Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Wow...long thread...and I'm a newbie here, so please forgive me for not reading the full thread and instead just jumping right in with my thoughts, be them reiterations of someone else or not.

First off, I myself am a homosexual, and I can attest to those people who say it's not a matter of choice or will power. I tried for years, trying everything I could think of, to make myself straight...but I finally accepted my homosexuality, though I still craved for some magic button that would change that aspect of myself....that is, until I learned that I shouldn't have to feel ashamed of myself. I never chose who I feel attracted to. If we could all have that choice, then adultery wouldn't be a problem, because married people would simply "turn off" their attraction to everyone in the world except their spouses. Moreover, my homosexuality goes much deeper than simple sexual attraction--there's a strong emotional attraction. To put it simply, I feel much more comfortable and natural with the idea of having a close, intimate relationship with another man than I do with a woman. It's just how I was programmed.

I'm glad to see the maturity I have seen with this topic, and that so many are willing to agree to disagree. This is where too many fail, leading to how those "holier-than-thou" types become born. I think a huge problem in America these days is that there are a select few groups that represent an extremely small (and extremely narrow-minded) percentage of the population who happen to be shouting the loudest, grabbing the most media attention, and therefore setting the mold for stereotypes on all sides of the playing field. The extreme right-wing Fundies, such as Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps, are putting up a show of "I know better than you, my God is better than yours, and I'm just plain better than you, so nyah nyah," which is extremely callous and immature, to say the least. On the other side of the spectrum, however, are people who claim erroneously that all Christians hate gays and "accepting gays" means to completely love the idea of homosexuality and homosexuals flaunting their sexuality in broad public.

Needless to say, the more people believe one stereotype or the other (depending on where they themselves stand), the worse the situation becomes because it makes it harder and harder for people to agree, because we're all caught up in wanting to throttle the other side for being immovably prejudice. It's pretty much the same reason why prayer in schools is still such a hot-button issue.

The fact is, of course, there are so many who are willing to live and let live, to believe one thing and allow others to believe something completely differently without throwing a huge hissy fit on a soapbox. This, I believe, is ultimately the answer, but if the media keeps concentrating solely on the extremes, it looks as if this battle between right and left wings will continue to heat itself up until it reaches some sort of (probably [but hopefully not] rather destructive) explosion.

So what's the answer? I don't know myself, but I think for starters, people need to stop getting so wrapped up in details. A huge way that the holier-than-thou types keep using the Bible or Koran or Torah or whatever religious text to promote their own hatred, bigotry, and prejudice is by scrutinizing the little details--one or two passages from an entire chapter, from an entire book, from an entire volume of books (e.g. the Bible)--and using it (twisting it?) to serve their own innate urge to be "better" than someone else.

I just wonder what it is that causes people to act this way, to actively seek out others that they can put in the limelight just to say how much "better" they are by comparison. Maybe I'm just crazy for believing that ultimately, no one is overall better than anyone else, even if one person may be better at a certain thing (such as sports or history) than someone else.

I think religion is a wonderful thing, because despite the wars it has evidently caused, despite its improper use to promote personal, often greedy agendas, I think that religion has a great value in our lives as human beings...at least, when treated from a standpoint that it gives us guidelines more than exact facts.

Facts are science, and science is certainly not religion. We like the answers to everything, to control everything, because we fear the unknown, and when we don't control something, we can't predict what it will do...and we have a tendency to expect the worst of any situation. But we don't have the answers to everything, and I doubt we ever will. I doubt our minds are capable of comprehending every last detail in the known (and unknown) universe.

Sorry if this was long-winded and a bit off-topic, but I think it was necessary to show where I was coming from in all of this.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Because Christians don't follow the Law of Moses.

But you seem like an intelligent fellow, so I'm sure you knew that.

As an aside, how about you let people decide what they believe in? You can't decide for them.

Gay people don't "do" anything. They can't help being what they are... and you shouldn't make it sound like they have to. I can't help being who I am, orientation-wise, any more than they can "help" being attracted to the same sex. It's purely biological/psychological. They have no say in the matter. They are who they are. I think trying to convince someone not to be gay is like, trying to tell someone not to be themselves. Same goes for assuming that being gay is something you "Do" and not something you "are."

You can paint a horse with stripes, but the horse still isn't a zebra. Wash off them stripes, I say. It's better to live life as who you really are. And you shouldn't criticize those who are brave enough to walk around stripe-free.

And another thing... even I can't escape the tendencies of society to treat gays "differently." This is evidenced in the way I wrote this post. In the end, I can't speak for anyone who is homosexual. This is just how I percieve it all. And that perception will always be skewed from an outside point of view. And I feel like I am making this into a way bigger deal than it should be.

_________________
I draw. Lots.

There is a distinct difference between those who are homosexual in nature and those who commit homosexual acts. I believe that for most cases, the former is not a choice, but the latter ALWAYS is.

see, that is where it gets grey for me. i really don't care how people decide to live their life in the bedroom, so long as it stays in the bedroom. but i can see where religion would affect people's views on that particular topic.

alls i'm saying is that claiming that being homosexual is a sin is just silly. sins are actions, homosexuality is a state of being. the two don't mesh in my mind. just that part. not the bedroom stuff. i don't wanna even go there... i feel it is none of my business.

_________________
I draw. Lots.

So what you're saying is that two homosexual men engaging in sodomy in the bedroom is fine, but the same two men kissing in public is not?

I'm just trying to understand.

well i mean the more intimate acts... should stay intimately in the bedroom. But there is a time and place for everything obviously. I mean, if two people, gay or not, are kissing in the middle of downtown that's kind of rude if you ask me. On a porch, ok... that's like, your house... I mean, as long as you aren't living in a house that is 2 feet from mainstreet there aren't a lotta people around. On a bench in a park at night, ok... there aren't a lotta people around. In a restaurant? Not ok, there's tons of people around. I mean, I figure the same rules apply to everyone. It's common sense. You don't start making out in the middle of class no matter how you are sexually oriented.

_________________
I draw. Lots.

I read the first page....

Is there anyone who just doesn't care?

Or should I say, are ambivalent to the whole issue?

I honestly do not care, unless a guy is grabbing my rear end in a dancehall.

But saying that homosexuality is a sin is in essence judging.

my good friend the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition tells me that sin is "A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate" or "Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong"

The latter strikes me as a sort of JUDGING statement. Telling someone that what they do is shameful, deplorable or utterly wrong, seems to me to be JUDGING them. Maybe you should let God be the judge, and not take it on yourself. If Homosexuality is actually a sin, then they'll rot in hell or whatever you like. But despite whether or not it is, why not give the folks their peace? Let them live in this life and be judged in the next. If you go around telling people they're sinning, you might as well be telling them they're bad.

And what's the point anyway? To discourage people from being gay? Or to make people feel bad about who they are? Or what? It's alright to be morally opposed to something, but why be morally opposed to something that can't be helped or stopped? What's the use? (see the first definition of sin.) If you're morally opposed to abortion, that's all fine and dandy. You can try to stop that. But homosexuality in general? Why bother being morally opposed?

It's okay to believe what you believe, but please, don't claim you're not "judging" someone who you're claiming is a "sinner" for being who they are.

Sorry for the rant. Needed to get that out. Just in an angry mood today... Probably because I had an hour and a half exam today, most of which I was just sitting, disassembling and reassembling my pen. I never knew this, but It's a promotional pen for a recycling plant AND it's made of recycled plastic! That's clever.... I need sleep...

_________________

My point exactly. People want to have an opinion so bad they forget the whole point of having an opinion.

Saying homosexuality is wrong is still judging homosexuals, as they practice. You can't truly cut a line between sin and sinner. Nobody has provided any single good reason why homosexuality should be considered a sin. I don't think you get how debate and discussion works, but you can't use circular reasoning. I could just find some 1000 year old text written about fish and interpret it as meaning as being that all asian people should be slaves, and anything else would be offensive to my religion. You have to draw a common-sense line somewhere.

It's your choice what to believe. People always pick and choose. There really aren't any excuses for intolerance.

_________________
CLOCK

Another problem, though, is the ambiguousness of the term "sin." Another dictionary defines it as "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God." By that definition, those who choose to interpret the Bible in a specific way have a right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. It's fair enough to say that, but to say "it's a sin, but I'm not judging them" is simply ridiculous. To say someone is a "sinner" is judging them.


I agree with your point, but the interpretation of a few Bible verses to mean that homosexuality is wrong isn't as far-fetched as you may think. It may be odd, to some people, but to others the word of the Bible is simple fact.

Don't think I'm contradicting myself, as I firmly believe that people who assert homosexuality is "wrong" are nuts. But, despite my opinion, I understand where they're coming from - a long tradition of belief (as is where I come from, although mine is slightly different.) That's what's important to some people, and I respect that. That's what's really important, though: understanding beliefs you don't believe. Because if you don't, you'll just come across as being an ignorant bigot or a heartless, misguided fool. We can't afford to have other people thinking that of us. No one should think that way of anyone (unless it's true of course )

Anyway, what I'm really trying to say is: why can't we all just be friends?

_________________

Most of the people who assert homosexuality is wrong(well, seamusz is the one that comes to mind) never have anything solid to back their opinions, and are also very reactionary, despite the fact that they're not the ones being truly discriminated against.

Most people "for" homosexuality have solid and sound reasoning and most don't get too angry(apart from frustrated lil' old me) or resort to begging the question.

_________________
CLOCK

I myself try to stay in the gray area for most contraversial topics. I rarely find myself being so immersed in my beliefs that I can't stop ranting. And that's the state I'm currently in! I usually find a happy medium where I can side with points on both sides, but on homosexuality I am one-sided. It sort of upsets me, in an odd way. I feel that I'm right, and I hate being so confident in mere opinions.

_________________

I'm down with gays. I don't see any problem with 'em whatsoever, so I treat them like I would treat anyone else. There are a lot more important things to do than worry about who people love. Y'know, stuff like class war and reading good books. I don't understand how people can feel so strongly against something innate; homophobes are on the same level as sexists or racists in my book, but I won't punch anyone in the head for their beliefs.

I would think I would be okay with homosexuals ... seeing as how I've dated a number of them. I'm actively bisexual, and have been since I was 12 or so. I don't let it label me, but I'm not about to hide it, either. But the first person to say 'oh, that bi-girl?' at work got a bloody nose for his rudeness soooo ... heheh.

I don't like labels. I'm not a freakin' soup can.

_________________
The Mu is NOT dead!

Sorry to stray off topic, but I just figured out something.

By forbidding homosexuals from marrying, we're forcing them to commit double the sin. For people who see sex before marriage a sin AND people who see homosexuality as a sin, we're inherently making them do twice the sin for the price of one.

That could be an incentive for disallowing them to marry or it could be one for allowing them to. Why not let the folks commit less sin?

I'm not accusing anyone of using the former train of thought, but it just popped into my head...

_________________

I think the real problem is that you're forcing anyone on anything.

Even if they had all the legal rights they're asking for, they're still forced socially out of certain situations.

_________________
CLOCK

i agree with mu... burn teh labels

heh heh... fire is fun...

_________________
I draw. Lots.

The text of the Old Testament is still followed some I do believe (I mean, Genesis is the first book in the Bible and look at ID), and it does say homosexuality is immoral in the book of Leviticus, 20:13 here. Leviticus is the book that outlines all the rules that the ancient israelites had to follow. Chapter 20, from what it appears, deals with all the sexual sins one could commit and chapter 11 (this is the fish passage) deals with all the possible adbominations in the eyes of the lord. The thing is, the first quote is often used by fundamentalists to justify their stance.

There is still the story of Sodom and Gommorah, but that I'm not nearly as familiar with so I won't discuss it.

I used to believe that if people just allowed themselves to let others live the way they want to everyone would be happy, but with deeper thought and a greater education, I don't think it's possible to reach a state where everyone agrees with each other on such severe moral topics.

Personally? I don't mind. I'm not a lesbian myself but I've know plenty of people with varying sexual orientations, I'm familiar with the continuum of gender and orientation.

The story of Saddam (oops!) and Gomorrah doesn't really count, since the Scriptures clearly state that the destruction of that region was because the people hated God and were excessively cruel (Ezek 16:49).

As for Old Testament dietary regulations:
As I have already stated numerous times in this thread and others, they are irrelevant for non-Jewish Christians. Acts 15:29 clearly states that Gentile Christians are not strictly bound by the OT dietary regulations, so long as what we eat isn't sacrificed to false gods, strangled, or bloody. But Christians are prohibited from engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior, both in the Acts 15 passage and elsewhere in the New Testament. Therefore, arguments from relaxed dietary regulations are not applicable.

_________________

Mind you, I've never read the Bible: but why are those against homosexuality ocassionally using that quote from Leviticus then? As far as I know the Bible doesn't delve too deeply into the sin of homosexuality and the sexual sins of the new testament have to do a lot with adultery. Is there anything in the new testament condemning homosexuality? Is there anything saying follow all the rules of the old testament except for those on dietary restrictions? As I said, I'm not incredibly familiar with the Bible. I just find Christianity fascinating, especially fundamentalism and evangelism. I disagree with a lot of how things are today, but I can tolerate such interpretations.

(I want to read the Bible someday, but I can't find a cheap paperback of the KJV. Do they exist anymore? O_o)

Still, to stay a little on topic, homosexuality is not bad in my book.

Yep. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, for one.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." [emphasis mine]

This has been translated in several ways in the different versions, but here's the KJV:

"abusers of themselves with men." Or the New King James: "sodomites".

Either way, pretty obvous that Paul is condemning homosexuals.



You should be able to pick one up in any Christian bookstore.

Or also try The Message//Remix, an awesome paraphrase of the Bible in everyday English.

_________________

Hey, that's cool. I always wanted to read one of those everyday English Bibles. T'would be a good read.

I would, but I don't think that Christianity's for me, so I'd be reading the Bible from a scholarly perspective, making the King James the best one to read. You'd think that a place like Barnes and Nobles would have just a simple Bible, but last time I went they were all fancy leather bound ones and study bibles. (I feel so ignorant in this discussion--I may know more about Pat Robertson and fundamentalist Christian colleges than the average American but all I know of the actual fundamentals of the faith is from secondary sources.)

Mehhh... I was raised Catholic but that doesn't exactly encourage you to peruse the Bible for your own. The only Bible in our house is one from a Penn and Teller stageshow.

Once again, another quick question on homosexuality in the Bible: is there anything condemning it in the Gospels (in one of Jesus's speeches or whatnot...) or just the secondary new testament books? (excuse me for possibly bad vocabulary and knowledge. I know I'm slightly idiotic here.)

Jesus himself NEVER said ANYTHING about homosexuality (at least in the Bible as it stands today). In fact, anything in the New Testament condemning homosexuality was written by one man: Paul. He wrote a number of books that are in the Bible, and since he was a murderer before becoming a "man of God," I would say that it is very likely that his character would be not entirely stable--even after converting. Therefore, his opinions that he expresses--such as his homophobia--should be taken with extreme caution, IMO.

And for a bit more on Jesus--if you can find it (I wish I could), I've heard that one of the books that King James removed from the Bible during his editing and retranslating contained a story of Jesus himself presiding over the handfasting of a gay male couple, then blessing the couple afterwards. Now THAT would make for a lovely piece of evidence in defense of Christ-approved homosexuality.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I've heard that, and I've also heard that was just something started by people wanting to cause trouble.
Truth is, it doesn't really matter to me. IF homosexuality is a sin, it will be dealt with by God (meaning that anything that mankind does to homosexuals is essentially meaningless, so why persecute?), and if it is not a sin, then why persecute people who are doing nothing wrong.

In short, I'm-a forgo taking a stand either way on homosexuality and let God deal with it however He pleases.

I voted against Kentucky's "marriage defined as being between one man and one woman" bill in 2004. I don't think it's my place to say. Like with free speech, if I start telling people how to live their lives, they'll have the right to tell me how to live my life.

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

Okay, here's an interesting outgrowth of recognizing gay relationships as equal to heterosexual ones. There are roommates of the same sex applying for work benefits (and others) afforded to gay couples. Now HR staffs are saying that you need to be in a "committed relationship" with the person you apply for benefits with... how do you define that?

It's an interesting conundrum... I suppose in the end companies will just to have to give benefits to anyone who wants them. A possible negative outcome.

Now, to explain my position on the issue of homosexual marriage: Logically I see little to nothing wrong with it. If two consenting adults want to be recognized as legal partners with the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples, okay. I do not see how this harms me, logically.

However, I believe that God has ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman. That's it. He has created us so that only males procreating with females can create life. Only heterosexual marriages have any chance of being recognized in the hereafter.

With this light, I do not know why some people have an innate sexual attraction to their same sex. I do not believe that all homosexuals become that way through certain behaviors, but I believe some do. I do not hate those who are homosexual. They, like everyone else on the planet, are my brothers and sisters, and deserve respect, kindness, and love, which I seek to give everyone.

I'm not willing to debate my beliefs, however, as there is no logical way (that I can see) to do so. There are other examples of things God commands that are not logical to our knowledge right now, Abraham being commanded to kill Isaac being one of them. I believe that one day I will know the reason, but I do not now.

I especially respect people like PianoManGidley, who fight for their rights in a respectful, optimistic way that encourages all to see his point of view. I've learned a lot from his posts, and in no way has he influenced me to think that his rights are better than they are.

That is all.

Well, 1 Corinthians mentions it, as Douglas pointed out. But there isn't anything in the Gospels about homosexuality. That doesn't mean that it's not important, though; the Letters in the NT are still part of God's Word.

_________________

And God's Word is God-breathed, and Jesus is God, so basically, Jesus is saying that homosexuality is wrong.

And as for Paul being a murderer and possibly unstable, it just shows the power that God has; He can even use someone like Paul to further His plan for the world.