Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
10 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
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (4h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (10h) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (15h) : Merry Christmas!
beast (23h) : 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
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
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
12h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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.