mi_keys
10 years ago

So what's your point? Are you PRO-homosexuality? Or anti-Judeo-Christian? Or what?

Speak up/identify your favorite perversion/state what part of our American tradition and heritage and concept of normalcy you have a problem with. Don't be shy.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



I already did make my stance known on this bollocks the first time you strutted into the forum to rant about homosexuality; right after you bragged about divorcing your first wife for someone younger (you know, also frowned upon in the bible).

I'm pro gay-rights and anti-asshole. Anyone supporting the discrimination of any group by cherry picking lines from whatever book you choose to believe was divinely inspired--be that the Torah, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Quran, the Bahgavad Gita, Dianetics, or whatever--all while blatantly disregarding other sections of said book, is being an asshole. Period.

But this topic's already been done to death. How about you start one on the POLYESTER BLEND AGENDA. Haven't seen that one yet.
Born and bred a cheesehead
DakotaT
10 years ago

I understand, you don't have a problem with that particular perversion. How many others do you approve of? Pedophilia fits snugly within the line you drew, for example.

Why would you have a problem with homosexuality merely being allowed or even ceremonially sanctioned as marriage, just not given the preferred or subsidized status of real marriage? And how do you justify favoring homosexual marriage over polygamy - assuming your motive is just to "let the poor bastards have their rights"?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



The "poor bastards" I speak of are the Leviticus Christians, you know, the cherry picking bigots. As for your tangent on pedophilia, I don't even understand your mindset with that one, Sicko!

Homosexual marriage should and will get every perk and advantage a conventional marriage gets with taxes and estate law - whether you horrible right wingers want to allow it or not. Who gives a fuck what you outvoted people think anyway.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

I already did make my stance known on this bollocks the first time you strutted into the forum to rant about homosexuality; right after you bragged about divorcing your first wife for someone younger (you know, also frowned upon in the bible).

I'm pro gay-rights and anti-asshole. Anyone supporting the discrimination of any group by cherry picking lines from whatever book you choose to believe was divinely inspired--be that the Torah, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Quran, the Bahgavad Gita, Dianetics, or whatever--all while blatantly disregarding other sections of said book, is being an asshole. Period.

But this topic's already been done to death. How about you start one on the POLYESTER BLEND AGENDA. Haven't seen that one yet.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



Somebody brought the thread back to life hahahaha - I neither condone nor condemn that.

As for my personal life, I didn't realize I bragged about it hahaha, but it has a lot to do with why I HATE the damned double standard: the media - I guess nowadays I have to say not just leftist media - shamelessly promoting the abomination of homosexuality while at best ignoring and at worst putting down what makes a lot more sense religiously and naturally: polygamy.

No "cherry picking" needed, ALL of those religious books (actually I'm not sure about "Dianetics" hahaha) are vehemently anti-homosexuality. Therefore, what does that make a person like you - by your own definition - who is "pro-gay rights"? Or are you saying you don't buy what is being sold in ANY of those books? Or did I misinterpret your words: "pro-gay rights/anti-asshole" meaning you like inflicting the agenda on good normal people even though the back door is not your own orifice of choice - is THAT what you meant to say? If so, you illustrate my point very well - a lot of straight leftists (or leaving politics out of it, let's just say "interfering meddlers") sticking their noses in where they don't belong. Is that you? Or are you actually a homosexual? Because there really isn't a third choice.


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

The "poor bastards" I speak of are the Leviticus Christians, you know, the cherry picking bigots. As for your tangent on pedophilia, I don't even understand your mindset with that one, Sicko!

Homosexual marriage should and will get every perk and advantage a conventional marriage gets with taxes and estate law - whether you horrible right wingers want to allow it or not. Who gives a f*ck what you outvoted people think anyway.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



To spell it out for you, the "line" you drew, in your own words was merely "two people" (I don't remember, did you even say "consenting"? Either way, you neglected to say anything about age. No, I wouldn't accuse you of advocating, much less practicing pedophilia, but you got a little sloppy with your words and let at least one abomination creep in which you probably didn't intend.

So you're willing to bet the homosexual agenda on your side outvoting those of us supporting normalcy huh? I'll be glad to take that bet. After November, and again in 2016, you will undoubtedly be singing a different tune.

BTW, regarding your earlier statement, "give the bastards their rights", I'd be interested in hearing WHERE exactly you see any of those "rights". I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the Constitution one way or the other about marriage. Other than that, you have "God-given" rights - your position falls way short there, not only by our own Judeo-Christian standards, but by basically all the other major and minor religions too. I guess you could fall back on "natural" rights. Are you actually gonna take the position that ass-fucking is "natural"?

The most sinister aspect of the homosexual agenda is in the realm of education. I ask you, and anybody else buying into the pro-homosexual propaganda, do you REALLY want your kids taught in school or on TV or whatever that ass-fucking is a perfectly fine thing to do?


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



The most sinister aspect of the homosexual agenda is in the realm of education. I ask you, and anybody else buying into the pro-homosexual propaganda, do you REALLY want your kids taught in school or on TV or whatever that ass-f*cking is a perfectly fine thing to do?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



This isn't about me. It is about people like you who think you have the right to tell others what they do with their anus. It really is none of your business.

And as far as the 2014 election goes, I really don't care. If the Senate returns to the control of the Evil ones, it won't matter because Barry has to sign everything they try to do anyway. I just wish the Evil ones would start taking care of all the poor people that are stupid enough to vote them in instead of just taking care of the wealthy.
UserPostedImage
mi_keys
10 years ago

No "cherry picking" needed, ALL of those religious books (actually I'm not sure about "Dianetics" hahaha) are vehemently anti-homosexuality.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Point well and truly missed. You're cherry picking not because the Bible has two or three lines in the entire thing that speak out on homosexuality and certain other books may or may not condemn the practice; you're cherry picking because the Bible condemns plenty of other things which you and your lot seem fine with, or at the very least put almost zero effort into protesting. I don't see you protesting mixed fabrics. I don't see you proposing the death penalty for children that disobey their parents. You're clearly fine with divorce; and considering you're a big football fan, you probably don't support the death penalty for people that work on Sunday. Of course, this cherry picking was already pointed out the last time this debate occurred on this forum.

Therefore, what does that make a person like you - by your own definition - who is "pro-gay rights"? Or are you saying you don't buy what is being sold in ANY of those books?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



I don't subscribe to any of those books as the literal, un-erring, and divinely inspired word of god(s). If someone else wants to believe in them, good for them. The point of bringing those up was that I don't care what source you cherry pick from. That can be expanded to non-religious texts as well.

Or did I misinterpret your words: "pro-gay rights/anti-asshole" meaning you like inflicting the agenda on good normal people even though the back door is not your own orifice of choice - is THAT what you meant to say? If so, you illustrate my point very well - a lot of straight leftists (or leaving politics out of it, let's just say "interfering meddlers") sticking their noses in where they don't belong. Is that you? Or are you actually a homosexual? Because there really isn't a third choice.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



To the bolded parts: Pot. Kettle. Black.

No one who supports homosexuals having the right to marry and have all the rights thereof is requiring any one to be gay. There's no proposed law that would require you to suck 3 dicks every second Thursday of the month. There's no proposed ban on Christians marrying Christians. There's no proposed ban on heterosexuals marrying heterosexuals. There is absolutely nothing being forced on you. You and your lot, on the other hand, ARE forcing your worldview on others. Based on a couple lines from a text that you'll happily ignore otherwise when it doesn't suit your beliefs.
Born and bred a cheesehead
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

This isn't about me. It is about people like you who think you have the right to tell others what they do with their anus. It really is none of your business.

And as far as the 2014 election goes, I really don't care. If the Senate returns to the control of the Evil ones, it won't matter because Barry has to sign everything they try to do anyway. I just wish the Evil ones would start taking care of all the poor people that are stupid enough to vote them in instead of just taking care of the wealthy.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



You seem to have things turned around. Nobody in the modern era anyway is trying to outlaw ass-fucking - if you say it's nobody's business, fine. YOUR side, however, is trying to advance the homosexual agenda, and the current battleground is the subject of this thread - homosexual marriage. For THAT, you don't merely need Obama to veto or not sign stuff, you need crap passed in favor of the sick shit you wish for - on this and other issues. You are correct about any UNDOING. We'll have to wait for that until after 2016. No problem; This really isn't a make or break issue for the country anyway.

BTW, the education thing really IS about you and any other parent or anybody who cares at all about impressionable kids being propagandized. I guess you have all girls, and lesbian crap isn't as vile as male homosexuality, but just the same, do you REALLY want your kids taught that it is just fine to do?


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

Point well and truly missed. You're cherry picking not because the Bible has two or three lines in the entire thing that speak out on homosexuality and certain other books may or may not condemn the practice; you're cherry picking because the Bible condemns plenty of other things which you and your lot seem fine with, or at the very least put almost zero effort into protesting. I don't see you protesting mixed fabrics. I don't see you proposing the death penalty for children that disobey their parents. You're clearly fine with divorce; and considering you're a big football fan, you probably don't support the death penalty for people that work on Sunday. Of course, this cherry picking was already pointed out the last time this debate occurred on this forum.



I don't subscribe to any of those books as the literal, un-erring, and divinely inspired word of god(s). If someone else wants to believe in them, good for them. The point of bringing those up was that I don't care what source you cherry pick from. That can be expanded to non-religious texts as well.



To the bolded parts: Pot. Kettle. Black.

No one who supports homosexuals having the right to marry and have all the rights thereof is requiring any one to be gay. There's no proposed law that would require you to suck 3 dicks every second Thursday of the month. There's no proposed ban on Christians marrying Christians. There's no proposed ban on heterosexuals marrying heterosexuals. There is absolutely nothing being forced on you. You and your lot, on the other hand, ARE forcing your worldview on others. Based on a couple lines from a text that you'll happily ignore otherwise when it doesn't suit your beliefs.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



I guess I'm getting old; I really don't remember this exact discussion before. I'm in several different forums, and it's hard keeping it straight where whatever is discussed and what shade of viewpoint the players are - other than some like Dakota, of course. Anyway, somebody (other than me) saw fit to resurrect this thing. It's nice to know that a member of the silent majority reads and remembers my words, whether or not you agree.

I suspected that you meant "cherry-picking" that way hahahaha, but it was a good opportunity for me to point out that the homosexuality is an abomination thing is far from unique to OUR (or I guess you aren't included in OUR based on your words) Judeo-Christian culture, but in virtually ALL major and minor religions and philosophies. Anyway, as for YOUR take on "cherry-picking", THAT is a sword that cuts both ways. Yeah, as the Bible says, ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and let him that is without sin cast the first stone, etc., BUT, does it not occur to you that by choosing to ignore or downplay a lot of that Old Testament stuff - including the one and only thing singled out as an ABOMINATION, but choosing to make a big deal about others, you also are, by your own definition, cherry picking. BTW, where in the Bible does it say "no divorce"? Maybe it's there, I don't know, but to the best of my knowledge, that's purely a Catholic thing - post-Biblical.

As for the "right" of marriage, any marriage, normal or homosexual, I refer you to my reply to Dakota - it just ain't there - or can you dig it up and show it?


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

BTW, the education thing really IS about you and any other parent or anybody who cares at all about impressionable kids being propagandized. I guess you have all girls, and lesbian crap isn't as vile as male homosexuality, but just the same, do you REALLY want your kids taught that it is just fine to do?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Why would someone who is okay with homosexuality have an issue with their children being told homosexuality is okay?

...the homosexuality is an abomination thing is... in virtually ALL major and minor religions and philosophies.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Do you know that for sure? Offhand, I know ancient Greek societies, particularly in Athens, promoted sexual relationships between older men and adolescents. There were evidently Roman emperors who took male lovers and concubines. Buddhism in Japan and China supported homosexual relationships within its monasteries. I'm not an expert on the history of all societies and religions and their various stances on homosexuality, far from it; but considering the above I'd be surprised if human history was as vehemently and conclusively against homosexuality as you suggest.

Regardless, many societies treated women as property. We don't hold to that viewpoint anymore. The majority have not always been right.

Anyway, as for YOUR take on "cherry-picking", THAT is a sword that cuts both ways. Yeah, as the Bible says, ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and let him that is without sin cast the first stone, etc., BUT, does it not occur to you that by choosing to ignore or downplay a lot of that Old Testament stuff - including the one and only thing singled out as an ABOMINATION, but choosing to make a big deal about others, you also are, by your own definition, cherry picking.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



I don't subscribe to any of those books as the literal, un-erring, and divinely inspired word of god(s).

mi_keys wrote:



My above statement should have made the following abundantly clear: I don't draw any authority from the bible in any of my arguments. You do. Your point would only be valid if I were arguing for homosexual rights while also trying to argue, say, that disobedient children should be put to death based on the following verses:

18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. 20 And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

Deuteronomy Chapter 21 wrote:



But I'm not. I'm not relying on the bible for any of my beliefs. And to be clear, I don't support the death penalty for unruly children. Before you try to make that argument.

BTW, where in the Bible does it say "no divorce"? Maybe it's there, I don't know, but to the best of my knowledge, that's purely a Catholic thing - post-Biblical.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Exhibit A on you not knowing what's in your own holy book:

Then He arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan. And multitudes gathered to Him again, and as He was accustomed, He taught them again.

2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.

3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’🅰 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 🅱9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

10 In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter. 11 So He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Mark Chapter 10 wrote:



To quote just one instance of divorce being outlawed in the bible.

As for the "right" of marriage, any marriage, normal or homosexual, I refer you to my reply to Dakota - it just ain't there - or can you dig it up and show it?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



OK, point taken, but ......... as I'm sure you know, if you think about it, there is a LOT more to marriage in terms of government than mere approval - affirmative aspects: tax law, community property and inheritance, just to name a few. You want to apply all of that to homosexuals the same as to normal married people? OK, then how about polygamy? A much stronger case can be made for THAT in terms of normalcy, morality, and religion than for homosexuality. And if abnormal and religiously abominable is deemed to be acceptable, then how about the guy who wants to marry his favorite sheep - or maybe the whole flock? Where do you draw the line?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



In the above post from this thread, are you not implying homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry and have access to the same legal protections within marriage? If not, I've misunderstood your intent; but it does sound awfully like you feel that way.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 years ago
As one of those fundie types who does believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and who is also an anarchist who doesn't believe the important ones can be given by the state, I really don't care much at all as to what the law says or wants to say on this question. To my mind, the whole debate, as indeed most of these sorts of socio-political issues, smacks of a debate between competing idolatries.

And those are *all* no-nos.

Instead, I recommend Romans 12:2 to all of you.

Again.
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)
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (2h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (22h) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : 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
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
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / 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.