Porforis
14 years ago
Also, this is the only place I've ever been able to have a reasonable and rational discussion with someone about the following topics:

1. Religion
2. Socialism/Communism vs capitalism
3. Homosexuality

Go Packershome.com!
4PackGirl
14 years ago
so you think a website is a proper substitute for parental acceptance? my best friend came out to her parents a few years ago & it was HORRIBLE! her mom called her 'carpet muncher' & a whole lot of other terrible things. thankfully she was in her 30's before she came out. if that had happened in her teens, i can tell you right now - she wouldn't be here. since then, her parents have calmed down quite a bit & have been kinder to her face but still trash talk her behind her back. i seriously cannot imagine having that happen. your parents are supposed to be where you get unconditional love. for them to say these things about her simply because she's a lesbian is flat out cruel.

and you're right - this place is amazing with these types of discussions.
4PackGirl
14 years ago
oh & getting back to the thread title...no - you don't have to support gays or anyone else - doesn't matter one bit to me. nobody needs to bash them though. they're people, they bleed, they cry, they succeed, they fail, just like every heterosexual out there.
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

I'm a rare fairly-far-right conservative that says gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry LEGALLY

"Porforis" wrote:



I actually disagree. I don't think there should be such a thing as legal marriage. As far as I'm concerned, no government has any business regulating or even defining marriage. Marriage is a private arrangement between freely consenting individuals. If a man and a woman, two men, two women, a man and two women, three women and a man, or three women and two men want to call themselves married, that is between them, the witnesses to the ceremony, and (if applicable) their God. By excluding government entirely from marriage, this frees anyone to marry as they see fit -- and also allows the rightful arbiters of marriage the discretion to choose whom they will marry and whom they will not. Under such a system, a Catholic priest can refuse to marry two women, an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America pastor can marry two men, and a pagan priestess can marry a polyamorous quartet.

The counterargument that is always advanced at this point is, "Well, if we allow gays to marry, we'll have to allow polygamists to marry." My answer is why not? How does it affect you? The answer is usually that polygamy tends to be coercive. This is utter nonsense. Marriage, as I stated previously, is contracted between informed, consenting adults. I can think of no activity under the law, least of all marriage, that can be forced on another by coercion. For every illicit polygamist union formed by forcing underage girls into the relationship, there are polygamist marriages in which it's actually the wives doing the recruiting. Coercion in any relationship (except parent/child) is prima facie illegal. Therefore, this argument is a red herring.

The next argument advanced is, "Well, if we allow polygamists to marry, who's to say we won't allow pedophiles to marry children or zoophiles to marry animals?" Again, a nonsensical red herring. Marriage is a relationship predicated upon consent. By definition, children and animals cannot consent; therefore, they cannot marry. As it is, it's legal for teens to marry in every state of the Union. In Wisconsin, one can wed at 14 with a court order (most often obtained in cases of pregnancy) and at 16 with parental consent. Young people are already getting married. But no one is marrying prepubescent children; it's by definition impossible.

Christian conservatives are making a huge strategic error by appealing to the government to outlaw gay marriage, just as pro-gun advocates have made the strategic error of appealing to personal self-defense arguments in favor of their 2nd Amendment Rights. These Christians never contemplate that if the government can mandate who cannot be married, the government can also mandate who must be married. Churches are 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporations. As such, they must abide by government regulations. By ceding control over the legal definition of marriage to the government, instead of retaining it in-house where it belongs, churches are running the risk that a future administration might mandate that in order to maintain their tax-exempt status, churches can no longer discriminate against alternative lifestyles in weddings.

Churches should be loudly asserting their autonomy on this issue, not appealing to the government to enforce their pet agenda.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
14 years ago

so you think a website is a proper substitute for parental acceptance?

"4PackGirl" wrote:



Actually, I stated that parents were the most important aspect of a teen's support structure, and was careful to point out that it wasn't a replacement for real-world support.
zombieslayer
14 years ago



I actually disagree. I don't think there should be such a thing as legal marriage. As far as I'm concerned, no government has any business regulating or even defining marriage. Marriage is a private arrangement between freely consenting individuals. If a man and a woman, two men, two women, a man and two women, three women and a man, or three women and two men want to call themselves married, that is between them, the witnesses to the ceremony, and (if applicable) their God. By excluding government entirely from marriage, this frees anyone to marry as they see fit -- and also allows the rightful arbiters of marriage the discretion to choose whom they will marry and whom they will not. Under such a system, a Catholic priest can refuse to marry two women, an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America pastor can marry two men, and a pagan priestess can marry a polyamorous quartet.

The counterargument that is always advanced at this point is, "Well, if we allow gays to marry, we'll have to allow polygamists to marry." My answer is why not? How does it affect you? The answer is usually that polygamy tends to be coercive. This is utter nonsense. Marriage, as I stated previously, is contracted between informed, consenting adults. I can think of no activity under the law, least of all marriage, that can be forced on another by coercion. For every illicit polygamist union formed by forcing underage girls into the relationship, there are polygamist marriages in which it's actually the wives doing the recruiting. Coercion in any relationship (except parent/child) is prima facie illegal. Therefore, this argument is a red herring.

The next argument advanced is, "Well, if we allow polygamists to marry, who's to say we won't allow pedophiles to marry children or zoophiles to marry animals?" Again, a nonsensical red herring. Marriage is a relationship predicated upon consent. By definition, children and animals cannot consent; therefore, they cannot marry. As it is, it's legal for teens to marry in every state of the Union. In Wisconsin, one can wed at 14 with a court order (most often obtained in cases of pregnancy) and at 16 with parental consent. Young people are already getting married. But no one is marrying prepubescent children; it's by definition impossible.

Christian conservatives are making a huge strategic error by appealing to the government to outlaw gay marriage, just as pro-gun advocates have made the strategic error of appealing to personal self-defense arguments in favor of their 2nd Amendment Rights. These Christians never contemplate that if the government can mandate who cannot be married, the government can also mandate who must be married. Churches are 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporations. As such, they must abide by government regulations. By ceding control over the legal definition of marriage to the government, instead of retaining it in-house where it belongs, churches are running the risk that a future administration might mandate that in order to maintain their tax-exempt status, churches can no longer discriminate against alternative lifestyles in weddings.

Churches should be loudly asserting their autonomy on this issue, not appealing to the government to enforce their pet agenda.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Holy s***! Someone out there actually gets it.
+1

By the way, I have one rule about marriage - thou shall not marry zombies. Other than that, let the State set the age and it's all fair game from there. Might be a nightmare for insurance companies but insurance companies aren't exactly on The Zombieslayer's fave list right now.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Porforis
14 years ago

I'm a rare fairly-far-right conservative that says gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry LEGALLY

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



I actually disagree. I don't think there should be such a thing as legal marriage. As far as I'm concerned, no government has any business regulating or even defining marriage. Marriage is a private arrangement between freely consenting individuals. If a man and a woman, two men, two women, a man and two women, three women and a man, or three women and two men want to call themselves married, that is between them, the witnesses to the ceremony, and (if applicable) their God. By excluding government entirely from marriage, this frees anyone to marry as they see fit -- and also allows the rightful arbiters of marriage the discretion to choose whom they will marry and whom they will not. Under such a system, a Catholic priest can refuse to marry two women, an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America pastor can marry two men, and a pagan priestess can marry a polyamorous quartet.

The counterargument that is always advanced at this point is, "Well, if we allow gays to marry, we'll have to allow polygamists to marry." My answer is why not? How does it affect you? The answer is usually that polygamy tends to be coercive. This is utter nonsense. Marriage, as I stated previously, is contracted between informed, consenting adults. I can think of no activity under the law, least of all marriage, that can be forced on another by coercion. For every illicit polygamist union formed by forcing underage girls into the relationship, there are polygamist marriages in which it's actually the wives doing the recruiting. Coercion in any relationship (except parent/child) is prima facie illegal. Therefore, this argument is a red herring.

The next argument advanced is, "Well, if we allow polygamists to marry, who's to say we won't allow pedophiles to marry children or zoophiles to marry animals?" Again, a nonsensical red herring. Marriage is a relationship predicated upon consent. By definition, children and animals cannot consent; therefore, they cannot marry. As it is, it's legal for teens to marry in every state of the Union. In Wisconsin, one can wed at 14 with a court order (most often obtained in cases of pregnancy) and at 16 with parental consent. Young people are already getting married. But no one is marrying prepubescent children; it's by definition impossible.

Christian conservatives are making a huge strategic error by appealing to the government to outlaw gay marriage, just as pro-gun advocates have made the strategic error of appealing to personal self-defense arguments in favor of their 2nd Amendment Rights. These Christians never contemplate that if the government can mandate who cannot be married, the government can also mandate who must be married. Churches are 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporations. As such, they must abide by government regulations. By ceding control over the legal definition of marriage to the government, instead of retaining it in-house where it belongs, churches are running the risk that a future administration might mandate that in order to maintain their tax-exempt status, churches can no longer discriminate against alternative lifestyles in weddings.

Churches should be loudly asserting their autonomy on this issue, not appealing to the government to enforce their pet agenda.

"Porforis" wrote:



I guess the problem I have, is that legal marriage DOES bestow specific rights and benefits upon people. Some are pointless, others (hospital visitation for example) are a lot more important. When you eliminate the concept of legal marriage, you are forced to redefine the qualifications of all of these benefits. A massive undertaking, that's to be sure...
Cheesey
14 years ago
I agree with Formo......teen suicide should have been addressed LONG before this. But because it's gays being bullied, lets drop everything to help them!!! At least that's the way it seems. NO ONE should be bullied. Why do these kids suddenly get attention, and offers to help them? Being "gay" make them somehow more special then the other kids that are bullied and kill themselves?

I was bullied every day at school......would have been VERY easy to take the easy way out. Yet i'm still here. And i didn't have anyone holding my hand. Yes, i'm not gay. But i wasn't a big muscled brute, and was an easy target for the bullies. Just as the gays are.
Bullies will ALWAYS be out there. Sadly.
What they NEED to do is take the bullies and put them in reform school....or prison.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

legal marriage DOES bestow specific rights and benefits upon people.

"Porforis" wrote:



I don't think any of the benefits bestowed by legal marriage (with the possible exception of tax advantages) are legally mandated. They are simply granted by private organizations at their own discretion. For example, my mother is under my father's insurance because she is married to him, but my father's benefits have been steadily eroded since I was a child. There's no guarantee of these benefits, even if a couple is legally married. Furthermore, there are entities (like the UW system) that grant domestic-partner benefits to non-married couples.

Under the system I outlined above, every entity would be free to bestow domestic benefits as it saw fit. Insurance companies could refuse to cover more than one domestic partner, for example. I have to imagine they'd be happy to cover more family members for an additional charge, however; I've never heard of an insurance company telling a family it will only cover a certain number of children and the rest are out of luck. Similarly, employers could decide to only extend benefits to one "spouse," and only so long as the relationship remained intact. Likewise, government agencies could set policies for how many domestic partners they would be willing to work with.

As their name implies, fringe benefits aren't legally protected. They're simply extra goodies handed out to encourage certain behaviors.

I'm actually surprised tax officials aren't falling all over themselves to encourage polygamous relationships. Imagine how many more families would find themselves in higher brackets if there were three or four adults in the household! If every adult made even $30,000 a year, the gross household income would be in excess of $100,000 a year. Even with tax breaks, that would still result in a net increase in tax revenues.

But of course, benefits and tax laws have nothing whatsoever to do with anti-polygamy laws in this country, which are nothing more or less than expressions of anti-Mormon bigotry (as even the Supreme Court has admitted). In a nation predicated on religious freedom, I find this lapse disturbing.
UserPostedImage
4PackGirl
14 years ago
do you really think the gays & lesbians are 'happy' with this attention? do you think they're jumping up & down & saying 'yay - now they have to pay attention to us'?? seriously?? the talk i've heard & i've done TONS of research on bullying lately - is not ONLY about gay/lesbian bullying - it encompasses ALL types of bullying.

oh & sorry porforis - guess i missed that part of your post. my bad.

my final thought because this thread hits way close to home for me is this:
intolerance & ignorance go hand in hand.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (2h) : We have re-signed LB Isaiah McDuffie
Zero2Cool (2-Mar) : Jets taking calls for Davante Adams. That $38m cap number hurting lol
Zero2Cool (2-Mar) : Guess it's not official until the 12th
Zero2Cool (2-Mar) : Deebo went for a 5th to Commanders?
Martha Careful (1-Mar) : Just like my late husband!!
Zero2Cool (1-Mar) : Once fired up, it should be good
Zero2Cool (1-Mar) : Sometimes, the first page load will be slow. it's firing up the site.
Martha Careful (1-Mar) : The site is operating much faster...tyvm
Mucky Tundra (28-Feb) : It's the offseason and the draft is still nearly 2 months away, what can ya do?🤷‍♂️
Zero2Cool (27-Feb) : NFL teams were notified today that the 2025 salary cap has been set at $279,200,000 per club.
Zero2Cool (27-Feb) : sssllllooooow
Martha Careful (27-Feb) : is it just me, or has the website been slow the last couple of days?
buckeyepackfan (26-Feb) : Damnit 2026 2nd rnd pick!
buckeyepackfan (26-Feb) : Packers get Myles Garret and Browns 2926 2nd rnd pick.
buckeyepackfan (26-Feb) : Browns get Jaire, + Packers #1 2025 pick and 2026 3rd rnd pick.
beast (26-Feb) : Rams trying to trade Stafford and Kupp, then signing Rodgers and Adams? Just speculation, but interesting
Zero2Cool (26-Feb) : Packers shopping Jaire Alexander per Ian Rapoport
Zero2Cool (25-Feb) : Gutekunst and Jaire Alexander’s agent, John Thornton, are meeting this week in Indianapolis to determine the future of the Packers’ 28-year-
Zero2Cool (25-Feb) : Gutekunst says Mark Murphy told him he can trade their first-round pick despite the draft being in Green Bay.
Zero2Cool (24-Feb) : Packers. 🤦
Zero2Cool (24-Feb) : One team.
Zero2Cool (24-Feb) : One team petition NFL to ban Brotherly Shove.
beast (23-Feb) : Seems like he was just pissed because he was no longer the starter
beast (23-Feb) : Campbell is right, he's rich and he doesn't have to explain sh!t... but that attitude gives teams reasons to never sign him again.
dfosterf (22-Feb) : I have some doubt about all that
dfosterf (22-Feb) : I read De'Vondre Campbell's tweet this morning (via the New York Post) Florio says that if he invested his earnings wisely, he will be good
beast (20-Feb) : I haven't followed, but I believe he's good when healthy, just hasn't been able to stay healthy.
dfosterf (20-Feb) : Hasn"t Bosa missed more games than he has played in the last 3 years?
Mucky Tundra (19-Feb) : He hasn't been too bad when healthy but I don't feel like I ever heard much about when he is
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Felt like he was more interested in his body, than football. He flashed more than I expected
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : When he was coming out, I thought he'd be flash in pan.
Mucky Tundra (19-Feb) : Joey seems so forgettable compared to his brother for some reason
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : NFL informed teams today that the 2025 salary cap will be roughly $277.5M-$281.5M
Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Los Angeles Chargers are likely to release DE Joey Bosa this off-season as a cap casualty, per league source.
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : If the exploit is not fixed, we'll see tons of "50 top free agents, 50 perfect NFL team fits: We picked where each should sign in March" lo
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Issue should be solved, database cleaned and held strong working / meeting. Boom!
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : It should be halted now.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : usually spambots are trying to get traffic to shady websites filled with spyware; the two links being spammed were to the Packers website
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : you know when you put it that way combined with the links it was spamming (to the official Packers website)
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yep. You can do that with holding down ENTER on a command in Console of browser
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : even with the rapid fire posts?
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I'm not certain it's a bot.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I've got to go to work soon which is a pity because I'm enthralled by this battle between the bot and Zero
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, I see what that did. Kind of funny.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : now it's a link to Wes Hodkiezwicz mailbag
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Now they're back with another topic
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : oh lol
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I have a script that purges them now.
Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : 118 Topics with Message.
Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : what's 118 (besides a number)?
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
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5h / Random Babble / dfosterf

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

1-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

1-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

28-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

28-Feb / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

27-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

26-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

24-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.