RaiderPride
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 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
13 years ago
Gubment?

BTW, you did collapse in the second half, props for being consistent.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
13 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
13 years ago
Read the topic of the thread and try again.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 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
13 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
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (11m) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (4h) : Merry Christmas!
beast (13h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (21h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
2h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17h / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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