longtimefan
15 years ago

fighting about the right for people to love and support one another fully and without restriction.

"vegOmatic" wrote:



But I don't see how being Gay is any different from riding a Harley, following football, listening to Hip Hop, etc., to where it entitles you to some special status and free benefits at the expense of taxpayers.
.

"longtimefan" wrote:



I really dont care about GOD and bible stuff on being gay, I am not the judge they will face for it. But to say people are doing this because they want to, well thats not right and I have to say something

Are you this ignorant to think being gay is like ridging a iake or listening to any music?

They are gay because that is who they are..

You are straight because that is who you are..

Can't you see that?

"vegOmatic" wrote:



Um... DUH.

Just where have I said people don't have a right to be gay? Just where I have said it's some kind of sin? Just where have I said the "Bible says...?"

Just don't post if you're going to assume I said things that I haven't. It really pisses me off when "enlightened" people start throwing out labels and stereotypes and prejudices. Ironic.

"MassPackersFan" wrote:



Okay I misunderstood your post..

Was under impression they were choosing to be gay, like you choose to ride a bike

sorry
Pack93z
15 years ago

So society is the controlling factor to whether two people can form a united union of marriage?

"vegOmatic" wrote:



Is that an issue? Why?

Would you be shocked, let alone outraged, if a 17 year boy had sex with a 17 year old girl?

What if I had sex with a 17 year old girl? You better believe there would be an outrage and you can guess what's going to happen to my freedom.

But the ACT is the same. Yet there is a DIFFERENCE because society has set rules for such conduct.

Since there is a DIFFERENCE, perhaps there is a DIFFERENCE between marriage between a man and woman versus a same-sex couple. I'm not saying a same-sex couple having sex is an outrage, I'm saying being a same-sex couple does not entitle them to anything beyond the relationship as it stands now.

If that's wrong, then I can argue why it's wrong to deny me from having sex with seventeen year olds. Why should I be denied doing something that isn't already being done?

Doesn't sound like a free country to me, with church and government divided..

"pack93z" wrote:



Huh???

You want to marry your bowling partner and form a partnership for health benefits, yet endure the ridicule of mainstream society in the process.. go for it.



Gay couples and Bowling Partners should not endure the wrath of society. Period. All should be treated with equal respect. But that's not the same as ENTITLEMENT! Just like I should be entitled to having sex with 17 year old girls.



I happen to believe there is a huge difference between your examples. One you are dealing with a minor that is still maturing and that is the baseline for certain entitlements (Voting, paying taxes). But all minors are treated equally without prejudice on there race, gender or sexuality. The minor law and those regarding sexual acts with adults is uniform and non bias. The law would read the same if you as an adult had sex with the opposite sex minor or the same sex if their consent.

But here, you are saying two adults that are your peers, can't have the same right of co-habitation and the benefits that go along with marriage because of their sexuality. Seriously?

The same sex couples work and pay taxes into the same pool that you do... or should their money be held in a different coffer away from straight couples because we don't want their money going towards our benefits...

My opinion and viewpoint is they are equal to you and I in this society, why are they not entitled to the same basic liberties that we receive?

How is sexuality any different than race or gender? There are a ton of laws on the books making this an equal rights country.. if a straight couple can choose to marry without restrictions, how in the hell can we say a same sex couple can't without putting a judgment upon it.

At the end of the day, all I am saying is they should be entitled to the same basic rights as any other citizen.. not more not less.. and certainly shouldn't be told whom they can marry and whom they can't.

Equality..
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
RaiderPride
15 years ago
Perhaps I used the wrong term. "Homophobic"

What I am is repulsed. I just find it gross and disgusting visualizing two men in an act of intercourse, and if one knows someone is homosexual it is hard not to visualize that person in that situation.

I have nothing against gay couples at all. My cousin is gay, I very much enjoy his company... His partner is a very nice guy. Thank God they do not flaunt it... But it still grosses me out to think about the actual act.

Homophobic was the wrong choice of word. They do not scare me.

Hell, I find caviar repulsive as well. I guess I am not caviarphobic.

Sorry if I offended anyone.
""People Will Probably Never Remember What You Said, And May Never Remember What You Did. However, People Will Always Remember How You Made Them Feel."
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago

And let's face it, the Bible condemns all sexual acts except missionary style, doesn't it? Everything else is "sodomy".

"MassPackersFan" wrote:



Hell, the fuck no, it doesn't! Have you ever read the Song of Solomon? It's quite graphic and explicit (in poetical ways, of course) about various sexual acts. There's nothing in the Bible whatsoever about "missionary position," which, even today, is hardly the normative sexual position outside of Western cultures to begin with.

I am not going to go too far in depth with this, because I have studied it intensively and exhaustively, and once I get started, I won't stop.

Suffice it to say that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, the Hebrew refers explicitly to "temple prostitutes," and when you think about it, that makes a lot of sense. Considering the Hebrews were called to be different from the surrounding nations, it would have been rather inappropriate for them to be sleeping with temple prostitutes as a way to reach out to God. Sex rituals had no place in the Hebrew religion, but they were ubiquitous throughout the Near East of that time.

And before you guys start saying, "But my King James Bible says . . . " remember that translations are influenced by the biases and cultures of the translators.

Classic case in point:

Did you know that in many cultures, childbirth is not expected to be a painful, debilitating experience? Have you ever heard of, for example, the "childbirth orgasm"? Yes, women can have ORGASMS while in labor! But do you ever hear about that in our culture? No! For some despicable reason (probably a morbid fear of female sexuality), western culture has long deprecated childbirth, training women to be terrified of what should be one of the most beautiful experiences of their life.

Michael Crichton wrote in his autobiography that when he was a medical resident on his OB/GYN rotation, he was stunned at the differences in how women evaluated their childbirth experiences. At that time, hospitals were much more segregated than they are today, so he got a chance to see how socioeconomic status affects healthcare. In the free ward devoted to poor women who couldn't afford "advanced" healthcare (i.e., no drugs and no cesareans), he said that for the most part the childbirths were quiet and peaceful. In stark contrast, over in the wards devoted to rich women who could afford every possible medical procedure, the women who were on anaesthetics were often screaming, shrieking profanities, and exhibiting all the various signs and symptoms of agony.

Research has since shown that when nature is allowed to take its course, a wave of amnesiac chemicals washes over a woman's brain while she is in labor. Study after study shows that women who have natural childbirths subjectively recall far less pain afterward than women who have had spinals, epidurals, etc., because these medical procedures suppress the hormonal bath that women who have natural childbirths enjoy. (I can confirm this in my own life: my sister has had two natural childbirths and recalls essentially no pain, in contrast to my mother, who had 10 unnatural childbirths and recalls them all as horrendous experiences.) But all you hear about in the media is how to deal with what they portray as an excruciating process with toxic drugs and medications.

How does this relate to the Bible? The Curse of Eve, of course. Consider how the NIV renders the Curse in Genesis 3:

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children."



But notice how it renders the curse of Adam a verse later:

"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.



Guess what? The word translated "pains" in verse 16 is the EXACT SAME WORD as the word translated "toil" in verse 17!

Was God condemning women to have painful childbirth? No, he was telling them that bringing children into the world would be HARD WORK. And it sure as hell is.

But because of our cultural biases and paranoias, we put a spin on this admonition that was never intended to be there.

You have to read your Bible with a critical eye.
UserPostedImage
vegOmatic
15 years ago

I happen to believe there is a huge difference between your examples.

"pack93z" wrote:



You mean there are lines drawn in society?

Now... do you see how you were manipulated into saying that?

And that point is exactly why various groups of people and agendas are not entitled to additional benefits beyond their fundamental Rights as a human being.
blank
15 years ago
Well, I bow down to nonstop. And Pack93z as well, who wrote a very clear and concise response.

I really thought sodomy was referred to as a sin.

I have no way of ever truly learning the intricacies of meaning in the Bible, because I don't know Hebrew. I have read that there are LAYERS of meaning in the Hebrew language, including mathematical, that the English language can't come close to touching.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
Mass, sodomy is referred to as a sin. I was addressing your contention that sodomy is defined as anything other than missionary style sex. That just isn't true.

I don't always consider Wikipedia a trustworthy source, but this passage is well-sourced, so I'll quote it here:

The missionary position has been used at least for millennia if not longer since it is also used by the great apes[7][8] as well as other primates.[9] Robert Francoeur notes that evidence of the missionary position's use appears in ancient pottery and art in the Fertile Crescent as well as in the art of Early Greeks, Romans, Peruvians, Indians, Chinese and Japanese.[10] The majority of the positions described in the Kama Sutra involve the woman lying on her back with her legs in a variety of positions.[11] According to Canongate, ancient art shows missionary as being less popular than woman on top positions in Ur, Greece, Rome, Peru, India, China and Japan.[12] But Francoeur states that the ancient Chinese preferred male-on-top because of their belief that males were born face down and women were born face up. Kagaba natives in Colombia preferred missionary because of the stability it offers; they believed that if the woman moved during intercourse, the earth would slip off the shoulders of the four giants who held it up above the waters.[10] Some Kerala tribes believe that the male-on-top position is the only way to conceive warriors.[10]

In Greece, the missionary position was originally an unpopular position. Beds existed but were not as we know them today, and men would marry rather young girls (14 or 15 years of age) which created a height differential. These factors made the rear entry standing position more convenient.[13] However, circa the second century, Artemidos popularized the missionary position among Greco-Roman Stoics, declaring it "the only proper and natural" position because it affirmed the domination of men over women.[10]

Although the Bible did not mention sexual positions, from the 6th to 16th centuries, church authorities taught that intercourse should be face-to-face, man-on-top, primarily because they believed that semen would flow with gravity, leading to conception.[14] Exceptions were made for couples dealing with illness, obesity, or pregnancy. The medieval Catholic Church observed that animals copulated in the ventro-dorsal ("doggy style") position, and concluded that it was unnatural to humans. According to John Bancroft's Human Sexuality and Its Problems, Thomas Aquinas believed that crimes against nature included intercourse in unnatural positions, with the missionary position being considered the only natural one.[15] Benjamin Shepard wrote: "for Aquinas, any sexual act other than missionary position intercourse man on top of woman was assumed to be a sin of irrational gratification, of lust."[16] Protestants did not communicate proper sex positions, and the Catholic Church eventually abandoned its discourse on the topic.[17] Simon Hardy wrote that the missionary position was used to distinguish "beastial and civilized sex."[18]

Others who held that missionary was the only permitted position included Alexander of Hales and the author of De secretis mulierum[clarification needed], who suggested that nonstandard positions might result in birth defects.[19] Ruth Mazo Karras states that William Peraldus' treatise Summa de virtutibus et vitiis distinguished between sins against nature that were "according to the substance" (intercourse other than vaginal) and "according to the manner, as when a woman mounts."[20] Nicholas Venette's 1770s-era sex manual praised the missionary position as the "common posture...which is most allowable and most voluptuous."[21]

Numerous sources have reported that in the United States, some states have outlawed positions other than missionary between husband and wife, or will grant a divorce to a woman whose husband makes love to her in another position. While many states outlaw oral sex, anal sex, buggery, or other "unnatural" acts, no US law has banned ventro-dorsal heterosexual sex, or specified which partner needed to be on top.[22]



P.S. I've never read Canongate, but apparently he thinks missionary style was a lot more common in ancient cultures than I had understood from other sources I've read. So I stand corrected. :magnifyglass:
UserPostedImage
dfosterf
15 years ago

Perhaps I used the wrong term. "Homophobic"

What I am is repulsed. I just find it gross and disgusting visualizing two men in an act of intercourse, and if one knows someone is homosexual it is hard not to visualize that person in that situation.

I have nothing against gay couples at all. My cousin is gay, I very much enjoy his company... His partner is a very nice guy. Thank God they do not flaunt it... But it still grosses me out to think about the actual act.

Homophobic was the wrong choice of word. They do not scare me.

Hell, I find caviar repulsive as well. I guess I am not caviarphobic.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

"RaiderPride" wrote:



I don't think you offended anyone.

Actually, the whole "homophobic" label is just as offensive as anything else. Call it a rhetorical weapon by the PC crowd, along with the rainbow coalition, along with just about anyone that seems so afraid to offend.

I have seen real homophobes, at least by my definition, and I can only hope that they have learned to live and let live. If not, I feel bad for them.

I certainly don't think someone that finds the whole physical act involved when two dudes do "their thing" repulsive is a "homophobe".

Then again, it's just a word...those things get very abused in our culture.
Rockmolder
15 years ago
I have a hard time to express myself in these kinds of discussion, but you pretty much wrote what I wanted to write, Pack93. Gj.
Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
I agree with RaiderPride on this one. I find the idea of homosexual intercourse repulsive myself, but I am by no means a homophobe. Like Foster, I find the word itself rather offensive. It's bandied about too freely, like the word "racist," with little regard for its true meaning. After all, if someone were truly homophobic, could you fault them? No one faults agoraphobes for being afraid of open spaces.

Then again, I'm one of those unusual hot-blooded heterosexual men who not only doesn't find lesbianism sexy, but actually finds it rather disturbing in an earthy, visceral way. Lesbian pictures, lesbian porn -- I find all of it a turnoff. When I see my wife going at it with another woman, I'm basically like, "Um, you two have fun now" and find something else to, ahem, do.
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (13h) : Seems some are flocking to BlueSky and leaving Tweeter. I wonder if BlueSky allows embeded lists
    beast (12-Nov) : He's a review guy
    Zero2Cool (12-Nov) : Jordy Nelson is still in the NFL.
    Zero2Cool (11-Nov) : Ok, will do.
    wpr (11-Nov) : Kevin, donate it to a local food pantry or whatever she wants to do with it. Thanks
    wpr (11-Nov) : Kevin,
    Zero2Cool (11-Nov) : Wayne, got your girl scout order.
    dfosterf (11-Nov) : I believe Zero was being sarcastic
    dfosterf (11-Nov) : Due to that rookie kicker Jake Bates that Zero said "he didn't want anyway". 58 yarder to tie the game, 52 yarder to win it. In fairness,
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Lions escape with a win
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : and now Goff looking better
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Goff with ANOTHER INT
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : and now Stroud throwing INTs
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Goff having an ATROCIOUS game
    wpr (11-Nov) : Happy birthday Corps. Ever faithful. Thanks dfosterf.
    Mucky Tundra (10-Nov) : stiff armed by Baker Mayfield for about 5-7 yards and still managed to get a pass off
    Mucky Tundra (10-Nov) : Nick Bosa
    wpr (8-Nov) : Jets are Packers (L)East
    Zero2Cool (8-Nov) : Jets released K Riley Patterson and signed K Anders Carlson to the practice squad.
    wpr (8-Nov) : Thanks guys
    Mucky Tundra (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday wpr!
    Zero2Cool (7-Nov) : Anders Carlson ... released by 49ers
    dfosterf (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday!😊😊😊
    wpr (7-Nov) : Thanks Kevin.
    Zero2Cool (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday, Wayne! 🎉🎂🥳
    beast (7-Nov) : Edge Rushers is the same... it's not the 4-3 vs 3-4 change, it's the Hafley's version of the 4-3... as all 32 teams are actually 4-2
    Zero2Cool (6-Nov) : OLB to DE and player requests trade. Yet folks say they are same.
    beast (5-Nov) : In other news, the Green Bay Packers have signed Zero2Cool to update their website 😋 jk
    beast (5-Nov) : Might just re-sign the kicker we got
    beast (5-Nov) : Are there any kickers worth drafting next year?
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Preston Smith for Malik Willis
    Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Getting a 7th rounder from the Stillers
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : At least we get 7th round pick now!! HELLO NEW KICKER
    Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Steelers getting a premier lockdown corner!
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Packers are trading edge rusher Preston Smith to the Pittsburgh Steelers, per sources.
    Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Preston Smith traded to the Steelers!!!!
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : CB Marshon Lattimore to Commanders
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Bears are sending RB Khalil Herbert to the Bengals, per sources.
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : ZaDarius Smith continues his "north" tour.
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Let the Chiefs trade a 5th for him
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Nearing 30, large contract, nope.
    Martha Careful (5-Nov) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?
    Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : They've been able to constantly push it out through extensions, void years etc but they're in the hole by 72 million next year I believe
    hardrocker950 (4-Nov) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell
    Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years
    Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Dennis Allen has now been fired twice mid-season with Derek Carr as his starting QB
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Kuhn let go
    beast (4-Nov) : I wonder if the Packers would have any interest in Z. Smith, probably not
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Shefter says Browns and Lions will figure out how to get a deal done for Za'Darius Smith..
    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 @ 12:00 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    8h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / civic

    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    12-Nov / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    11-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    11-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    9-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / joepacker

    8-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    5-Nov / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    5-Nov / GameDay Threads / Cheesey

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

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