knowledge. I was shooting for facetious.
    beast (20-Apr) : I'm not sure they have different playbooks for different OL positions, and Dillard run blocking is supposedly worse than his pass blocking..
    dfosterf (19-Apr) : The only problem with that is he isn't a guard either.
    dfosterf (19-Apr) : Put him at right guard. That is where he will be coached. That is where he will compete. He is not even allowed to look at the LT playbook.
    dfosterf (18-Apr) : Kidding aside, I hope the best for him.
    dfosterf (18-Apr) : Went to a Titans board. One comment there. Not very long. I quote: "LOL" They don't sound overly upset about our aquisition.
    beast (18-Apr) : OT Dillard has been absolutely horrible... like OG Newman levels
    dfosterf (18-Apr) : Suit him up and have him stand in front of the big board as a draft day cautionary tale.
    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
    6m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    6m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

    3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    24-Apr / Random Babble / beast

    22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    21-Apr / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

    19-Apr / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    18-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    18-Apr / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

    18-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    17-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

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