texaspackerbacker
10 years ago
I see my second favorite team (distant second) snagged Michael Sam for their practice squad. I think they created a new position for him called BrokeBacker - where he doesn't have to face up and plug holes directly in front, just penetrate into the backfield.

Seriously, I am in favor of this from a Cowboys perspective. It's a good football move. They are lacking outside rushers with Demarcus Ware going elsewhere and his draft pick replacement hurt long term. Sam did a good job against the Packers and apparently otherwise. Football trumps social agenda - either pro or con.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Pack93z
10 years ago


Then why not polygamy - which arguably is a helluva lot more natural than homosexuality? Why have age restrictions? Why not allow bestiality?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Simply put.. this is about equal rights. Marriage is defined in the society between two consenting adults as a legal union. In my opinion, regardless of my personal beliefs on the topic, that if two same sex individuals wish to form a legal union, they should be able to so.

Let the afterlife judge..

The root of the argument for me, is that we shouldn't restrict a citizen of a right afforded to others based on the race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Simple as that.

Now if you want to argue the legality of polygamy.. that is a different topic all together. The biggest concern I would personally have would revolve around issues that would arise if the relationships would falter in terms of property, children, etc. Enough issues in a pair of individuals moving through a divorce.

In terms of legalizing it.. I think that should be separate of any religious persuasion or underlying pressures. Getting the government to hear the topic and make a ruling.. hell can they currently do anything with any sense of efficiency and agreement? Probably not.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Pack93z
10 years ago
And before you get there.. legal definition of a marriage. Using the Cornell site as a basis.


MARRIAGE 

DEFINITION

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.

See also Common-law marriage.

OVERVIEW

In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house. The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Today, the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains, but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

The majority of states limit people to one living husband or wife at a time and will not issue marriage licenses to anyone with a living spouse. Once an individual is married, the person must be legally released from the relationship by either death, divorce, or annulment before he or she may remarry. Other limitations on individuals include age and close relationship. Limitations that some but not all states prescribe are: the requirements of blood tests, good mental capacity, and being of opposite sex.



Yes, the origins of marriage were to be, one man one woman. But just as in the expectations of both, a woman was expected to stay home, maintain the house, children, and provide relations for her husband.. those have evolved. For the better or worse is of a personal opinion.

The question is the legality of the opposite sex in an equality based society.. to me, that seems to be the issue. Again by passing my religious beliefs upon the topic. Much like the interracial marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

Simply put.. this is about equal rights. Marriage is defined in the society between two consenting adults as a legal union. In my opinion, regardless of my personal beliefs on the topic, that if two same sex individuals wish to form a legal union, they should be able to so.

Let the afterlife judge..

The root of the argument for me, is that we shouldn't restrict a citizen of a right afforded to others based on the race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Simple as that.

Now if you want to argue the legality of polygamy.. that is a different topic all together. The biggest concern I would personally have would revolve around issues that would arise if the relationships would falter in terms of property, children, etc. Enough issues in a pair of individuals moving through a divorce.

In terms of legalizing it.. I think that should be separate of any religious persuasion or underlying pressures. Getting the government to hear the topic and make a ruling.. hell can they currently do anything with any sense of efficiency and agreement? Probably not.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



Pack93, I applaud you for caring enough to actually look up a legal definition of marriage. I wouldn't rule out that being a fairly recently revised definition, but honestly, I don't care enough to find out one way or the other. Just taking it at face value, two consenting people: while that doesn't rule out two of the same sex, and it does rule out you and your favorite sheep, it does NOT rule out pedophilia or polygamy - why not polygamy? Well, two people can make a contract for whatever purpose. That does not preclude either party from making a separate contract with another party. Thus, the definition you dug up might preclude some kind of a "Big Love" plural marriage thing, but it doesn't prevent Mr. Smith from marrying Miss (or I suppose Mr.) Jones, then turning around and marrying Miss or Mr. Johnson.

The whole discussion, though, is a lot more (IMO) about the second part of what you dug up: tradition. That, as your document states, has been for an extremely long time in extremely many cultures - most relevantly our own Judeo-Christian one, between a man and a woman - or several if you go back far enough.

I suppose we should also rule out motivation from this discussion - the homosexual agenda being a direct attempt to tear down the moral fiber of America, and a direct "in your face" aimed at Biblical Christianity. I would of course say those probable motives are very relevant, but I suppose a lot of misguided do-gooders would say it's all about rights and freedoms for those who choose to practice homosexuality. A big whatever about that hahahaha. My perspective is that indeed, the non-homosexual left has pushed that agenda for that reason, but America is stronger than that, and even though evil (IMO) has made significant inroads advancing the homosexual agenda, it hasn't and won't make a helluva lot of difference to the overall quality of life in America. Many on our side let it get to them; I used to be that way, but now, I can overlook the whole specter of the gay marriage crap in favor of the bigger picture of continued freedom, security, and prosperity that makes life so great in America.


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
Texas, you're exactly like John McCain, wrong on everything. Moral fiber in America - good one, maybe you should look up the words greed and gluttony and write us a thesis on how they apply to all those good normal Americans you're always bragging about.

As for gay marriage, just STFU you repugnant, right wing ding, heartless, puny little man.
UserPostedImage
10 years ago

I don't even know what that last line means.

So you're a big liberal who wants to allow whatever as long as they're consenting, blah blah blah?

Then why not polygamy - which arguably is a helluva lot more natural than homosexuality? Why have age restrictions? Why not allow bestiality?

HYPOCRITES like to promote their particular variety of perversion ahead of all others. If there is any validity to your arguments in favor of it at all, where do you get off picking and choosing one perversion over others?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Polygamy is cool - if everyone agrees then why the fuck not? When did I say Polygamy was "wrong"?

Beastiality - In an alternate reality, if animals could talk and give consent to marriage, then why the fuck not?

Age restrictions - Emotional/Physical maturity - it isn't rocket science - there needs to a blanket age restriction.

I am not a "big liberal" - I just suffer from a case of don'tgiveafuckitis - i.e. why should I give a fuck what two or more people do, if they are happy doing it?

Dey turk yer jerb.

UserPostedImage 
Zero2Cool is my captain.
texaspackerbacker
10 years ago

Polygamy is cool - if everyone agrees then why the f*ck not? When did I say Polygamy was "wrong"?

Beastiality - In an alternate reality, if animals could talk and give consent to marriage, then why the f*ck not?

Age restrictions - Emotional/Physical maturity - it isn't rocket science - there needs to a blanket age restriction.

I am not a "big liberal" - I just suffer from a case of don'tgiveaf*ckitis - i.e. why should I give a f*ck what two or more people do, if they are happy doing it?

Dey turk yer jerb.

Originally Posted by: VinceLambeauStarr 



I have to give you credit for being different than most on the side saying what you are saying. I'm kinda evolving into that same mindset - "why should I give a f*ck what two or more people do, if they are happy doing it?". The thing is, you are in as much of a minority among pros as I am among antis when it comes to this gay marriage discussion. I truly believe the gays just want to be left alone to practice their ...... OK, I won't say abomination/perversion ....... this time - hahahaha - not have it legislated/regulated/whatever, and I truly believe even more strongly that the non-homosexual leftists who are really pushing this gay marriage thing generally have a much more sinister agenda - dragging down America and spitting on Judeo-Christian religion and traditions - they are famous for both.

I agree with you about the age restriction - just pointing out that the definition posted didn't address that. And bestiality is pretty much a common sense thing, although arguably (and Biblically) it's no worse than homosexuality. As for polygamy, it irks me that the damn left wingers chose homosexuality to advance their evil agenda instead of polygamy - which I, at least see as not nearly as perverse and rotten. Glad to hear you aren't one of them hahahaha.
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

Texas, you're exactly like John McCain, wrong on everything. Moral fiber in America - good one,

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



You seem fixated on poor old John McCain. He's just traumatized by losing the election talking like a damn moderate - wishing now he had taken some of those decent pro-American and conservative positions then that he is taking now. It's too late, though - the horse has left the barn.

You, of all people, should LOVE McCain, because he more than just about anybody else gave us God damned Obama.


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

Texas, you're exactly like John McCain, wrong on everything. Moral fiber in America - good one, maybe you should look up the words greed and gluttony and write us a thesis on how they apply to all those good normal Americans you're always bragging about.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Well, no.

1. John McCain (and, no, I didn't vote for him) was an is a true hero. Heros, by definition, cannot be wrong on everything.
2. Whatever you or I might think of his politics (and, again, I didn't vote for him), the man has seriously real moral fiber to the core of his being.
3. Had he been elected, he may well have been a bigger political disaster than the current guy. But moral fiber-wise, he would have been head-and-shoulders above him. Hell, the current guy doesn't even belong in the building by that criterion.
4. He might be troubled by excessive lust -- but you of all people should be tolerant of old dudes who go after gorgeous young blondes -- but greed and gluttony don't describe that man at all.


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)
Gilligan
10 years ago


John McCain .. the man has seriously real moral fiber to the core of his being.....

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Have to disagree with you in this one Wade.

You seem to put John McCain on a pedestal, however that pedestal has a rotten foundation.
You might start with asking his first wife Carol, her friends and family about John McCain's so called moral-fiber.

McCain is just another in a long line of "family values" politician hypocrites.
Dumping a spouse for a younger trophy wife is bad enough, but dumping a spouse who has suffered severe injuries in an accident and is physically changed because of it is the mark of true pond scum.

And he might have been a "maverick" politician at one time.
However after the 2000 Republican primary where the Bush/Cheney/Rove dirty tricksters ruined McCain, McCain then changed and sold his soul to the religious far-right.
Since then, McCain has given new definition to hypocrisy.

As to his moral-fiber, it is a seriously flawed facade he portrays and in reality it has always been sorely lacking.


I am chosen by many but taken by no one.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (3h) : Merry Christmas!
beast (12h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (20h) : 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
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
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
42m / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

55m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

15h / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22h / 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.