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
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (22h) : Packers Final Injury Report: Jordan Love questionable vs. Vikings
Zero2Cool (27-Sep) : We are hosed. Not practicing Friday: CB Jaire Alexander, CB Carrington Valentine, G/T Jordan Morgan.
Zero2Cool (26-Sep) : rude
Mucky Tundra (26-Sep) : RIP Frank Ragnow
Mucky Tundra (26-Sep) : @E_Woodyard #Lions HC Dan Campbell says they're gonna put Frank Ragnow down this week. "We've got to be smart," Campbell said.
bboystyle (25-Sep) : Favre using the pitty card during that hearing for his criminal acts
Zero2Cool (24-Sep) : Former Packers QB Brett Favre recently announced he was diagnosed with Parkinson's.
Zero2Cool (24-Sep) : The only QBs this season with 0 turnover-worthy plays according to PFF (minimum 30 dropbacks) Aaron Rodgers Malik Willis Justin Fields
Mucky Tundra (23-Sep) : @DavidBearmanPFN · 18h Vegas has watched Will Levis for 3 weeks and installed them as a 1-point favorite in Miami next week. Let that sink
Mucky Tundra (23-Sep) : Martha, they did play much better with Dalton yesterday
Zero2Cool (23-Sep) : Test results on Sam Darnold’s knee showed a knee bruise and no structural damage. He is not expected to miss any time.
Martha Careful (23-Sep) : Not with Dalton apparently
Mucky Tundra (23-Sep) : Not sure what to make of the NFC South so far this season (outside of the Panthers being a dumpster fire)
Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : of course I say that and then they overturn that play that put them on the 49ers 2 yard line
Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : *without
Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : Even with Nacua and Kupp out, Rams looking fiesty on offense
Martha Careful (22-Sep) : Tim Boyle is playing for the Dolphins
Martha Careful (22-Sep) : I love seeing Dallas lose
Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : The Red Rifle is on fire in Las Vegas! 3 TDs in the first half!
Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : @mattschneidman · 2m The fire alarm is going off inside the Packers locker room here in Nashville.
Mucky Tundra (22-Sep) : Gonna need a drink after looking at my picks for the early games in Pick'em
Zero2Cool (22-Sep) : James Jones. Y’all must not know, Dr. Mackenzie🤣 he was not going to let Jordan love play today.
Zero2Cool (22-Sep) : Malik to start. Love inactive. Per report. Let's go!!
buckeyepackfan (22-Sep) : I think J-10VE will be inactive, a little twist that could be put in is run a wildcat with Wicks at qb. Have him as emergency qb if needed.
Zero2Cool (21-Sep) : I think that's how it works.
Zero2Cool (21-Sep) : I'd go 3 QB regardless this game.
Zero2Cool (21-Sep) : Clifford was elevated, not activated. He doesn't play, it doesn't count.
hardrocker950 (21-Sep) : If Clifford is active, not likely to see Jordan play this weekend
Mucky Tundra (21-Sep) : QB Sean Clifford and CB Robert Rochell elevated from the PS for the Titans game
Zero2Cool (20-Sep) : Love questionable. Morgan is out. Valentine is doubtful
Martha Careful (20-Sep) : Rodgers and Lazard off to a very strong start
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Josh Jacobs. Limited.
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Can't find anything on Jacobs :(
wpr (19-Sep) : Do you know if they gave Jacobs an extra day off? I hope so.
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : WR Jayden Reed (calf) and G Elgton Jenkins (illness/glute) returned after sitting out Wednesday.
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Packers are in pads and so is Jordan Love. Second straight day of practice for QB1.
bboystyle (18-Sep) : If Love comes back, we win in a blow out
Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Jordan Love just spoke with reporters and said he’s giving himself the week but hopeful to play Sunday against the Titans.
Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Practicing is Jordan Love!
Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Packers are signing WR Cornelius Johnson to the Practice Squad per sources. Johnson was a 7th round pick this year.
Zero2Cool (17-Sep) : Packers placed RB MarShawn Lloyd on injured reserve.
Zero2Cool (16-Sep) : Rams won’t have Cooper Kupp or Puka Nacua when they host the Packers in Week 5.
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : Or is that the Rusty Red Rifle because of his age?
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : The Red Rifle Returns!
Zero2Cool (16-Sep) : Panthers are benching former No. 1 overall pick Bryce Young and starting veteran Andy Dalton beginning this week.
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : bears still have slim chance here
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : and there's another one!
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : oh crap macbob has the Texans K and he keeps hitting these long FGs
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : Hope the Texans beat the brakes off the Bears
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : LaFleur: “I asked Malik why he didn’t throw it on that third down and he told me Josh threw up on the ball.”
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
9h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

27-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

27-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

27-Sep / Random Babble / wpr

26-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

25-Sep / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

25-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Sep / GameDay Threads / wpr

24-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Sep / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Sep / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

23-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

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