Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

People don't actually choose to be gay. People who say that are ignorant.

I completely and wholeheartedly agree to whatever the heck you just said.

_________________

"That is just really bad"? What makes it worse than any other sin?

By the way, I hate it whenever somebody says "You're going to burn in Hell" for this or that. (I know you didn't say "you", so it's not meant to be taken personally, but still.) How can anybody be 100% certain that Heaven and Hell even exist, let alone that a certain person will go to one and another certain person will go to the other? Sure, the Bible says they exist, but so many people believe in the Bible without really having any reason why. They just believe because their parents did or some other environmental thing, not because they put many, many hours of long, hard thought into it and decided that Christianity is the logical choice. Some Christians do put many hours into thinking about it. Many don't. I think the sort of Christian that I admire most is not the very devout Christian, but the one who always has some kind of doubt about his faith but believes in it regardless. That's because that indicates to me that he at least keeps thinking about it, willing to acknowledge possibilities other than what he believes.

"You're going to Hell" is also something that a lot of people don't like to hear. Now, you might think that of course they don't like to hear it, but they need to. Well, not me. You're never going to get me to convert to a religion by telling me that I'm going to Hell for not doing so. Whether or not they hold that belief, anybody who tells me that is less likely to win me as a convert.



They don't want to be gay, they are gay. I'm puzzled why so many people are convinced it's a choice. In fact, your very statement argues that it is not a choice: the logical conclusion is that, if it were a choice, most people wouldn't do it. Things aren't quite that simple, of course, or that it's not a choice would be widely accepted by everyone by now, but it's clear that nobody is in any position to say with 100% certainty that it's a choice. Is being straight a choice? If you're repulsed by the idea of sex with someone of your own sex, it's not exactly hard to be straight, is it? OK, so what if instead you're repulsed by the opposite sex? How easy would it be to be straight then? Even if you can't put yourself in the shoes of a gay person, you can at least try to imagine being in his shoes.

What is a choice is not how you feel, but acting upon your behavior. Well, why that happens is easy to explain:

1. Not everybody is a Christian, or even a believer in any religion, so they don't care what the Bible says. I wouldn't describe myself as "gay" (though certainly not "100% straight"), but I fall into this group.
2. Some people don't believe in the interpretation that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It's not as clear-cut an issue that some people make it.
3. For some of gay Christians who believe it is a sin, they still cannot resist giving in to their natural impulses. You may as well ask why people sin at all. It's what people do. "We're born sinners", says the Bible.

Well, that's all I have to say for now. Perhaps I'll hemorrhage another post later. In conclusion, whatever you believe, think about it. No point in believing something you haven't thought out, is there?

- Kef

yeah, uhm. in my usualy blunt R&P way, i'll just say this: no 13 year old kid with acne, and friend trouble, and hair starting to grow in creepy places, and voicecracks, and problems at home, and bullies, is going to go, "dude you know what? i'll be gay. that will totally not make my life more confusing or scary or anything." therefore, being gay isn't a choice.

seriously, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, but the way they're treated...nobody would choose that for themselves.

Okay, yeah, its really, really, freaking disgusting. This freaking gay dude was doing...."Inappropriate Acts" behind the school dumpster with his boyfriend....Then he came up to the place where me and my friends hang out after school and showed us.... "The stains".....Funk gross.

_________________

um?

what is with me not understanding what people are saying lately? it makes me feel like i'm taking crazy pills. but that said...[s]i don't think[/s] i know for sure that homosexuals do not have the market cornered on sexual misconduct.

Alright, knock it off... PMG created this as a serious attempt to address a serious issue.
COLA, Yeltsenic, take that talk elsewhere.

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

Well, on a forum like this it's a little out of place to be talking about sex acts and taking Rick Santorum's name in vain in that particular... Savage Love kind of way.

To add something to the topic...
Since no one can be in the head of another person, and since there's a wealth of tiny bits of evidence that seem to add up to mean "gay gene" (though nothing conclusive yet, sure), I'm inclined to take people's word for it if they say that being gay isn't something they've chosen. If that's the case, then in a secular society they should be allowed to enter into whatever kind of relationship they want. The only place it gets dicey is with adoptions. I don't know what to think about that, though kids raised by gay parents seem to be turning out alright, and we do need more people to adopt...

Churches, of course, shouldn't be forced to act like it's OK with them when the Bible does pretty clearly and in several places declare it a sin. But this is also why you don't give religious organizations federal money.

It seems ridiculous how far people will go to restrict gays sometimes. For example, the amendment we just passed here in Virginia. The language is so vague that in a future time, under a different government, it could be used to arbitrarily stop any contractual agreement by people of the same sex. People say "that's ridiculous, no one would ever do that!" but you don't know that. Sloppy legislation is incredibly inconsiderate to future generations. (Me and 80% of my town voted against it, but we're the most pinko commie town in the state so that's not surprising)

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

It does not. That is, not clearly. The issue is a heck of a lot muddier than it looks at first, involving interpretations of Hebrew words and social context and stuff like that. Didymus and I had a somewhat extensive discussion about it a couple of years ago, where if I recall we were both ended up convinced that the other was "twisting" the words to suit our beliefs (which I feel was true on both our parts). I do think in any case it isn't clear, and it is perfectly reasonable to have doubts about what the 'offending' passages mean.

I do agree with the point itself: a church that believes it's a sin shouldn't be forced to act like it's OK. They should be forced to be civil about it, though. I think the Westboro Baptist Church -- the God Hates Fags guys with Fred Phelps -- is at the veeeeeeery edge of my threshold of tolerance, at best. (I hate them passionately, of course, but I'm talking about from a freedom of speech/religion perspective.)

- Kef

Well, I didn't realize there was a debate about that. I couldn't care less either way whether it's a sin or not, but homosexuality seems pretty definitely frowned upon in certain verses, in an unequivocal way. But of course I don't know the original Greek and its historical context and so on, and I've spent way long reading R&P already today to bother looking it up so I'll just say thanks for pointing that out, I'll look into that someday, and move along

I definitely agree with your last point.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Wait, where do you live? I thought I lived in the most pinko commie part of Va

Yeah, a large portion of my area voted against it as well. Personally, I didn't know much about the bill, so I couldn't make a decision. I still am thinking through this whole deal either way.

_________________

Charlottesville my good man
That 80% was the largest rejection of Proposed Amendment 1 out of any city or county in the state.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

If you'll look back earlier in this thread, I touched on this subject once again. I am convinced that the language involved does in fact condemn acts of homosexual behavior. The specific term used to describe homosexuality essentially means, "one who beds another man." I don't see how it could be clarified to mean anything different. I will point out, once again, that I'm only referring to the exact language involved, and not attempting to impose any presupposed meaning on the terminology.
Again, I apologize for the odd characters due to the Greek font not carrying over into HTML. The term used is arsenokoitai

I am aware that some modern scholars, uncomfortable with such distinct condemnation, are attempting to redefine the terms used, but I'm not convinced their arguments are valid. (I.e., they are engaging in eisegesis, not exegesis).

One such attempt focuses on the most common practice of homosexuality in the ancient world: a form of pedophilia. We do know this was a common practice in both Greece and Rome. However, the whole concept of an age of consent is a relatively new phenomenon, so I seriously doubt that the Scriptures are speaking directly to pedophilia vs. consensual homosexuality, but rather condemns homosexual behavior in general, without reference to age.

_________________

Well, I don't remember how exactly our discussion went, but there was still more to it than your post there. For instance, I believe we argued over what "detestible" means in Leviticus 18:22, and such. But I don't want to argue about it again right now...

And, of course, just because you're convinced doesn't mean that it's so clear that anybody who disagrees with your interpretation is being unreasonable. So there's at least some lack of clarity involved somewhere.

But let's get back on topic... we already had this discussion once.

- Kef

Moreover, in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul writes of those who practice homosexuality using two terms that border on vulgar, signifying the active partner and the passive partner. That's pretty clear.


Doesn't it seem ignorant to make blanket statements like this? How do you define gay? Homosexuality has traditionally been defined as someone who has sexual relations with someone of the same sex. If that is the case, then people have an enormous choice. But if it means someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex, then I agree, for the most part (though, for the record, I think it's due to psychological causes, not genetic ones).

I do not approve of homosexual sex, but I do have actively gay friends (and a few celibate friends attracted to the same sex); likewise, I don't think the Church should perform gay marriage ceremonies or approve of gay marriage, but I do think that society should allow for civil unions with benefits similar to those of marriage.

But I would contend that the lack of clarity is not in the text itself, or in the terminology used. I then have to ask the question: if the text is clear, and the terms are clear, then whence comes the unclarity?

But I will concede this: this discussion is not about the theology of homosexuality, but about political morality. I agree we need to move on.

_________________

My opinion is that the church need not approve of gay marriage in the context of religion. If a preacher, or even the whole church, doesn't want to marry a gay couple, that's perfectly fine. On the other hand, I don't think that should extend to law, because of separation of church and state. Suppose you're not even a Christian, but you still believe in marriage. Why would what the Bible says even matter in that case? So I don't think churches should campaign to get gay marriage legally banned, no matter what they believe.

Moreover, the separation of church and state tells me that the whole idea of "marriage" should be abolished from the law altogether. Giving straight people "marriage" and gay people "civil unions" sounds like a weak compromise. We know from segregation that "seperate but equal" is never equal. Just because this situation isn't as bad as segregation doesn't mean the lesson doesn't apply. A strong compromise would be having "civil unions" for all couples, and everybody should be happy. They won't be, because people aren't reasonable, but it'd be nice if we could do it that way.

- Kef

as to what Inverse said about discrimination laws (or lack thereof):
Maine was having that exact problem and got an amendment passed that would ban discrimination against gays in the way that discrimination against other nonwhites and nonmales is illegal (can't be fired for being gay, can't be denied an auto loan [don't think i'm joking, it was a real concern] for being gay, etc.)

It was a big win for our state. Unfortunately during the election 2 years ago when it happened, the opponents put out a ton of ads claiming the question was about marriage. which it did NOT provide for. Maine still only has civil unions for homosexuals. but the thing passed, and it was good.

Really? There are at least two other definitions that I can think of off the top of my head.

1. Happy, joyful, jovial. "We'll have a gay old time!" - The Flintstones.

2. Lame, uninteresting, stupid. "Man, that game is sooo gay!"

_________________

Yeah, it basically is just the attraction, not any particular act.

_________________

...What?

_________________
"Explain to me how drowning them would not ruin their date."

I figured out way to "cure" gays: hormone treatments! Clearly most people who are "naturally" gay have an imbalance of hormones, so that's why I think gays should have hormone treatments.

_________________

Do you have any idea of what that phrase sounds like to a gay person? Just because they're born that way, and because general society doesn't approve of it, doesn't mean it's a "disease". You might as well say we can "cure" non-white skin by some treatment to remove melanin. End racial discrimination: make everybody white!

I know that before on this forum I've said that I wouldn't mind if, in the future, everybody in the world were straight, because that would end discrimination against a group of people, and that's a good thing (although not without its own expense). But that doesn't mean that being gay is a problem. The problem is the people who think being gay is a problem in the first place. That's why I object to your post: because it seems to be from the point of view that being gay is what's undesirable, not the way that gay people are treated. It also bothers me that the way you said this was so enthusiastic, as if you think everything's so great now because we can get rid of homosexuality (at least you think -- I don't think hormone treatments will do the trick) and you want the whole world to know.

If you do indeed think homosexuality is inherently undesirable, OK, fine, we can debate about that, but... this isn't really the way to do it. This post had little to do with anything else discussed in the thread, and could even be considered borderline trolling. If you want to debate with us, that's fine, but please do so in an appropriate fashion.

- Kef

To me being gay isn't a good thing:Just like stealing, murdering, and being human. Hormone treatments are a way to fix a sin, but clearly murder, stealing, and being human can't be fixed. The way I see it being naturally gay is probably a hormonal imbalance and it should be classified as a medical condition. They treat you if you have a thyroid hormonal imbalance, so why not other kinds? Do you see my point?

_________________

You use the word 'sin'. Hypothetically, if I'm an atheist and I'm gay, what should I do then?



So then is it a medical condition only if it's against your religion? That would not make sense. Nor would applying religious law to medicine unilaterally for people who do not share that religion. If your objections to homosexuality are based only in religion, then it cannot be a "medical" condition.

- Kef

Um, wow. Do you even realize how offensive that sounds, Wes? You're basically putting homosexuality on par with theft and murder and saying that it's a disease... is there even any evidence that it's caused by a hormone imbalance anyway?

_________________
collect package; save adorable cat; you're really gullible.

If you had any idea how much comments like that anger me...

It can't be "cured," because it is not a disease. If you read the post about my cousin, you would see that. Besides there would be more detrimental effects than beneficial ones. Putting hormones into the body could cause side effects that severely harm the person.

_________________

I agree: Wes, if you want to debate this stuff, you have to do it in a less offensive manner. I'm not saying that you can't hold the point of view that you do, but you really need to be more careful about how you phrase things. We come here to have fun, not to get so incensed that we want to punch the other guy's @#!!* teeth out.

Again, please be a little more considerate, OK?

- Kef

No, I don't. Like the guys before me have said, homosexuality is not a disease. You treat it like it's a crime. I'd like you to explain how it's a "crime".

_________________

Wesstar, you should recognize that you're getting into fascist territory with this notion. Any time you start entertaining ideas about restricting the freedoms of others you are mentally inching towards tyranny. Isn't free will an essential Christian doctrine?

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!