Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

okay... listen... the only reasons why there are homophobes in this country is because men are afriad that if they are exposed to homosexuality, that they will become a homosexual too. since this inflicts on men, most women will go with what the men say, unless the woman follows the mid of their own. homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man. everyone looks at homosexuality as a sin, but people gotta relize that Christianity is not the only religion out there, and that it may be the wrong one. Homosexuality is normal to me, i have several homosexual friends. i used to be a homophobe, but once i started hanging out with them, it turns out that they are cool, but being misstreated. the Children of Homosexual families usually get picked on because of it, they get called "Fags", and "Dikes" and many worse things that i dont wish to say here on the forum. when this country was founded, the Constitution said that Every Man Would Be Created Equal, and as i see it now a days, we only treat peopel equal if they are our race, if they are our religion, or if they are only from this country. since homosexuality is common in cities and its not a big deal there, but in the small towns, or tiny cities, there may be only a few homosexuals, but the community of that town makes a big deal out of something that doesnt even concern them. making a big deal out of homosexuality should be the least of our problems, we cant force our belifes on others because it is stated in the constitution. i say this, Let the Homosexuals live where they want, get married where they want, go to which ever school they want, shop where they want, and do everything a non-homosexual can do. ohh, and frotzer, your probably the only homophobe here in the forums.

_________________

I'm fully supportive of gay rights and gay marriage, but here's a thought: Can't there be any times when forcing your opinion is a good, or at least acceptable thing?

For instance, slavery. The South didn't want to get rid of slavery, we forced them to. It's a different case, because banning slavery was a good thing, and banning gay marriage is not, but then there are some who have differing opinions on what's good and what's bad.

It all boils down to whose opinion is the valid one. There are so many gray areas here. It can't always just be black and white.

(Remember, I'm FOR gay marriage. Blue-blooded, Kerry-voting liberal through and through.)

And COLA, once again, a decent post. You're batting .002!

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

.002 what? and i gues i only make a goodpost if its something i belive in.

_________________

What? No, it's never a good idea to force your ideas on someone, unless it's things like "don't kill people", which is someone forcing their idea that a particular person should be dead on them.
Racism isn't about an "Opinion", and slavery most certainly isn't. Most conservatives don't seem to know what opinions and views are. Prejudice is *not* a view, nor will it ever be.

It was the slavers forcing their ideals on the slaves that they are sub human servants - I don't see how you didn't get that.



Anti-gay is not an opinion. Anti Gay-Marriage is ALMOST an opinion, but still prejudice, and I haven't seen a single person make it into one yet.

prej·u·dice (prĕj'ə-dĭs)
n.
1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.


Actually, prejudice IS an opinion.
It's a bad one, that I don't think people SHOULD have, but it's an opinion nonetheless.

More conservative bashing... PLEASE stop.
The same thing could be said of just as many liberals.

Prejudice is not a conservative trait and more than it is a liberal trait.

I also think that abolishing slavery was pushing the north's views (things like "humans are not property", which I agree with) on to the slave owners of the south. The slave owners were also putting their beliefs (that the slaves were their property, which is something I don't agree with) on the slaves.. The statements aren't mutually exclusive, and they're both true.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

My opinion? I have no problems with it at all.
I don't see what the 'bad thing' about homosexuality is. Homosexuals are just people, like everybody else.
Not allowing homosexuals to marry sounds as weird to me as not allowing people with a different hair color to marry.
I have a lot of (real-life) friends who are gay. My mum's nephew is married with a male, so is my economy teacher. A few people in our churche community are gay.

I think your opinion depends a lot on where and how you are raised. Holland is a very tolerant country, where homosexuality is just as normal as er... eating cheese. (For example, Holland was the first country where same-sex marriages were allowed)

_________________
In case you think this is interesting.

I'm syaing they shouldn't be against it because it affects other's lives in a bad way and has no positive effect on them.

Ahhh. At first, I thought you were reading it from the POV of someone supporting it, saying the voters-against would be allowed to go to hell. I've got to say, oops. XD But ah, yes, now that I get what you're saying, I agree.

Did you read the definition? An ADVERSE judgement or opinion, which means it's not a real opinion but essentially the opposite of an informed opinion, and is most certainly not suitable for debate.



No. It's not like conservatives have it hard. If they can't take me bitching at them, how would they feel to be in my position?



You'll have to prove that, I'm afraid. Conservatism is based on trying to hold things back, and all the horror stories you hear tend to come from conservatives and not liberals.



What are you talking about? All the Pat Robertsons and the like and conservatives.

That's actually a false statement as one of the base ideas of liberalism is not it's *not* discriminatory, which is what "Liberal" means, more free, more accepting.

I don't care if you find this offensive or insulting. Running from the truth never does anyone any good.



But one was correct since it was only really *dissolving* the ability of slavers to force their views.

Once you force your views on others, having that right removed can't really be called someone else forcing theirs on yours. And no, it's not hypocritical, it's just drawing a line.

The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals are going to hell if they don't repent.

So your opinion on it basically depends on how much you believe in the Bible.

If you don't, you won't give a jiggly-squat, but if you really do, you'll know that it's a sin, and a big one indeed.

The choice is yours.

And of course, if you are such a Christian, as I am, you can hate the sin, love the sinner and hope that they repent and get back on the right track.

{Prepares for bashing by atheists}

_________________

But why can't you formulate your own opinion on the bible? Why can't you decide "Hold on, that doesn't sound right"?

I'm not saying you can't believe in god, or worship the bible, just as long as you recognise that you are an individual and not a drone.

I mean, I guarantee you've worn enough cotton-polyester mix to send to hell and back and there again, anyway.

"The Bible says so" is not a defense. Prejudice is prejudice.

And the choice is most certainly "not yours". Homosexuality, whether genetic or otherwise, is not a choice, and certainly not something you can repent from.

The only thing the bible shows a *trace* of being against is actual homosexual intercourse rather than attraction, which is unfair since it's okay for straight people to do it(Since they can get married), but not gay people.

People aren't being put on an even standpoint.

Therefore, bible or no, it is discriminatory. I tore apart just about everything on my last big long most, I suggest you flick back and read it. Please accept that.

What if I did? Why is it wrong to agree with the Bible in terms of homosexuality? You agree with homosexuals. Do you lack your own opinion because you decided to join up with other people?



I can. But what if I honestly agree with what the Bible says?



I am aware of that. But I'm entitled to my own opinion. If that opinion is "God is always right." Don't be prejusticed here: believing in the Bible 100% doesn't make me a drone.



Biblical-wise, that makes no sense.



I'm not being prejudice. I don't hate people because they're homosexual.



My opinion on that topic is different from yours because of my beliefs. I disagree with you there, but I won't go into it.



The Bible lists homosexuals along with thieves, drunkards and imorallity, and CLEARLY states that they won't share a place in God's kingdom. To deny it is to deny God always being right.



How about this: if you don't try to force your beliefs on me, I won't try to force my beliefs on you.

_________________

This is a prime example of why this whole argument with nuts.

How can you "agree" with homosexuals? Agree with them on what? The current financial climate? The current Emporer of Japan's decision on tax breaks? That Mocca is better than Java?

If you're getting the grounds of agreeing with them, that they should have the rights they require to function on equal level to everyone else, that's when you know it's discrimination.



Then you have to present a reason why you believe it, isntead of relying with the bible.

If you agree with something, you should be able to come up with your own reasons why that is so.



Yes, it does, I'm sorry, but it really, really does.

Let's look at it this way, the bible is a book that tells you how to live your life right?

Now, let's pretend we're super advanced and we have robots.

Now, robots work by having an incredibly amount of AI program telling them how to react to every situation. Humans, or super advanced robots(as in the movie I, Robot which wasn't bad considering it was nothing like the Asimov book), are different in that they have some kind of random element that allows them to bypass rules.

That is seen as more advanced, as anything else is a drone.

You have programming in your head. You have the Bible. Until you learn not to agree with it 100%, you will never be a free or truly fulfilled person.



I already provided my sources for that, and yes, it does make sense, as it's in the bible.



But... gah, I won't even try.



Did it ever occur to you to question this?

And I'm going to need a quote on this.

A sizable amount of Christians do not agree with that belief on homosexuals. Therefore, you do not to believe it to be a Christian. Therefore, it is a personal belief using the bible as a shield, and your own choice.



... what? I'm sorry, but that's a whole sack of crap if it means you get to "keep" your beliefs by discriminating against gay people.

Rosalie, I think you're attacking that argument the wrong way..

My way of attacking the "gay people can't get into heaven, so they shouldn't be able to get married" is to say that God judges you for what you do, not for what others do.
It does not matter if gay marriage is allowed. My salvation is not based on whether my country allows people who love each other to marry one another or not.

I cannot truthfully say that it doesn't bother me at all (it does bother me ever a little bit, something on the same order of magnitude of whether Jimmy Carter can find his favorite golf balls at WalMart). So, with an unpopular war, school, and the trillions of other things I have to think about, it's not that high on my list of things I don't like. so I just didn't see any reason to vote to ban it. Even if it were higher, I'm not so sure I would really care.
There are tons of things that are legal that I would like to see banned. Gay marriage is not one of them.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

The main problem with arguing with you Rosalie is that you put no recognition towards the fact that the Bible is a book of rules that some people obey. (Although you must note that many of the old testament rules no longer apply to us, as we are under the new testament.)

Just as murder is illegal according to American law, homosexuality is illegal according to God's law. A crime that is wrong and has a punishment.

No, I am not being prejustice anymore than I'd be to a murderer for saying murdering is bad. When it comes to my morals, they go against homosexuality.

You say blindly following the Bible is wrong, but it isn't. But if you want a reason:

When God first created Adam, he created him both masculine and feminine. When God saw he was alone, he took the feminine out of him and created another Adam, usually called Eve.

They are both halves, that together, make a whole. The masculine needs the feminine and the feminine meets the masculine. Any other combination is not what God originally intended.

Sex, marriage, and the rest of that stuff are gifts that God gave to us. Misuse of these gifts are bad. One of the main problem with homosexual marriage and sex is that it cannot the accomplish the main reason God gave us sex: to reproduce offspring.

_________________

But the problem with that is that Adam and Eve never existed. Evolution has practically been proven as fact, though not quite yet.

I believe in the parts of the Bible that are believable. I don't believe in Adam and Eve, the flood, or a 6000 year old Earth and seven-day creation. I also don't believe that some if not most of the arbitrary laws in the Bible (if you have mildew on your tent flap you're unclean, etc etc) no longer apply to us, so we agree there, at least.

And murder has a victim, whereas homosexuality does not.

What I DO believe is the main gist of the Bible: The Jesus story. All the rest doesn't really matter compared to that.

(All this coming from a Catholic. Weird, huh? )

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

The truth is, there isn't a lot about evolution that really conflicts with "Adam and Eve".
The whole humans evolving from Apes thing does, but that's something that is hotly debated even by people who actually know what they're talking about.
If you think about it from a "common sense" standpoint (and yes, even in science, there's sometimes a place where "common sense" has a better grasp than the best scientific models), there would have to be evolution for the Adam and Eve thing to be true.
God created them, but he only created two people. If there wasn't some sort of evolution, there would be no real way to explain races. Everyone would be the same, wouldn't they? Skin color, body type and things like that are usually adaptations to some sort of condition in the environment. That's really all evolution is, after all. An adaptation to the environment (at least that's MY understanding of it, I study the atmosphere, what do I know)

Anyway, this should probably go into the "God fellow" thread.

TOASTPAINT!

On the way from lunch today, I saw a bumper sticker that said "If you REALLY want to protect marriage, shouldn't you ban divorce?"

It's funny because it's true.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

...what?



What the hell are you talking about? That's like saying being black is a crime that is wrong and has a punishment.

Plus, I needed to be provided with a REASON why it is wrong, and not a "God says so". Until I am provided with non-circular reasoning as why being against homosexuality is a valid point of view, I remain strong in what I say.

How can you even BEGIN to compare homosexuality to murder?



Wow, I honestly can't believe you just said that. Now I understand why this is "Fundie pit hole of the month".

Yes, you are being prejudiced. There is a neutral definition for homophobia and what your bible says does not change that.



How can they go against homosexuality? How is preference an "Immoral" behaviour to begin with?



That's not proof. Thats an interpretation of a bible story couldn't be, according to current science, true.

Anyway, that just explains where man and woman comes from. It doesn't explain why man and man is wrong.



That's a belief, and you should be considerate of other people's beliefs, and more importantly, the way they are.



Um, and the main argument against that is that infertile couples still marry too and most fundies don't have a problem with it.

Hey, wight back at you Stwong Bad!

Hey, can I see these "facts" you seem to love so much? Explain morals to me using proven, scientific, universal facts.

I dare you.

_________________

Gladly, actually.

Now, right and wrong are fairly simple concepts in essence, and only become complicated in process.

Right is something which is somehow beneficiary and positive, and wrong is somehow hurtful and negative.

To determine what is right and wrong in any given situation you need to look at all the people in a given situation, how they feel about it, and how they're effected by it; and what most Neo-Cons don't understand, the level of effect on each person, which is why minorities, though low in number, deserve rights that allow them to function on an equal level.

If the overall sum of events does not harm people, and has some level of beneficial gain(even if it's only for you; just as long as it doesn't hurt others) then it's a "right" thing to do.

If the overall sum of events ends up hurting people, infringing their rights or otherwise harming them, then it's a "Wrong" thing to do. You have caused someone pain with no overall gain, or less overall gain than there is harm, then that was a wrong thing to do. After all, what right do you have to existence, or to be happy, than anybody else?
However, it's important to note that wrong is also purposely doing the most hurtful alternative out of a selection of given paths which may benefit or hurt as a whole, though that should be obvious to reason.

However, a person doing right or wrong is based on their assessment of the situation - not whether they believe themselves to be right or wrong, but how much they accept the things which are right and wrong, going from an evolved form of this basic logical concept, and how much regard for other people they have in their actions(very low in the case of Didymus "teaching" his beliefs as fact).

Intent is what matters, as it's the only thing we truly control.

I think those are the basic ideas of right and wrong we all understand. Anything else is just declaring things right and wrong with no base.

There are a lot of complex questions to ask - but that's the basic "bits" of it.

It's not perfect, but somehow, I think it's a lot more logical than "God says so".

But what if stuff that people enjoy is hurtful and negative in the long run? Does that make it "right" or "wrong" to allow people to do it?

Now we have lots of legal stuff that people enjoy to do... with negative side effects in the long run. Drinking. Smoking. Eating excessive junk food. These things, which are legal and some people enjoy, hurt them with negative side effects.

Drinking accounts for brain damage, liver failure, and more traffic accidents than any other cause. Smoking and overeating also lead to negative side effects.

Now I have not researched deeply into this subject, so I don't know the exact facts. This is just a theory. (But heck, EVOLUTION is a theory, so cut this some slack.)

Creationist or evolutionist, we all know there's a way the human body is supposed to work. The way it's built. It's built to drink water, juices, milk and other beneficial liquids. Drinking stuff that your body is not meant to digest into energy and health, such as alcohol, does not benefit it but rather harms it, although some may do it because they like it.

Your body is meant to breathe oxygen and eat healthy fruits, vegetables, meats and stuff. These help it grow correctly and function properly and healthily. Smoking and junk food lead to disease, shorter life spans, death, and natural negative stuff.

Now I don't know of the negative side effects of incorrect sexuality, but we should all know that, like all living beings, we are meant to reproduce. The sperm meets the egg and a body comes. That's the way man was created/evolved to be, depending on your beliefs. Man&man and woman&woman sex lifes were not the intended purpose of the human being, either by God or evolution.

So as I don't know for sure what the bad side effects are, I'm assuming twisted use of sex will produce bad results just as twisted use of food, drink and breathing do.

Just some logical thinking thrown your way, in the form of a theory. Factual backup would be nice, though.

So if you ask me, "right" and "wrong" aren't so much "pleasure" versus "pain", as current "pleasure" can become later "pain".

_________________

That is why I said the entire sum has to be taken into consideration.

Obviously this is impossible as it tends towards infinity, however an approximation is very possible.



That's stuff you do to yourself. You really are your own puppet, you can do with yourself as you please.



This isn't so much morally wrong, as wrong for other reasons. And I think it's exagerrating.





That's just because of how certain things happen to affect your body. As I said, you are your own puppet. While the outcome is what's wrong, intent is what matters and it's hard to say people intend to harm themselves, and even if it is, that's their choice.



First of all you call it "Incorrect" sexuality, leaving me little room to respect your argument or take it seriously.

And how do you mean "Not intended"? Evolution doesn't "Intend" anything. We just are. If it's purposely not "intended", then why is anal sex pleasurable?



Assuming does not an argument make. You've provided absolutely no base for why homosexuality is wrong.

You've obviously never been to California public universities, where "free speech" is only free if it conforms to the currently fashionable liberal dogma. If you're a Palestinian activist advocating armed jihad against Israel and the Great Satan, you can say pretty much whatever you want, no matter how inflammatory, and you'll be vigrously defended. But if you're a conservative advocating something like the notion that a 14-year-old girl should at least let her parents know before getting an abortion, or that security on the US-Mexico border should be improved to reduce the influx of drugs, illegal immigrants, and terrorists, you can expect crowds of unruly hecklers, constant threats, intimidation, and occasionally physical assault, if you are even allowed to speak on university property.

Liberals generally only allow free speech if it conforms with their ideology.

_________________
My Army Experience : Visual Vacations Photography : Army Career Opportunities

Ok... you just hit one of my hot buttons. It's on now.

Sorry, but a lot of conservative arguements are based on outdated theocratical ideas and nationalist attitudes. Secondly, people who want to shut out other peoples opinions are self serving idiots who exist on both sides of the fence. Don't pin this on liberal's solely.

The idea of a liberal-run news/talk radio media is completely concocted by the right wing for them to try and curry favor. But, I'm sorry, the main people in the news media that are getting attention right now are Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough, Dr. Laura, and Sean Hannity. I may hate their guts, but I won't infringe on their right to be idiots.

Example, since my college is right next to a planned parenthood, we get anti-abortion protestors there every week. Even though they are completely in the wrong (especially since they don't want to allow it in the case of rape and incest...morons), I didn't yell at them or anything. I proved myself the better person by not quoting Matthew 7:1 to them.

Oh yes, about Palestinians, how would you feel if someone just barged in your back door and said that you couldn't live there anymore? I'd be angry too. I have no stance on the Israel/Palestine fight, but I can sympathize with both sides on this one. But since you brought up Palestinians, I made this example.

By the way, don't you think that liberals, or ANYONE else gets scrutiny and violence flung towards them for standing up for their beliefs? I've been threatened with violence by rednecks and conservatives all the time.

By the way, the war on drugs will never be won. It's been a waste of our tax dollars since Reagan. Legalizing some of them (mainly Marijuana) would actually help decrease and eliminate the deficit. We would have to handle it like alcohol though. Because of conservatives in the 1930's, marijuana has a horrible standing in the united states. It has never done anything as bad as that old propaganda film, Reefer Madness, has shown. It, like many things that are going on right now about terrorism and misconceptions about Islam, is ignorance.

Closing our borders will not solve the terrorism problem. They will find other ways. The minute men are nothing but racist SOB's who want to shoot minorities. They insult the minutemen of yesteryear. If people want to come to the US, they can apply for a visa.

By the way, a lot of conservatives only see terrorists as Arabic, when terrorists come in every shade. Look at people who bomb abortion clinics.

My point being... do not start bashing liberals unless you know EXACTLY what you are talking about. I said my piece, but I in no way infringed on your right to say what you said. That is what being a liberal is all about.

By the way, I was born and raised in California (and proud of it, thank you very much) and actually care what the rest of the world thinks. Most conservatives are tarnishing the repution of the US, and it must stop. Other countries laugh at us because of how prudish and paranoid we are. I wish it weren't that way...

Plus, on terrorism, there is just as much blood on the hands of Christian fundamentalists as there are of any other religion out there. Look at the Inquisition, the invasions of Scandinavia where villages were burned to the ground, the witch trials acrossed Europe and in the USA, the modern theocracy that is being borne within our own borders. No, people's desire to have Christianity not be as prominient as it is now is not a method of shutting them out completely, but allowing all religions the room to express themselves as PER THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!

As I said, don't scrutinize unless you know what you are talking about.

_________________

That's nuts, and you know it is. Liberals hassle conservatives because they hold back development and promote "Traditional Values" which infringe on the rights of people like me.

Tradition values are neither.

Considering the whole point about liberalism is to promote freedom, I think you're pretty off the ball. Call liberals hypocrites all you like, but they're not the ones make the majority of discrimination.

I'm sorry, but you have a purposely skewed "view" of liberalism that's not exactly in line with the truth. Most liberals are against violence, and we're not the one who form lobby groups to bully the world into thinking our outdated ways, I'm sorry.

Your post is anecdotal "evidence" which is almost definitely extreme exagerration.

The examples you give of these conservative "viewpoints" are played down to an insane degree, which makes it hard to look at your points in a reasonable way.

I don't think it exists; I would describe it as when some people get confused by feelings they have and interpret them incorrectly.

I agree, I don't think any homosexuality exists. I'm probably heterosexual only because that's what I know is common and "normal", and I've grown up with other heterosexuals in my lifetime.

Why "Incorrectly"? And I'm sorry, but there's nothing really backing you up on this side. The mental makeup of a homosexual male is different somehow.

But all thoguhts aren't real, they're abstract. I can think anything I want to think. Maybe he didn't put it the right way as "inncorrectly", because noen of them are incorrect, or correct.

I don't see why there's any reason to think that in the first place. I hardly doubt he thought that and THEN Rationalised that homosexuality is wrong/isn't real.