You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

14 Pages<12345>»
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline RaiderPride  
#31 Posted : Wednesday, September 28, 2011 7:51:05 PM(UTC)
RaiderPride

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,000
Joined: 7/17/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 91
Applause Received: 182

"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."
thanks Post received 1 applause.
zombieslayer on 9/28/2011(UTC)
Offline Formo  
#32 Posted : Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:33:21 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,555
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: RaiderPride Go to Quoted Post

Being gay is not a learned skill.


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!!
Offline Zero2Cool  
#33 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:19:21 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,739
Applause Received: 1,790

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
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.


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

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#34 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:30:08 AM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,691
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 365
Applause Received: 263

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.

Edited by user Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:22:48 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImage
Offline Formo  
#35 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:28:18 AM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,555
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
Let's roll with that, does that mean she should be excluded from the right of marriage?


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!!
Offline Zero2Cool  
#36 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:45:09 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,739
Applause Received: 1,790

Gubment?

BTW, you did collapse in the second half, props for being consistent.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline DakotaT  
#37 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:08:07 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,965
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
Let's roll with that, does that mean she should be excluded from the right of marriage?



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
Offline Zero2Cool  
#38 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 12:24:02 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,225
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,739
Applause Received: 1,790

Read the topic of the thread and try again.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline zombieslayer  
#39 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 3:39:11 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: Formo Go to Quoted Post
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.


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. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline DakotaT  
#40 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 4:13:15 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,965
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer Go to Quoted Post
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.



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
Offline zombieslayer  
#41 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:36:08 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
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.


Since when is masochism illegal?
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline dfosterf  
#42 Posted : Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:58:28 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: All Pro

United States
Posts: 5,753
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 159
Applause Received: 337

The gay guys should definitely get full marriage rights, imo. After all, at least one of them is allowing some other dude to stick his dick square up his ass. Hell, they ought to give the poor fucker a medal for that, lol

UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



thanks Post received 2 applause.
Nonstopdrivel on 9/30/2011(UTC), Packers_Finland on 9/30/2011(UTC)
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#43 Posted : Friday, September 30, 2011 5:27:12 AM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,691
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 365
Applause Received: 263

In all fairness, studies show that less than 25 percent of gay men engage in anal sex ever, and even fewer practice it on a regular basis (at least once a month). Still, thanks for making me laugh out loud. That's worth a slapnuts at least.

Just to clarify what I said above, I am not opposed to gay rights per se. In other words, I don't think sexual orientation should have an effect on civil rights. Gays should be in the military, they should adopt, they should be able to do anything else anyone else can do, since the law should be neutral and blind when it comes to things like sexual orientation. When I said I don't support gay marriage, I meant that I don't support the licensing of any kind of marriage. For me to support gay marriage would be to tacitly legitimize government regulation of marriage, which I decline to do.

Incidentally, the Catholic Encyclopedia states: ". . . contracts, which affect social and civil life, are subject to state authority, so that this can make such regulations and restrictions even as to their validity, as it deems necessary for the public weal." It states elsewhere even more directly: "It is historical fact that the Church always recognized the right of the State to legislate in certain respects concerning marriage, on account of its civil effects." My disagreement with this notion is just another way I make for a naughty Catholic.

Le sigh.
UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#44 Posted : Friday, September 30, 2011 6:08:40 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,649
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 560
Applause Received: 587

And of course there's that (mutter, mutter) Romans 13 problem, too.

(mutter)
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#45 Posted : Friday, September 30, 2011 7:37:42 AM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,691
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 365
Applause Received: 263

Except I didn't apply for a marriage license, so I am not technically breaking the law. Flapper

As I said earlier, I am not opposed to all government regulation of marriage. The entire point of government is to protect the innocent and ensure justice, so the State certainly has an interest in preventing fraud, deception, and coercion. Nonconsensual bigamy, marriage of prepubescent children, and nonconsensual arranged marriages are all situations that render a marriage null and void and are valid grounds for the State to intervene.

Perhaps that is what the Church really means when it says the State has the right to regulate marriage. I am not sure how long it believes the arm of government should be in this matter. I find it inconsistent that the Church would say the State would have a controlling interest in marriage, considering the Church teaches that the only two things required for a valid marriage are mutual consent and witnesses. The blessing of a priest, though desirable, is not required for a marriage to be held valid in the eyes of the Church, which teaches that it is the man and woman, not the person who presides over the ceremony, who marry each other.

Edited by user Friday, September 30, 2011 7:48:20 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
Guest
14 Pages<12345>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.288 seconds.