Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

i'd vote for you! with that flute nobely crammed up your schnozz...

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free

Funny how the media, and the candidtates have buried this issue. All I hear is about Kerry's service in Viet Nam, and how Bush ships jobs overseas... I haven't heard gay marriage, abortion, or gun control mentioned in a while...

Well, Western KY is about to play Kansas St.... I'll be back laters

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

There was a time not long ago when I was very passionate about this issue. Now I don't even really care anymore. I figure the government is going to do what it wants to do, and people are going to do what they want to do, regardless of the law. So why bother with it anymore?

Personally, if people really wanted to save the institution of marriage, they ought to focus their attention on divorce prevention. It's kind of hollow to say that outlawing gay marriages will somehow save the institution of marriage when heterosexual couples are divorcing almost as fast as they get married. But that's just my 2c. (how come the standard keyboard doesn't have a cent sign anymore?).

_________________

_________________

In all honesty, I don't think Bush actually cared about gays being married... The more I think about this, the more I think it was just an attempt to deflect criticism about the war. Regardless of whether is was a "Wag the Dog" or he was really serious about it, it was a stupid political move... All he gained was votes from people who were prolly gonna vote for him anyway.... And what he lost, angering people who might not have voted enough to make them come out and vote against him... I could be wrong, but I don't know...

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

I personally feel marraige, and the government should never have been instituationalized as it has been, to begin with. Marraige was begun as a religious ceremony and right as a sacred connection between two people in their faith. If the faith wishes to deny people the right to have this union in the religion - form a new religion or find a religion that permits unions of the kind you so desire.

I don't think the government should be involved in marraige at all. I think unions between two people should legally be called "Civil Unions" and this should be permitted for any two people who love one another so that they might benefit from health care and tax breaks currently associated with "marraige".

I've said the same thing previously, and I agree completely.



Bingo! Well, almost. Bush is just as interested in marginalizing homosexuals as any other extreme-right Evangelical. But you're right in that banning gay marriage was never his actual goal, and nobody was ever under the illusion that the amendment would pass. The entire stunt was designed to create a token issue for the Right to cheer about, since Bush really hasn't given them anything else to cheer about.

_________________

I 100% agree with the fisrt part...

Second part; I would have to disagree, I think this one issue his standing up for because it something he belives in. This issue doesn't cheer the right wing, the Republician party is torn on the issue. Even the vice president is for gay marriage. Trust me Bush isn't overly liked by most Republicians but he is strong on defence and thats the most important issue right now. All in all he is against gay marraige not to draw attention away from the war but because it something he belives in...

Boy, I knew somebody was gonna start this sooner or later. If nobody else did, I probably would have.

EDIT: Warning: the following post contains a little bit of derision of what is, to my mind, flawed thinking. I personally feel bad thinking deserves every bit of punishment it gets -- it's not directed at who said it, but at the thought itself. So don't anybody take this stuff personally. If you're liable to anyway, you may want to skip this post and read my next one.



Todays's quote on my George Carlin calendar.



I hope that was a joke. Because if not...

Here comes Kef's mean evil Tyrannosaur!



This says nothing. Obviously, a lot of are not happy with it. A lot of people may be happy playing Super Mario Bros., but that doesn't mean we should ban Sonic the Hedgehog, no matter how stupid he may be to us! (I'm a Sonic fan, myself. That was just an example.) "A lot of people are happy with X" does in no way suggest "We should condemn Y".



And I think otherwise. Is your opinion more valid than mine somehow? I'd wager not. Is mine more valid? As an opinion by itself, probably not, though I'd suggest I thought about it more than you have. However, in the context of the United States, where I happen to live, there's this little thing called freedom, etched into the Constitution. I think the doctrine of "freedom of religion" demands that religious considerations not be considered in who can legally marry. And if you don't consider it on religious grounds, you don't have any concrete reason to disallow it.

And if you don't disagree on religious grounds, who the heck are you telling other people what rights they shouldn't have if it doesn't affect you? (I'd argue the same with religious people, too, but it's more absurd for people who aren't.)



So what?

In conclusion, unless you can back up your claims with anything that actually supports your point, I think my Tyrannosaur has quite a healthy meal ready for him.



I assume you are referring to Leviticus.

This is, as Penn and Teller would say, BULL[BLEEP]. (Except they wouldn't bleep it.) It's what The King James Version says. News flash: the Bible was not originally written in English! I actually looked up literal translations of the relevant Hebrew verses, and they were rather vague. Interruptor Jones also pointed out this is not a Christian nation, and I can substantiate that claim with this essay by my favorite game designer, Chris Crawford: http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Polit ... stian.html

You've already forfeited this argument.



So you're saying that because you disagree with it, it should be illegal? Here, let me make an analogy that does use this reasoning validly: abortion. Such an argument, i.e., "I think abortion is wrong, so it should be illegal", is more permissible because murder is a very, very serious and concrete issue. Clearly, if killing babies is murder, we don't want to be doing that. If I kill a baby, that's a life gone forever, and the baby didn't choose. The baby's rights are violated, if we accept the pro-life argument.

But here we have the opposite: NOBODY'S rights are violated by allowing same-sex marriages. I dare you to show me what right, exactly, would be violated. On the other hand, disallowing such marriages would be a potential violation of rights: that of freedom of religion. Most of the arguments against same-sex marriage are religious, and I already pointed out that, news flash, this is not a Christian nation, nor does everybody think the way you do. My Tyrannosaur isn't entirely ready to destroy your argument yet, but it's getting there. Perhaps you can substantiate your point of view with something, or point out a hole in my own argument. I just really doubt you can.

My challenge to you is this: if I'm wrong, prove it. I'm serious, go ahead and try to prove your case. I have little confidence that you can, but why let that stop you?

- Kef

Here, let me state my stance clearly and unambiguously (bearing in mind that my views apply specifically to the U.S. due to our Constitution):

1. It is OK to disagree with the idea of same-sex marriage. However, this does not mean you should say it should be illegal. And I am by now 100% certain that the principles laid out in the United States Constitution are clear that it should be legal. (The amendment Bush is pushing will never pass, so it doesn't count. We learned with the Prohibition that the Constitution is not the place to add restrictions of freedom.)

2. If you object to same-sex marriage on non-religious grounds, you have no right to assert that same-sex marriage should be illegal because you really have no reasonable grounds on which to object. If the mental picture of two men gettin' it on disgusts you (which, I imagine, is the only real objection that can be made on non-religious grounds), that's your problem, not the government's.

3. If you object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, you have no right to assert that same-sex marriage should be illegal because our country has no established religion, your religion is not the only one practiced here, and finally, the First Amendment declares specifically that government shall make no law restricting freedom of religion. Therefore, to argue this on religious grounds is absurd. How would you like your religious freedom infringed upon? Suppose a group of Muslim radicals decided the public display of any female flesh is a crime against God. Should they get their way just because they believe God commands It Be Thus? (I don't think anybody is going to descend into the terrible and bigoted "The difference between them and me is I'm right" argument.)

I think this says quite clearly that it should be legal. Of course, we could argue for laws allowing polygamy and such on similar grounds. Personally, I think that would be fine. There are those who claim that allowing any of this would lead to people being allowed to marry their dog and such, but I think that is nothing more than a slippery slope fallacy: I really don't think the United States government will ever think that's a good idea. We're talking about civil rights, not sexual perversion. Want to argue with me? Be my guest. But if you do so, be warned that I'll have my Tyrannosaur ready to pounce! (Don't let that discourage you. Again. see it as a challenge.)

Finally, Al Sharpton said it best: "The issue of government is not to determine who may sleep together in the bedroom, it's to help those that might not be eating in the kitchen."

I'll consider this "case closed" unless, on the off chance, somebody sees something I don't here.

- Kef

Whooo, polygamy. Yet another arbitrary taboo that we make illegal. When is this nation going to grow up? (I could go down the list of arbitrary taboos, but usually when I get to the 'i's, people's knees start to jerk.)

Funny story about polygamy: I have a friend whose nickname for a year or two in college was "Polly". Two points if you can figure out how she got it. Er, but keep it to yourself, this is a family forum!

_________________

Same sex relations are in a whole different group from other things people consider abnormal. I hate to call same sex relations "abnormal" or "different", but that's the world we live in these days. People tend to clump it in together with other types of relations, but that's false.

Homosexuality is two people of the same sex willingly and consentually getting together in a commitment of love. It's almost the same as opposite sex marraige, except it's two people of the same sex.

Polygamy presents a whole new set of issues, because there are more than two people. These issues can be worked out in time, but there are just so many different cases of who is the leader, who are the main people and who are the add-ons, does everybody know that others are involved in the relationship and such.. it just takes more work to figure out each individual case.

A certain form of polygamy can arise between couples when a male same-sex couple wants to have kids, so one of them impregnates a woman from a female same-sex couple. Maybe the other male has a child from the other female later on. It's more effort and more confusing, but it can all work out and be fine.

People also often bring up the issue of animal intercourse. That is also a whole different bag because there is no way to determine if the animal is a willing partner or not, so it must be classified as rape. Rape is completely different from a willing and consentual same-sex relationship.

_________________
Hot!

I am a Christian and am certainly not for homosexual marriage. However, I do not believe that making new laws will change anything. The fact is that it will still go on. It comes from a state of mind. The only person who can change minds forever is God. As for what the Bible says, there should be no doubt, I don't think it can be said any clearer. If you care what the Bible says at all you should be against gay marriage*.

P.S. I don't think that it is an issue whether or not someone is born with a state of mind. You may be born naturally more prone to murder, but that doesn't make it right.

*I know that will be angrilly quoted by someone

This is the worst analogy I've seen yet on the subject (and trust me, there are some really awful ones). Murder is an act. It's something that you actively do, through personal choice and effort. You can't commit murder if you're locked in a cell. Homosexuality is not something you do, it's something you are. There is no action or choice that embodies homosexuality, and no "cell" that can restrain or prevent it. If you're born with a proclivity toward murder (which is questionable in itself), you can still choose not to murder someone (unless, perhaps, you are psychologically incapable), or you can be prevented from doing so. But if you're born gay, you're just gay. That's it. You can't decide against being gay and you can't stop being gay, any more than someone born straight can help being straight, or decide they want to be gay instead (that is, you can tell people you're gay and act gay and do things that gay people do all you want, but it doesn't make you gay -- "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!"). Homosexuality is not an act or a choice, it is an attribute like eye color or fingerprints, only even more immutable.

Your words serve only to demonstrate that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be homosexual.

_________________

I don't think it is, all actions have route in thoughts. Something like murder would be thought out beforehand

That's like saying 'Drug addicts are drug addicts, that's it'. I've met people who've been heavily on drugs, have come off them and never looked back. These are cases of many years in this state. Sure, it's rare, but it's not impossible. Things like these are states of mind.

Regarding the footnote: now it is.

Your post on the whole is nice, as it acknowledges that you disagree with the principle itself, and yet believe it's not the government's issue. However, I'm going to have to nitpick your post anyway...

My Tyrannosaur demands that you substantiate your claim quoted above, lest it be mercilessly devoured with extreme prejudice. This claim may be obvious to you, but it obviously isn't to us (and I was a Christian once, and even then I wasn't against it, so my religion has naught to do with it).

I will also point out that there are a great many thousands of people who care very, very deeply about what the Bible says and will tell you that God prohibits no such thing. Your claim is not obvious to them, either.

So my challenge to you is: tell us just why we should believe this, assuming we "care about the Bible at all"? (I already pointed out that Leviticus is ambiguous on the matter, by the way, but if you want more details, I will be happy to provide them.)

Hey, Fahooglewitz, you reading any of this?

- Kef

It's not like saying that at all. Drug addiction (in most cases; let's ignore crack babies and other complications) begins with a very clearly defined choice, a single very specific choice: to abuse a drug. You aren't "just a drug addict, that's it" because you made the decision to smoke the crack, or inject the heroin, or whatever. I can tell you, from personal experience and otherwise, that there is not really an analogous case with sexual preferences. It does not start with a conscious decision. People don't wake up and think, "Hey, I think I'm going to be gay today," and suddenly they forget how to be straight.

Another reason this is a bad analogy is that drug addiction is a problem because it ruins lives -- not only that of the addict but possibly other people. Can you demonstrate how homosexuality is a problem?

- Kef

Romans 1.



Go ahead

I believe that drugs and homosexuality both start with desires, but one slower than the other. One may not be realised so much.

Homosexuality is a problem because it is a mockery of God's creation. That is not even mentioning the fact that it causes AIDS etc.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I think this one tops your earlier argument for outrageousness. Drug addicts aren't drug addicts until they get addicted to drugs. They aren't drug addicts when they're born. Drug addiction is not an attribute of them when they are born. I'm trying hard to imagine a single way in which drug addiction is similar to homosexuality, and I'm finding it impossible. But let's try:

Drug addiction: Direct result of actions on the part of the afflicted, or actions taken upon them.
Homosexuality: Biological or neurological development prior to birth.

Drug addiction: Possibly present at birth if and only if the pregnant mother was a drug user.
Homosexuality: Always present at birth.

Drug addiction: Treatable.
Homosexuality: Irreversible, untreatable.

Drug addiction: Inherently harmful to the afflicted party, possibly to others indirectly.
Homosexuality: Inherently harmful to nobody.

Yep, worst analogy yet.

_________________

Well, you're wrong. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.



Are you kidding me?! Hello, it isn't the '70s anymore. That's it, the sheer ignorance of the above statement just invalid any argument you could ever possibly make. How do you expect people to take you seriously with such a threadbare attachment to reality?

_________________

OK, what about Murder, what about incest (that's an 'i'), what about teenage pregnancy, what about paedophilia? I suppose those are all taboos too. Where do you suppose society draws a line?

Those are discussions for another thread, Fat Pie, not that I suppose your contributions would be any more informed.

(Whoops, accidentally Edit'd instead of Quote'd you the first time.)

_________________

Easy. Draw the line where it starts hurting people. Gay marriage and polygamy do not.

- Kef

Though I'd much prefer to have this conversation elsewhere, you can add intelligent (i.e. with contraceptives or genetic counseling) adult consensual incest to that list. And teen pregnancy (by which I'm assuming you mean accidental/unintended/unwanted teen pregnancy) isn't a taboo at all, it's just a consequence of poor parenting, teen stupidity (which is universal, not societal), and abstinece-only sex education. Which leaves us with murder and pedophilia (which could mean either the act or the fetish, for a lack of a better term), which fall very deeply into the gray areas. Of the things on the list, murder is the only one that always hurts someone, either directly or indirectly.

Okay, seriously, I need to take my own advice and keep this thread on topic. That is, how Fat Pie was apparently educated about AIDS in the '70s and hasn't read a single thing (excepting maybe those great Chick Tracts) on the subject since.

_________________

I suppose you mean verses 26 and 27:



First, I offer this link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm

A summary:

• The meaning of "vile affections" is not fully clear. To quote the site above: "It seems to refer to the 'frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music.'"
• In any case, given the context (both of the text itself and the time it was written) it is very likely this is not a general condemnation, but a condemnation of particular Greek religious ceremonies. Note that the surrounding text discusses idolatry.

These two interpretations are by no means the only ones, but they're sufficient to show that it's not the only reasonable point of view. Again it's shown that, even if your point of view is correct, it isn't obvious, even to Christian scholars. Moreover, why do you choose to interpret these words this way when there are alternatives?

Condemnation based on Romans 1 does not seem appropriate because its meaning is unclear. Can you offer any substantiation for your interpretation? (Don't you dare fall back on "Well, this is what [so and so] always said...")



The first and most obvious refutation is that Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians anymore. If you think it does, better not cut your hair or eat seafood. The second refutation I can offer is that "abomination" is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew term. The verse was clearly translated with an agenda.

Condemnation based on Leviticus also seems inappropriate.

There is only one thing clear here: The Bible is not clear on its stance on homosexuality.

- Kef

Modern translations, which are translated with more information than the KJV, still give the 'old' translation. Many biblical scholars work on these translations, and their translation cannot be dismissed without a great deal of knowledge of Greek. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I haven't read this argument in depth, but I know that most of these arguments are made without a great deal of knowledge and with a far bigger agenda than you claim the original translators had. If you take the verse in context, Paul also describes such people as 'ungodly, unrighteous, futile in their thoughts, having foolish hearts, professing to be wise and becoming fools, given up to uncleanness in the lusts of their hearts, exchanging the truth of God for a lie, using their bodies for what is against nature, immoral, commiting what is shameful, recieving the penalty that they richly deserve, filled with all unrighteousness (again), sexually immoral, deserving of death (those who pratise such acts, and those who approve). Try explaining those away, the fact is, that the Bible is clear. The message is clear, God is evident, yet people are described as 'surpressing the truth in their unrighteousness'. Yes, the Gospel is offensive. To quote the Bible again, it is 'sharper than any two edged sword'.


I will leave out Leviticus then, if that is how you feel (that argument would make this post too long), but I do not think the Bible is unclear in its stance against homosexuality. Actually, I now the Bible is clear (yes, I will express this view without doubt). Quoting Paul, 'I am not ashamed of the gospel'.

Granted. However, many other translators agree with the alternate point of view. The reason you don't see many of these Bibles? I'd wager this: it's bad business to publish one that suggests homosexuality is OK. Imagine the condemnation! Regardless, such translations exists. If we can't dismiss the KJV without a great deal of knowledge of Greek, how can we dismiss the alternate translation?



You don't know it until you can prove it. If you can't prove it, how do you know it? Heck, many people who make such claims are scholars.



No, it's not clear. I already explained to you why: these are quite possibly referring to a specific ritual. What "nature" means here is also debated. Just about every word there that fuels either argument is up to debate. And these arguments are informed by the original Greek.



Let me put this in a way you can understand it: if it were clear, there would be no argument. Well, obviously there is argument, now, isn't there? How you can assert that it is clear "without doubt" is way beyond me, unless I assume that your faith is not in God but in what may be, for all we know, what some misguided translator wrote.

- Kef

Just because something is clear, doesn't mean there will be no argument. It's called 'surpressing the truth' to quote the passage again.

Try actually reading the passage, without twisting the words, and explain how it can be referring to one specific act. There are many acts mentioned in the passage and the context suggests sin in general, mentioning a few specifically.

On your website, there is no section that actually breaks down the words to show how they could've meant what you said. It is said in a sort of 'there is evidence, but I'm not going to show it to you' sprt of way.

As one person on a link from your website quoted:

"Paul wrote things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort, as they do the rest of scripture, to their own destruction! You, therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled people, you fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom is the glory, both now and to the day of eternity Amen."

(From 2 Peter)

P.S. Bye for now, it's getting late

_________________
My Blog