Pack93z
10 years ago


As for your "back on topic", would you care to state WHERE in the Constitution it says anything remotely like that - a "right" for any kind of marriage?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



You want to ignore it, but it is simply not about if the law is on the books about gay marriage. It is simply about the fact that the 14th Amendment of the United States affords every citizen the right to be treated equally to its laws.

In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

loc  wrote:



There are many marriage laws on record.. so simply applying the 14th Amendment to the laws on record, how can one argue that to consenting adults not be allowed to marry and be afforded the protections/benefits/responsibilities of marriage?

You are going to argue polygamy again.. if the laws were expanded to allow that, then it would be open to all as well equally.

It is simply how I look upon it. Let whatever your God is judge you at your time.

I am Christian.. raised Catholic.. but I have a very difficult time "judging" others for their choices that do not harm another. I reject the notion it is my responsibility as a Christian to try and convert or influence another that doesn't believe as I do. I do not see them as anything other than another human being trying to live their life. I hold my beliefs, I challenge my beliefs often, but I cannot slight another for not holding similar beliefs.

And I firmly believe that is how the government of this free land should govern, we have a constitution and amendments that are set forth as guidelines to set forth laws that should be applied equally to each law abiding member of society. In this case, if two people are legally allowed to form a union, then it should not matter the race, religion nor gender of the people.

Nothing less.
"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

You want to ignore it, but it is simply not about if the law is on the books about gay marriage. It is simply about the fact that the 14th Amendment of the United States affords every citizen the right to be treated equally to its laws.



There are many marriage laws on record.. so simply applying the 14th Amendment to the laws on record, how can one argue that to consenting adults not be allowed to marry and be afforded the protections/benefits/responsibilities of marriage?

You are going to argue polygamy again.. if the laws were expanded to allow that, then it would be open to all as well equally.

It is simply how I look upon it. Let whatever your God is judge you at your time.

I am Christian.. raised Catholic.. but I have a very difficult time "judging" others for their choices that do not harm another. I reject the notion it is my responsibility as a Christian to try and convert or influence another that doesn't believe as I do. I do not see them as anything other than another human being trying to live their life. I hold my believes, I challenge my beliefs often, but I cannot slight another for not holding similar beliefs.

And I firmly believe that is how the government of this free land should govern, we have a constitution and amendments that are set forth as guidelines to set forth laws that should be applied equally to each law abiding member of society. In this case, if two people are legally allowed to form a union, then it should not matter the race, religion nor gender of the people.

Nothing less.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



First of all, as I said before, this is kinda a lame topic - I fail to see why so many are titillated by it to the extent that it goes on and on while significant topics with some real meat in them get less interest.

The main thing that YOU conveniently ignore with your idea of applying equal protection under the 14th Amendment to laws currently on the books - I assume you mean those states enacting legalized gay marriage - is that there have been as many or more laws enacted/referendums passed by the people/whatever - the in the most liberal state of all, California, where the PEOPLE have made their ANTI-gay marriage wishes clear, only to have them overruled by the God damned courts. Apparently, equal protection is a one way street for you - favoring those people who want to tear down American and Judeo-Christian morals, beliefs, and traditions. Those people with beliefs in tune with what has been considered normalcy in just about every place and time period in history don't count with you? They/we don't get equal protection?

As for your being Christian/Catholic, well, that's nice BUT ...... there's a word - I can't quite remember what it is, for somebody who professes to have a belief, but then says something like "I reject the notion it is my responsibility as a Christian to try and convert or influence another that doesn't believe as I do. I do not see them as anything other than another human being trying to live their life. I hold my believes, I challenge my beliefs often, but I cannot slight another for not holding similar beliefs." My word for that would be PATHETIC. A person who believes in everything actually believes in nothing at all. I'm sure somebody said that before me, but I don't know who.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
dfosterf
10 years ago
I disagree. Frankly, this whole world would be a lot better place if everyone held their belief systems to themselves as Pack93Z does.

The whole religion thing and belief system thing is extraordinarily expensive for mankind once you deviate from the values espoused by Pack93z. Witness the passion and bastardization of Islam.

Look at what the Catholic church has done for centuries. (Forgive me, Grandma, if you are allowed visits in hell, I'll be there with my buds)

I'll take that "lack of passion" in this arena, any day. "To each his own, within the standards of true morality" should be the watchwords.

As to the subject matter, I'd apply the same principles. To each his own. I've kidded about gays, went over most people's heads due to some pre-conceived notions about me, personally, but don't get confused. I believe in gay rights, including marriage. I don't see it as a choice. Approximately 10% of us were born that way. There are a lot of us, so 10% of a lot is a lot. Give 'em a break, I say.
dfosterf
10 years ago

I think we should check a box on our IRS 1040's to delegate where our tax dollars go. That way all you fascist war mongering retards can vote to keep killing poor people around the world and redistributing more wealth to the 1%, and those of us that care about infrastructure and social programs for the inpoverished in this country can send our tax dollars to those causes. Sound fair Dickheads?

Back on topic, keeping gays from getting married is infringing on their Constitutional rights for equality.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 




This war mongering fascist retard would like to send about 75 cents of every dollar we spend supporting the lazy do-nothing entitlement gobbling government tit-sucking opportunist non working motherfuckers in this country to those that really have no opportunity overseas that the people that you send to war see all the time. Of course, this would impinge upon the oh so-deserving Native Americans that lost a hundred and twenty years ago and are still sucking on the gov't tit for doing so , for example, so we can't have that.

You'd get 3 hots and a cot every day until you picked yourself up if I was running the show.
Pack93z
10 years ago

My word for that would be PATHETIC. A person who believes in everything actually believes in nothing at all. I'm sure somebody said that before me, but I don't know who.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



Being labeled pathetic by you.. I value that as a compliment. Seriously.. thank you.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
dfosterf
10 years ago

Being labeled pathetic by you.. I value that as a compliment. Seriously.. thank you.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



I assign that to poor word choice on his part, possibly too passionate on the issue at hand. You, on the other hand, would normally leave it alone. Now I get to listen to Dakota pile on, thanks to you cracking under the pressure of ill-advised commentary (imo) by Texas.

Judas H. Priest. No wonder we never resolve anything in this back alley, lol



dingus
10 years ago
"Those people with beliefs in tune with what has been considered normalcy in just about every place and time period in history don't count with you? They/we don't get equal protection?"

This right here is some funny shit texas! You really don't know as much about history as you think.

You are aware that less than 200 years ago, in this great country of ours, all of those wonderful, moral, loving subscribers to the judeo-christian beliefs that you hold so dear found it acceptable to own other human beings.

Take that weak shit out of here. Pathetic is a word, but it doesn't even remotely describe what 93z expressed. You, on the other hand...
blank
dfosterf
10 years ago

"Those people with beliefs in tune with what has been considered normalcy in just about every place and time period in history don't count with you? They/we don't get equal protection?"

This right here is some funny shit texas! You really don't know as much about history as you think.

You are aware that less than 200 years ago, in this great country of ours, all of those wonderful, moral, loving subscribers to the judeo-christian beliefs that you hold so dear found it acceptable to own other human beings.

Take that weak shit out of here. Pathetic is a word, but it doesn't even remotely describe what 93z expressed. You, on the other hand...

Originally Posted by: dingus 



So did everyone else find it acceptable to own other human beings. It's a bad argument to get on a high horse about, imo. if you know world history. Let them sort it out. Pack93z and Texas are not stupid men, I promise you that much. You are leaping in some assumptions, imo.
dingus
10 years ago
I think you need to go back and read my response again foster, I said nothing about 93z and was commenting on texas' statement that there was/is ANY normalcy in world history. Stoning, burning at the stake, torture, sacrificing children etc. etc. All in the name of god/ a god. I chose US slavery as an example of the "normalcy" of good, moral, ethical folk who made up the flock. Don't need to be told that everyone did it throughout history and that's a weak arguement anyway.

Fact is, the very title of this thread is what's wrong with gay marriage and the only folks who seem to have a problem with it are the religious who can't mind their own business. What do they care if gay people get married? They'll be in heaven and the heathen fags will be in hell!

93z wrote a concise, heartfelt expression of his faith and how it pertained to gay marriage and his world view.I applauded him.

You wrote an honest and thoughtful post in which you stated your beliefs about gays and gay rights. I applauded you

Texas spewed BS about equal protection not applying to his brand of poor, persecuted christians and backed it up with some nonsense about normalcy.

No assumptions were made. He's about as deep as the westboro baptist church set.
blank
dfosterf
10 years ago

I think you need to go back and read my response again foster, I said nothing about 93z and was commenting on texas' statement that there was/is ANY normalcy in world history. Stoning, burning at the stake, torture, sacrificing children etc. etc. All in the name of god/ a god. I chose US slavery as an example of the "normalcy" of good, moral, ethical folk who made up the flock. Don't need to be told that everyone did it throughout history and that's a weak arguement anyway.

Fact is, the very title of this thread is what's wrong with gay marriage and the only folks who seem to have a problem with it are the religious who can't mind their own business. What do they care if gay people get married? They'll be in heaven and the heathen fags will be in hell!

93z wrote a concise, heartfelt expression of his faith and how it pertained to gay marriage and his world view.I applauded him.

You wrote an honest and thoughtful post in which you stated your beliefs about gays and gay rights. I applauded you

Texas spewed BS about equal protection not applying to his brand of poor, persecuted christians and backed it up with some nonsense about normalcy.

No assumptions were made. He's about as deep as the westboro baptist church set.

Originally Posted by: dingus 


That's the thing, dingus. I don't believe that about Texas. He's far more reserved than I am (usually) in his responses than I am. You guys are used to my silliness. Texas is usually engaged with Dakota, which usually provides for over-the-top rhetoric. Somewhere along the line Shawn had had enough and piped in, and then those two were at one another's throats as well.

I read everything in here. Everything Texas said, everything Pack93z said, everything Zero2 cool said, everything everyone says here, including you. You are right, Pack93z did write exactly what you said. I'm just saying, reserve judgment until the totality sinks in. Uffda is (apparently) presently SATAN in here, but I'm reserving judgment, as he seems to be making perfect sense, for example.

Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (3h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (3h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (6h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (6h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (6h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (6h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (6h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (6h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (6h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (6h) : 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 (7h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (7h) : 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 (7h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (7h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (7h) : 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 (8h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (8h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (8h) : 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 (8h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (9h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (9h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (9h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (10h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (11h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (11h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (12h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (12h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (12h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (12h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (12h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (12h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (12h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (12h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (12h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (12h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (12h) : 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 (12h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (12h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (12h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (12h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (12h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (12h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (12h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (12h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (12h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (13h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (13h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
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
5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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