Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Same-Sex Marriages
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=647		 Page 11 of 23
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Dec 26, 2004 4:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
And Uck still has a state church, the Church of England.
Author:  KISSMEimconan [ Fri Dec 31, 2004 1:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Shopiom wrote:
Plus, they wouldn't be able to have kids.


I don't know if anyone has responded to this specific comment, but here's my view.

So, you're saying that these people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have kids, right?

Well, if that's going to be your reason for it, then you shouldn't allow a women who is sterile or a man who is sterile to marry anyone, because they can't have kids either. It's just fair, isn't it?

I think that you should be allowed to marry the person you love, and if it's someone of the same sex, so be it. No one should be able to take that right away from you. I mean, what's it going to hurt you if these people get married? Are you going to die because of it? Will you get deathly ill? It does nothing to you, right? So what's the sweat off you're back if they do it? It shouldn't be your choice to decide if these people are allowed to wed, they should be allowed to, because we are.

That's my view.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
This devotional makes a Biblical argument against same-sex "marriages".
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
That page is still mostly the "homosexuals cannot procreate" argument, which we've already addressed: would anybody suggest that a union between a male and a female is sinful if one of them is sterile? These unions cannot survive beyond one generation either. And, hey, we have six billion people now; making babies isn't exactly a "do or die" thing anymore. Even if there were a BILLION homosexual couples right now, mankind would get along just fine as far as procreation is concerned, thank you very much. (Granted, if such a high proportion were maintained, that statement may not always be true, but that has no effect on whether or not it's true now.) Where exactly are we commanded to produce children until the Earth suffocates from overpopulation? I think ANY marriage by this point is motivated more by interest in oneself and one's partner than by procreation (sure, the couple may want to have a child, but it isn't the main point of being a couple).

Moreover, I still think what the Bible says about marriage is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not the state should allow certain kinds of unions, whether you consider them to be "marriage" or not.

- Kef
Author:  Evin290 [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:19 am ]
Post subject: 
I think that it should be classified as some sort of separation of church and state violation trying to ban any kind of marriage. If someone wanted to marry someone else, that's not the state's concern. They should recognize marriage as a union between two people, not just between a man and a woman. I understand where people are coming from when they say "God didn't make people to be homosexual," but I just think that they're thinking of it only as a matter of "morals."

It's nothing like that, really. It's a matter of equality. If a man and woman are allowed to be married, why not two women or two men? I personally don't believe there's anything wrong with homosexuality, but even if you do, there's no reason to force gay people not to be allowed to get married!

Also, it doesn't affect anybody! If you say "I don't think homosexuals should be able to get married," then you're just ignorant of the fact that it has absolutely no impact on your life! The only impact it has is making the lives of gay people easier, not only having a union that is forever, but also being recognized by the state as a married couple. Marriage provides lower rates on insurance and other things that have rates :-)

In my opinion, there's only one obvious answer in a free country: USA.:p
Author:  furrykef [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:17 am ]
Post subject: 
evin290 wrote:
I understand where people are coming from when they say "God didn't make people to be homosexual"


Now if only such people would understand that some people believe "God didn't make people". Period. What about their rights? Why should they follow "God's Law" if they don't even believe in it?

- Kef
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:27 am ]
Post subject: 
I certainly hope you don't intend to apply that to "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not steal."
Author:  furrykef [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Oh, come on. Those laws are most certainly not restricted to Judaism/Christianity, or, for that matter, religion. Those laws are necessary to have any kind of social order. I don't think the same argument could be made for "Thou Shalt Not Marry One Of The Same Sex". ;)
Author:  Dr. Zaius [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Indeed, or "no wearing mixed fibers" or "no cutting your hair" either. Seriously, what illicit substance were the people under when they cam up with those "rules"?
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Zaius wrote:
Indeed, or "no wearing mixed fibers" or "no cutting your hair" either.


Wait -- I thought that having long hair was a disgrace to men (and "a glory" to women).

1 Corinthians 11:14 wrote:
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?


Of course, [url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=11&version=9]that whole chapter[/quote] is a little obtuse to me, even in the NIV.
Author:  furrykef [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Zaius wrote:
Seriously, what illicit substance were the people under when they cam up with those "rules"?


Now, now, that's likely to just tick Didymus off, which as we all know would cause us to be side-tracked. ;)

But you did make a good point in showing more clearly how our laws are not modeled specifically on Biblical laws. Remember also that one of the first recorded sets of laws -- the Code of Hammurabi -- had little to do with religion. (This can be debated since his purpose was to "please the gods", but the laws did not involve the gods nor were they claimed to be divine.) In any case, our modern law systems are based mostly on old Roman law, which could hardly be considered Christian!

In short, our laws are not inspired by the Bible, so the Bible should not be applied to those laws.

- Kef
Author:  Didymus [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Actually, Zaius, I'd wonder what illicit substance you were on when you made up that rule about no cutting hair. I don't remember ever reading that in Scripture anywhere. That one ranks right up there with that one you made up about not eating meat on Fridays.

As usual, Zaius, you display your ignorance of the Sacred Texts and your lack of imagination in understanding them. Seriously, if you're not going to take the time to know what you're talking about, you might leave the arguments to people like Buz and Upsilon.
Author:  thefreakyblueman [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Actually, Zaius, I'd wonder what illicit substance you were on when you made up that rule about no cutting hair. I don't remember ever reading that in Scripture anywhere. That one ranks right up there with that one you made up about not eating meat on Fridays.

As usual, Zaius, you display your ignorance of the Sacred Texts and your lack of imagination in understanding them. Seriously, if you're not going to take the time to know what you're talking about, you might leave the arguments to people like Buz and Upsilon.


Though it's not necessarily a rule as Zaius suggested, the book of Corinthians says:

Chapter 1 wrote:
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.
Author:  Dr. Zaius [ Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
As usual Didymus, you ignored all the points I made and went straight for my foibles. I'm sorry I don't have the "imagination" to "understand" the utter bullcrap that the bible spouts out, I really am. But I lost that long ago. You know, around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.

I may not have memorized the entire thing like you have, but I still know enough to know it was written a long, long time ago, and most of it has NO practical application today. Cry out "thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not kill" all you want, but like furrykef pointed out, THAT'S NOT A CHRISTIAN LAW! That's a "common sense" law that's been around, oh, I'd say a good 3 thousand or so years before the old testament was even written.

So good for you, you devoted your entire life to a story book. I'm sure you'll come up with an "imaginative" rational for why rapture didn't occur when the Christian-right wakos in our government trigger armegeddon. I'm sure you'll blame the gays and women who get abortions...
Author:  Didymus [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:45 am ]
Post subject: 
That is, if you had actually made an intelligent point, Zaius. As for whether the Bible is a mere "storybook" as you put it, we'll see. And as for no practical application for today, I'll let you take that up with the residents and staff I serve at Lutheran Senior Services, as well as the God who commands me.

My point to you is this: it is one thing to make an intelligent argument. It's a different thing entirely to spout off about your own misconceptions and prejudices. It just seems to me that you are really good at the latter, but not so great at the former.

Quote:
I'm sure you'll come up with an "imaginative" rational for why rapture didn't occur when the Christian-right wakos in our government trigger armegeddon.

Here is yet another ignorance on your part. Who ever said I believe that this rapture will occur when right-wing Christians takes over the government? The Bible I read never said that. Again, I have to wonder what kind of substances you are on when you make this crap up.
Author:  furrykef [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Alas, the predicted Didymus-getting-ticked-off-and-the-thread-getting-side-tracked occurred. So Zaius isn't well-versed in the Bible and spouts nonsense sometimes; that wasn't the point. Just let it go.

Though, Zaius, I would suggest you choose your battles a bit more wisely. ;)
Author:  Upsilon [ Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Seriously, if you're not going to take the time to know what you're talking about, you might leave the arguments to people like Buz and Upsilon.


I'm glad I give the impression of someone who knows what he's talking about. ;)

Anyway, to get this back on topic, Kef makes a good point about overpopulation. Given the current overcrowding crisis on Earth, it would actually be better if more people had homosexual marriages! So the reproduction argument doesn't stand up.
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Given the current overcrowding crisis on Earth, it would actually be better if more people had homosexual marriages!

Actually, I would use this to argue that people should practice Abstinence and marital fidelity, rather than homosexuality.
Author:  thefreakyblueman [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
Actually, I would use this to argue that people should practice Abstinence and marital fidelity, rather than homosexuality.

As I usually say in this type of situation, do you really expect people to do this? I mean, if we can't get rape to be nonexistent, do you think that the majority of humans can keep abstinence up?
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:49 am ]
Post subject: 
But that's like saying, "We can't get rid of murder, so we might as well just expect people to kill each other." To me, it's not a matter of whether I CAN expect people to act in a decent manner, but whether they SHOULD.
Author:  furrykef [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:46 am ]
Post subject: 
But what harm does a homosexual relationship do in such circumstances?
Author:  ModestlyHotGirl [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
There's been a lot of talk in Canadian media on this subject lately, including an editorial in The Globe & Mail stating that allowing same-sex marriages would lead to polygamy and incest. Personally, I don't consider homosexuality a gateway fetish, and don't see the connection. Anyone?
As for where I stand on the issue, I think it's less of a religious issue than it is a human rights issue. HUMAN rights, not heterosexual rights. I believe it was an Archbishop (forgive me for forgetting) who said in an open letter to our Prime Minister that same-sex marriages would lead to public schools having to teach homosexual values as well as heterosexual values. I have two problems with this:
1. Public school. Why does the Church have any say in what goes on in public schools?
2. Homosexual values? Heterosexual values? What happened to just values?
As you might be able to tell, the attitudes of some Christians really gets under my skin. While this isn't intended to offend anyone here, I think some people ought to just realize that even if gay marriages are illegal, that won't stop people from being gay. It won't go away. It's been going on for thousands of years; why should anyone expect it to fade away now?
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
ModestlyHotGirl wrote:
I don't consider homosexuality a gateway fetish


Well, you're certainly right here. Homosexuality isn't a fetish any more than being tall is a fetish.

Quote:
Homosexual values? Heterosexual values? What happened to just values?


Right again. This is just an(other) invention of the heterosexist movement, just like the "gay agenda". Gays have the same agenda and values as anybody who's marginalized, the same agenda as women and minorities had in the past century -- to change the world so that they can be free to exist as they are, and to have the same rights as any other person, without scorn and hatred.

Imagine if suffrage and civil rights had never come to pass because the men and the white people in this country wanted to "protect the sanctity" of everything that was denied women and black people. Thankfully they did come to pass, but O! Look what horrors it hath wrought!
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
hey what people do behind bedroom doors is none of our business. Homosexuality is niether moral nor immoral, because it is not a choice. Homosexuals are born that way and no matter how hard you try they will not change.
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:37 am ]
Post subject: 
I will agree with you in saying that those who are homosexual tend to believe it's not by choice, but I cannot agree that it is not a moral issue.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:21 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
I will agree with you in saying that those who are homosexual tend to believe it's not by choice


Saying homosexuals tend to believe it's not by choice is kind of like me saying most men tend to believe they're male.

Just so we understand the kind of distinction we're making, here.

..but even the most steadfast beliefs can be wrong, of course.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:35 am ]
Post subject: 
Didymus wrote:
I will agree with you in saying that those who are homosexual tend to believe it's not by choice, but I cannot agree that it is not a moral issue.


Call me dense, but I'm still confused as to what the "moral" issue is. OK, let's say I accept it's a violation of God's law. Why? What's so bad about it that it's immoral?
Author:  Dr. Zaius [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:58 am ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Didymus wrote:
I will agree with you in saying that those who are homosexual tend to believe it's not by choice, but I cannot agree that it is not a moral issue.


Call me dense, but I'm still confused as to what the "moral" issue is. OK, let's say I accept it's a violation of God's law. Why? What's so bad about it that it's immoral?


To be "imaginative" and give some kind of "rational" to it, they made it that way because at the time, under population was a problem. See, they believed that a man had a finite number of sperm, like how a woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have. So any "usage" of the stuff other than procreation was robbing life or whatever...

Actually, that doesn't explain why it's "immoral". This does though!

One of my many theories, is that early Christians tried to be least like the Romans as possible. Since the Romans were a very sexually liberated people, the Christians chose to be celibate, in all ways, in an act of rebellion. Added to the misconception of the limited number of man-tadpoles, they deemed homosexuality, and all forms of "sodomy" to be a crime against god...
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:47 am ]
Post subject: 
Maybe, but obviously those reasons aren't what Didymus is thinking of. ;)
Author:  Didymus [ Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nice theory, Zaius, but the aversion to homosexuality was already existent in the Old Testament texts nearly 1400 years before the Christian era. In my own thinking, if God discourages it, that's enough reason for me to believe it is immoral. Especially since he goes as far as to call homosexuality an abomination.
Page 11 of 23 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/