RaiderPride
13 years ago
"A learned behavior or something you are born with?"

I am forking out big dollars every month for my daughters Masters Degree at Queens University right now, so believe me I have done some serious research over the last couple of years on what courses are being offered and what her options are to get her where she wants to be in life..

No where have I ever seen a course, class, seminar, or home study course on "How to be gay?"

Being gay is not a learned skill.
""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."
Formo
13 years ago


Being gay is not a learned skill.

Originally Posted by: RaiderPride 



Of course not. No one ever said that. They said 'learned behavior'. Skill =/= behavior.

I'm one to believe that being gay is not something one is 'born with'. Now, it has been shown that there ARE chemical imbalances that can attribute to one's sexual preference. But I also read a snippet on some studies that have shown that some really 'effed upbringing have had just as much, if not more, effect on one's sexual preferences than said chemical imbalances.

To me, saying gays are 'born that way' is like saying they were born 'retarded', black, or missing limbs.

My sister is gay. She wasn't always as such. She's had flings and she eventually fell in love with a douchebag that had a beautiful little girl. The guy treated my sister like shit for years of their on-again, off-again relationship. My sister, after multiple attempts to 'fix' her douchebag boy-toy, ultimately decided that guys suck and 'fell in love' with one of her friends (who also ironically had young kids). Knowing my sis, in her mass confusion thanks to douchenozzle, 'fell' for the first person who didn't treat her like crap.

I'm not saying my sister is really straight and is just on a fling or anything. I'm just saying that her homosexuality was a learned behavior.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

I'm not saying my sister is really straight and is just on a fling or anything. I'm just saying that her homosexuality was a learned behavior.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



Let's roll with that, does that mean she should be excluded from the right of marriage?
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
I don't support gay marriage, straight marriage, plural marriage, or any other kind of marriage. I don't want the government recognizing marriage at all, because what the government recognizes, the government regulates, and the last thing I want is the government's snotty nose in my bedroom or anyone else's. As far as I am concerned, the government should not be in the business of subsidizing lifestyle choices, which is exactly what it does when it confers tax advantages on the married at the expense of the single. Marriage should simply be regarded as a private contract between people and should not require government sanction of any kind. Conducting marriage ceremonies should be left to private organizations -- or the spouses themselves -- with the government intervening only in cases of fraud or coercion. That means if a Catholic priest wants to refuse to preside over a marriage between two men or between a man and his second wife, so be it. If a Unitarian minister wants to bless the union of two women or preside over a polygamous ceremony (as one did for us), that is her prerogative. If a pagan priestess wishes to celebrate a polyamorous marriage, she is free to do so. As long as no deception or other criminal activity is taking place, there is no reason for the government to even take notice of a private arrangement.

All the noise about tax and insurance complications is foolish blather and purely a diversionary tactic. People should be taxed at the same rates whether they are married or single. Insurance companies have found ways to insure the most bizarre of situations; an unconventional marriage is tame by comparison.

So it could be said that I hew a pretty libertarian line on this issue.

That being said, I refuse to support the gay-rights movement, not only because I don't think the government should be involved in marriage, but also because the gay-rights movement has stabbed the polygamy-rights movement in the back. With few notable exceptions, gay rights advocates, instead of recognizing that the two movements make natural allies and resolving to work together, have made a pathetic ploy to attain some measure of legitimacy by proclaiming to the world that they want nothing to do with polygamy and really want to be good little monogamists. Of course, even among gays, polygamy would always be a fringe lifestyle choice, but that doesn't change the fact that one can hardly be justified in demanding tolerance for one's own lifestyle at the expense of another alternative lifestyle. As long as the gay movement in general continues to exhibit this petty parochialism, I won't do anything to advance their cause. I am not saying I will do anything to impede or oppose it -- I just won't be wasting any of my time or money on such a bigoted group.
UserPostedImage
Formo
13 years ago

Let's roll with that, does that mean she should be excluded from the right of marriage?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



My stance on this has changed lately. The right of marriage from WHOM? That is the question. From the Gubment? I'm kinda with Rourke on this. Get the Gubment out of that section of our lives. Now, that said.. Who defines the 'right of marriage'? And I'd respond with, whatever church/institution one wants to get married by. And that should be up to the church/institution.

As it stands now, since my little fantasy world would probably never happen, I will answer your question with a simple answer. Yes, she should be excluded, not because it was a learned behavior but because I truly enjoy being called a homophobe, bigot, etc.

It gets my rocks off.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
Gubment?

BTW, you did collapse in the second half, props for being consistent.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
13 years ago

Let's roll with that, does that mean she should be excluded from the right of marriage?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 




No, but she made a choice to live as a gay person. That choice is no marriage rights as of right now. Either live with what you choose or get off your ass and change the laws. I'm with Non on this one, I really don't give a shit and I'm not putting forth any effort to get gay people their supposed rights they are currently denied.

Who gives a flying fuck about right and wrong in this world anymore? It's all about what you can prove in a court room or what politician you can buy. Having a sense of right and wrong is for suckers like those of us that reside in this forum.


UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
Read the topic of the thread and try again.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 years ago

My stance on this has changed lately. The right of marriage from WHOM? That is the question. From the Gubment? I'm kinda with Rourke on this. Get the Gubment out of that section of our lives. Now, that said.. Who defines the 'right of marriage'? And I'd respond with, whatever church/institution one wants to get married by. And that should be up to the church/institution.

As it stands now, since my little fantasy world would probably never happen, I will answer your question with a simple answer. Yes, she should be excluded, not because it was a learned behavior but because I truly enjoy being called a homophobe, bigot, etc.

It gets my rocks off.

Originally Posted by: Formo 



Everyone's a bigot to somebody. I've been called that word before too. I also got called a homophobe by a real ugly looking gay guy who I think liked me. Yuck.

The closest political person to me when it comes to this stuff is Ralph Nader. "I don't get involved in gonadal politics." In an ideal world, none of this should be an issue. If you want four wives and three husbands and a dog, if you can find a church to marry you, it should be fair game.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
DakotaT
13 years ago

Everyone's a bigot to somebody. I've been called that word before too. I also got called a homophobe by a real ugly looking gay guy who I think liked me. Yuck.

The closest political person to me when it comes to this stuff is Ralph Nader. "I don't get involved in gonadal politics." In an ideal world, none of this should be an issue. If you want four wives and three husbands and a dog, if you can find a church to marry you, it should be fair game.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 




I disagree, if you want four wives, the states attorney should start legal proceedings into your 90 day committal to the state mental institution for a complete evaluation.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (17h) : I'm going to call that a good move.
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Packers sign CB Corey Ballentine
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : I'm not sure how to kill the draft order just yet so it's not so confusing.
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : *to be able
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : and because it's not a dynasty league (which makes a lot more sense to be ability to trade picks)
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Oh I know; I was just exploring and it blew my mind that you could trade picks because of the whole reordering thing
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Zero, I think I preferred my offer: your 1st for my 15th rounder
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Keep in mind, we do a draft reorder once all members locked in
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : You can have my 12th Rd for your 2nd round
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Hey i didn't know we could trade picks in fantasy
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Update: Rock has tried a cheese curd, promises it's not his last
Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : watch it!! lol
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : you're right, we never did leave, the site just went down :P
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Rock claims to have never eaten a cheese curd
Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : We did not leave.
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Family Night! WE ARE SO BACK!
Mucky Tundra (2-Aug) : To this day, I'm still miffed about his 4 TD game against Dallas on Thanksgiving going to waste
Martha Careful (2-Aug) : Congratulations Sterling Sharpe. He was terrific and I loved watching him play.
beast (2-Aug) : I believe it's technically against the CBA rules, but Jerry just calls it a simple unofficial chat... and somehow gets away with it.
beast (2-Aug) : Jerry Jones is infamous for ̶n̶e̶g̶o̶t̶i̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ chatting with players one on one... and going around the agent.
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Oo just saw a blurb saying that Dallas negotiated directly with Parsons and not through his agent
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I assumed that both guys will get paid, just a matter of when or how we get there
Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : McLaurin nor Micah going anywhere. They will get money
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : the Synder years or do they take care of one of their own?
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Do the Commanders risk losing a top WR with an emerging QB just because he's turning 30 and potentially risk damaging the rebuild from
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Turns 30 this September, plays at a high level and Washington has some cap space I believe
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : More interesting is Washington with Terry McLaurin
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I would imagine Dallas will resolve this issue with a truckload of money
Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : Micah pulling a Myles with trade request
beast (1-Aug) : Packers should make some cheese forks
Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : GRAB THE PITCHFORKS~
Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : CUT HIM
Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : Socieltal collapse imminent
Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : The West has fallen
Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : After starting off camp with 25 straight made field goals, Brandon McManus has missed one
Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : But it should be stable
Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : It's probably gonna be slower.
Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : We're gonna just full go on to the new host.
Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : What crap. Site issues galore
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : if PH dies, there is packerpeople com available
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : database is on new host, eventually website will follow
Mucky Tundra (30-Jul) : Zero, regarding Ewers, you are correct.
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Sadly, this might be our life for awhile. I could put it on another host, but seems it was slower, although more stable
beast (30-Jul) : How long will it be down?
beast (30-Jul) : RIP site 😭
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site will die, I have to restart it.
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Quinn stinks. Lot of underthrows. (my guess)
beast (30-Jul) : How did Quinn Ewers effect where Golden was drafted?
dfosterf (30-Jul) : All I've experienced was late at night or early morning. I just figured you were doing something in the background
Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Site sure seems to be down more than up
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

15h / Fantasy Sports Talk / packerfanoutwest

4-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

28-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

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