Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I think you're both missing the point most relevant to this conversation, which, if you'll recall, is about whether the state should recognize same-sex marriages.

That point is this: Our country does not make laws based upon the beliefs of any religion. If you believe that it makes sense to outlaw gay marriage because the Bible says so (or you believe it says so), you are wrong. Using the Bible to justify any legislation stands in direct opposition to the first amendment.

I'm not going to make you, but I'd like to encourage you to create a new thread called "Does the Bible say homosexuality is wrong?" or similar, because that's the conversation you're actually having.

(totpd )

_________________

Well, I'm not claiming anything. That's a fact - it doesn't mention it. And, I've given my interpretation of Corinthians, and that the pedastry of the Greeks of that time is not the same as a gay mutual relationships of this time, so I'm not going down that road again. I'll just accept that your interpretation is different from mine.



I'm not sure. As far as I am aware, the quote isn't an interpretation. It was written alongside an original text as a sidenote. Though I could be wrong because I'm not familar with that code used in the quote. But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.



What, to even discuss the issue?



As I've said, it could possibly be so that the Church doesn't become stagnant in its ways. And I still can't accept that God would be so unbending as to not allow us to discuss this or any other religious issue. If that's the case, we'd better close the R&P forum here pretty quick.



I didn't say that the Holy Spirit changed his mind. Because I still think that Acts leaves the issue of "sexual immorality" quite open, and that Corinthians and Romans should be handled with care. Again, I'm going to concede that we're not going to agree on that.



And as I have said in my previous post, pagan worship is a different issue. Paganism has a real threat to Christian core beliefs. I can't see that homosexuality is.



That's entirely fine. I don't ask you to treat homosexuality as a primary concern. Your congregation as a whole and what applies to them as a whole is what's important, no doubt.

But it's worth remembering that for gay people, it is a concern. And there are many gay Christians who feel rejected by those of their own faith, and would then ask themselves why they would embrace a faith that rejects them.

As the name of you church suggests, a Good Shepherd looks after the needs of the flock as a whole. But also he doesn't leave any sheep behind.



Okay, here I am really going to disagree with you. I have done a Masters in Psychology, and not a single casenote or article or book that I've read on sexual behaviour describes homosexuality as a sexual addiction. And, although I'm not degrading the work you've done helping those with sexual addiction, you must admit that your views are biased towards what the Church calls sexual misconduct. And I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that website isn't a credible psychological resource.

From what I've seen and studied, gay people only suffer from their sexuality when they are in denial. And when they are in denial, yes, their spiritual as well as mental well-being is badly affected. I've heard of gay patients in denial killing themselves, falling into alcoholism and drug abuse, enter hugely disastrous marriages. The outcome is never good.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't gay people who don't also have sexual addiction. But there are just the same amount of heterosexual people who have it. I'll have to dig out my old university notes, but from what I remember, 1% - 3% of the general population have a severe complusion, and there are a further 10% - 15% who exhibit signs of clinical promiscuousity (the kind that they can't control). Out of the gay population, the figures are about the same. I'll post some of my casenotes as soon as I find them.



There are gay people who wish to express their love through marriage, through raising a family, through spending the rest of their lives in each other's company. What of them?



Well, many ones prescribed in the Torah clearly are defunct, because both Christ and the Council of Jeruseleum needed to revise them. And once again, I'm not arguing that homosexuality should be accepted because it's "en vogue" or convenient. It's because the Church is likely to lose track of what's important when assessing what a Christian is, if it carries on clinging to a half-dozen references to what may or may not be the kinds of gay relationships we know today.


EDIT TO INTERRUPTOR JONES: It is relevant in a way, because marriage is a construct of the Church. So if the Church doesn't accept homosexuality, then it won't allow gay people to have Christian marriages (if not civil). And the lawmakers hands are tied until there's consensus.

But don't worry, I think Didy and I are headed for stalemate here soon. Such is the way.

I think that you are right in saying that whether or not the Bible says Homosexuality is wrong should probably be a different thread, but in a way it does hold a bearing on this topic, because laws are made according to the popular belief. If one is against Gay marrage based on his/her belief that the Bible condemns it, and it can be proven that the Bible does not actually condemn it, then they should be made aware and should change their position --- and visa versa. So although the Bible should not be used to directly legislate, the population's moral and ethical stance on subjects should definately be taken into consideration, and if the Bible is the basis of the majority of the populations positions, then it is a valid part of the argument.... In my most humble opinion...

_________________

You make a good point seamusz. To be honest, though, even if someone proved irrefutably that nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condmned (for the record I have no opinion on this subject), it would not change most people's minds. Unlike our erudite Didymus, who reads something in the Bible, the holiest text of his faith, and then uses that to inform his decision on something like homosexuality, most people who are against gay rights do the reverse: they make up their mind to be intolerant or hateful and then poke around the Bible until they find something they think justifies it. Even if it were proven that Christ Hearts Gays (there's a banner in there somewhere), people would find other ways to justify their fear and hatred, or they would just ignore the proof and keep preaching intolerance.

_________________

You are probably right, people are always looking for more reasons to believe what they do, and take great pains to ignore or refute information that contradicts that belief. The funny thing is, is that no where in the bible does it justify hatred against any people. I have no doubt that Christ loves someone who is Gay just as much as the most pious straight person. I doubt that a lifestyle choice effects his love for anyone.

And just for the record, I think that it is a misnomer that someone opposed to Gay Marriage is against "gay rights". Personally, I am against Gay Marriage and I think that homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavoir, but in no way do I think that those who choose to practice this lifestyle should be denied any rights that any other person who is not gay enjoys.

_________________

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. Go out there and ask 1,000 homosexual if they chose to be gay, and then come back here and tell me 998 or 999 of them are liars or self-deluding or "confused."



...except, apparently, the right to marry the person they love and enjoy the benefits associated with marriage that are provided by the state to every other person who is not gay.

_________________

The few gay people I have known have all thought that they weren't born that way... just my personal expirience.

_________________

There's a world of difference between "not being born that way" and "choosing to be that way." I have never met a gay person who believes they could ever choose to be anything other than gay no matter how much they would want to (and if you could choose society's acceptance over being hated and treated by your own government like a second-class citizen, which would you choose?). I do not deny the existence of such people, but I am confident that they are in the tiniest of minorities and probably not very happy.

_________________

Interesting opinion... I think that it is societies acceptance of homosexual behavior that has convinced these people that they cannot overcome their same-sex attraction issues. How are people who are gay treated like second class citizens?

I wonder how many of the people you say could never choose to rehabilitate their behaviors, tried it? I mean tried it as in going to counciling and put forth an effort to understand why they "are gay".

_________________

Roffle. I'm sorry, I just don't know how to respond to that. You've clearly never really spoken to a homosexual person, or to be precise, never listened. A gay person can no more "overcome their same-sex attraction issues" than you and I can overcome our "opposite-sex attraction issues."

From Wikipedia (quoting a statement made by the mentioned organizations, emphasis mine):


And from the American Psychiatric Associate on whether therapy can "cure" homosexuality:


I know it makes you more comfortable to believe that these people choose to be gay, that it's their choice to be "deviant" and their choice to be hated and assaulted, and I can understand that. But I'm sorry, it's just a collective fantasy that you and society are going to have to get over some day.



I think we've been over this already: Homosexuals are not accorded the same rights and privileges as straight people vis-a-vis marriage and parenting. That's the very definition of second-class citizen. Joe is allowed to get married to the person he loves but for his neighbor Jim to do the same thing is illegal. Joe is a citizen, Jim is a second-class citizen.

_________________

Ahh yes, the APA, the very same orginization that recently said that beastiality is completely normal... yeah, they don't have any bias on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

I really don't want to debate the topic. I have no use for it, and Im not going to change your views. Like you said earlier, people have a habit of only looking at the data that supports their beliefs. And while you may call me ignorant, I may just think the same about you. So who is right?

People who profess to be gay have the same rights as everyone else. They want more rights than others. There are lots of laws restricting who can legally have a procreative relationship. I cannot marry my sister, nor my brother, nor another man, and not even a first cousin. I also cannot have a legal relationship with more than one woman, nomatter how much we may love eachother. The same holds true for everyone else.

_________________

I would say that the The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers are right. Eesh.

Oh, and I read the article you linked. It mentions the APA's handbook which states "sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself," but it doesn't say anything about whether they consider it "normal" or even treatable. Your attempt to draw a picture of the APA as an organization which somehow endorses bestiality and thus, I suppose, all sorts of awful immoral acts, is just silly.

Also, I never called you ignorant, but if you choose to look at the opinion of the most qualified medical and mental health professionals of this country--and if you can find a body of psychiatric professionals more qualified than the APA, I'd like to meet them--and claim that you have reason to believe the contrary, it behooves you to state that reason.

You're right, "people have a habit of only looking at the data that supports their beliefs." I have shown you my data. It is data I trust because it is put forth by the most respected medical and mental health organizations in the world. But you have yet to show me a single byte of data that supports your views. If you can do so I will be happy to read it, but only if you will do me the same courtesy.

Lastly, if you don't want to debate this then you shouldn't have joined the conversation.

_________________

Im sure if you looked on the net for an hour for contradicting information from credable sources you would find plenty. It doesn't really behoove me to state any more than I have. The info is out there.

_________________

Clearly you're new to this debate thing. Saying "I bet someone credible can refute it!" is not equivalent to actually refuting it. Either you have the data or you do not. If you believe that those credible sources are out there, the burden lies on you to find them or to concede that you have no data and that your beliefs are based on something other than actual facts.

I'll wait here until you get back. Oh, but I'll give you a hint: three important words here are "peer-reviewed journals." That's where the members of the vile APA publish their opinions; I'm sure your credible sources do, too.

_________________

Clearly



If you really have a burning desire to debate the topic with me, then pm me or im me.

_________________

The only burning desire I have is to see the data you claim I'm ignoring.

Feel free to PM it to me.

_________________

I don't get why Gay Marriage is so opposed or why Catholics consider it a sin(I'm a CATHOLIC and I'm saying this). Let 'em do what they want. Who cares?

-My 2 cents.

_________________

The Catholic Church does not view homosexuals as sinners, they view homosexual acts as sin.

_________________

Everything I've ever said or wanted to say in defense of gay marriage has already been put into a beautiful essay by someone else right here.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Don't forget the direct quote from the oath that immigrants from Ellis Island had to take when coming to America, a supposedly country, "So help me God." I, myself, am a Christian, but freedom of speech is a great thing! Immigrants who were another religion shouldn't have had to take an oath justifying their belief in God to go to a country where they were allowed to worship freely! It might as well not be free at all if you have to be a believer in God to be let in! This is majorly swerving off-topic, so I'll [/i]

_________________

Let people do what they want. I don't see what it's going to do to anyone. Sure, it's going to weird people out, but nobody should care that much.

_________________
NOT A SIGNATURE!

Ok, here is a perspective from a Theology Major at a Christian College:

First off when the Bible says "A man should not lay with another man" In the Apostle Paul's time homosexuality was purly sexual and was intended to be an insult to try to prove that women were weaker in that time period. So in order to really apply scripture to this debate you need to contextualize it and match it up historically. Furthermore doesn't it also say "if your hand sins chop it off..." if your gonna be literal with the bible, then everytime your hand did something wrong you should have chopped it off corect? (I'm just saying that as an example, don't go chopping your hand off, lol) Thirdly it says in Matthew 7:1-4 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye..."
What makes us so perfect that we can truly judge someone's sin when even our own lives is full of it. It also says in the bible as the SECOND GREATEST COMMAND "Love your neighbor as yourself" so are you willing to defile that command by condemning someone's actions and not loving them. I am for same sex marraige as long as its true love and not lust and yes I am a Christian

Sorry for the long post hehe.

I don't know about the whole insult to women thing. I highly doubt that they really thought about it. I also don't know how you can say that is was purely sexual at that time, since I don't think you were around and I don't know that it was very well recorded.

When the Bible refers to your hand sinning, it wasn't saying that every time you made a mistake you should dismember yourself. It was saying that if something causes you to sin, and you can't overcome it, get rid of it – even if it's an integral part of you. Such as selfish desires or lust or even your hands. Because everything on this earth – even our own bodies – are nothing compared to eternity. This lifetime lasts only an instant.

It is true that we should not judge people, because we too are sinful. But noticing evil in others is not judging, unless you condemn them for it. You should instead take note of the sin and try to help them overcome it.

Condemning a certain harmful behavior in others isn't unloving. It's actually more loving than ignoring such behavior. You should look at the kind of love we humans feel for ourselves. Often we may think ourselves very nice people. But when we do wrong, we may get angry or frustrated with ourselves, and we try to cease such behavior. Even if it means making taking happiness away from ourselves. That is how we should love others.

_________________
You're a moron if you think I'm not.

Osiris:

While I certainly appreciate your education, I am speaking not as a theology student in a Christian college, but as a Master of Divinity from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and as a pastor of two churches.

As I demonstrated in another thread, if you know that someone is engaging in something that is harmful to them, then you are under obligation to intervene. This includes such things as one's faith and one's morality. From Scripture, we have very good reason to believe that homosexual behavior is dangerous to one's eternal destiny, and we are doing nothing but acting on that impulse that directs us to warn. By speaking the warning, I am not judging, but merely acting as a messenger. I am not in God's place to judge, but as a pastor, I am authorized to act as God's messenger. And if God's Word condemns certain ideas and practices, then I am obligated by my office as minister to convey that message, even as I am also obligated to proclaim forgiveness of sins through the sacrificial death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I would like to distinguish the difference between regulation and hyperbole. For the Lord to say that a man should not lie with another man is a regulation, a statement about the way things should be from his perspective. When Jesus says to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand, he is engaging in hyperbole; he is wishing to stress the extreme importance of us human beings in learning to control ourselves in the way we think and the way we behave. Rather than offering a contradictory argument against our morality, the passage you sited actually undergirds the importance of living the way God intended us to.

Furthermore, I would suggest you examine that Matthew 7 passage a bit more closely. Jesus is not telling his listeners to never confront sinful behavior, but rather that we must first confront sinful behavior within ourselves first. This is why he says, in v. 5, "First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." For example, it does me no good to confront homosexuality if I myself am a pr0n addict.

However, if you would please read Matthew 18:15-19, you'd see that Jesus does in fact want us to confront sinful behavior. And for a specific purpose: "If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." In other words, the confrontation is to be done in a loving, gentle way; but it is still to be done.

Let me encourage you, Osiris, that as you continue your studies, to more carefully consider how it is that we are to show that love and yet, at the same time, remain faithful to what God has told us in his Word. While I would agree that we need to act in love, I do not agree that this means we can safely ignore what God has commanded us.

I am against homosexual marriage for this reason: marriage, at least in my own religious tradition, is a sexual union blessed and sanctified by God's presence. Yet God has over and over again told us that he disapproves of homosexual behavior. How, then, can we expect him to sanctify a union that he has already said he does not condone? Now, don't get me wrong: I also believe it is equally wrong for the man going through a midlife crisis to suddenly decide to leave his wife and children to marry a prettier, younger woman.

And I do not doubt you are a Christian, Osiris. I just think you need to consider this issue a little more in depth.

_________________

Homosexuality has been positively correlated with unborn children being subjected to the wrong hormones prior to birth. While when I say that, I don't mean to assert that homosexuality is never the result of misguided pychology, I do nevertheless believe that in the mass majority of all cases, it is a result of flawed, but inherent biological harmonics.

As it does not really hurt anyone, I cannot fathom why it should be deemed immoral. You can cite definitive scripture declaring it wrong, but such scripture does not provide us with reasons why, and in the end, I have much less respect for the anti-gay movement, then I do for the pro-life movement. In the later circumstance, we have a group which merely carries a broader defenition of valuable life then I do, but in the former, we have people basing arguements on abstractions, that in the end outright defy the achievment of human happieness. I shall simplify: There is no decent secuar arguement against homosexuality.

From scripture, you have good reason to believe that homosexual behaviour is dangerous. That doesn't mean the people practicing it have reason to believe it, if they do not accept your scripture as true. Remember that they "know" what they are doing is not harmful as much as you "know" that it is. How then can anyone tell which is the real truth?

_________________

I'll grant you this: there's no gaurantee that convincing anyone of anything will ever be easy. But does that in itself eliminate the responsibility to try?

There's plenty of smokers out there that don't believe that cigarettes are as dangerous as they are. My mom used to try to tell my step-dad that all the time, but he would never listen. And now he's having to undergo chemotherapy for lung and bone cancer. He used to always say that, since he was going to die anyway, he might as well enjoy life; but now his life is being cut short in a very horrible, painful way. Now, after all these years, he wishes he had listened to mom.

_________________

Spiritual beliefs aren't like that, though. You can show the consequences of a harmful habit like smoking, but you can't show someone who followed a certain lifestyle, and then show what happened to them after death. And smoking is not like homosexuality because it is an active choice. I know this thread has already been through this part of the debate, but you can't argue that homosexuality is an active choice. The desicion to start smoking is conscious, but no one ever says that they decided to become gay.
In essence, what I'm trying to say is that maybe you do have an obligation to help people who are harming themselves, but in a situation like this I don't believe you can judge whether or not people are hamring themselves at all.

_________________

I respect the fact that some people are religious. I have no religion myself, but the idea that others do doesn't bother me. I've always respected that, so please don't think that I'm bashing anyone here.

What I want to say is that, while you may believe in the Bible and in what it has to say on the subject of homosexuality (and any other subject that's discussed here, for that matter), not everyone does. Trying to convince non-religious people that an idea is right or wrong by quoting the Bible doesn't really do anything. Does that make sense? I just mean that morality (in the religious sense) means nothing to non-religious people. Using the Bible to support your own beliefs and to explain why you think the way you do is fine, but it's not necessarily going to change any minds.

Anyway, that's that. I hope I haven't offended anyone in saying that, and I ask that those users who are religious respect the fact that I'm not, just as I respect the fact that they are.

_________________

Actually, you might want to note that the reason I posted at all was in response to Osiris' unique theological perspective, based on his being a student of theology. As a Master of Divinity, I felt compelled to offer my own theological perspective, based on my own seminary training.

Believe me, I do recognize the difficulties of communicating my faith in a world of people who do not even recognize the divine authority of Scripture.

_________________