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

Your honest opinion on homosexuality
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=5638		 Page 16 of 18
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:49 am ]
Post subject: 
TrogdorTSL wrote:
There are things called mortal sins, and there are things called...well i forget what the name for lesser sins is, and i dont have time to look it up right now... but anyways, there are different degrees of sinning.


I believe you're thinking of mortal sins and venial sins which, unless I'm mistaken, are wholly Catholic concepts. Interestingly, the use of contraceptives, at least according to Wikipedia, is considered a mortal sin.
Author:  TrogdorTSL [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:56 am ]
Post subject: 
yes, well i am a Catholic...

venial! ugh. I should have remembered that...

I am very much against the use of contraception, and i'm not at all surprised that its considered mortal. but thats a bit off subject... maybe i'll start a thread...
Author:  Kittie Rose [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:13 am ]
Post subject: 
I dislike the binary concept of sin as it's pretty insane, as it's plainly obvious that some things hurt people more than others. Didymus' explanation makes a lot of sense. I think I'm going to use that bible passage against this extremely nutty over the top dude I know who takes everything entirely literally. Which is a shame, because he could be a nice guy if he wasn't a bit mentally unbalanced and thinking hackers were after his friends computer the whole time.
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:17 am ]
Post subject: 
The binary "sin is sin" concept I have is my main argument against people who talk about how horrible gays are..

You know, I REALLY hate how some people talk about how horrible others are when they don't have it together themselves.... They're like the religious equivalent of Joan Rivers..
Author:  Kittie Rose [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:20 am ]
Post subject: 
The "Sin is sin" argument is one of the main one used against gays, as it equates homosexual acts with murder.
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:30 am ]
Post subject: 
Christmas Rose wrote:
The "Sin is sin" argument is one of the main one used against gays, as it equates homosexual acts with murder.


Amazing how that works...

I use it to equate the gossip and finger pointing some do with homosexuality (if it is even a sin..)

Turn it around... Homosexuality MAY be the same as murder, but so is gossip.
Use it against them!
LOL
Author:  TrogdorTSL [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:57 am ]
Post subject: 
thats why you should never judge anybody. all we are trying to decide is whether it is a sin or not. I believe it is, but I dont judge people based on whether they are gay or not. everybody sins...except Jesus didn't, but that's another story...

So if you judge people as "bad" just because they're gay, then thats unfair. you shouldnt be judging people on one sin, because everybody sins...

All we're talkinga bout is whether its a sin or not...which we've seemed to agree on the fact that it is...
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:12 am ]
Post subject: 
TrogdorTSL wrote:

So if you judge people as "bad" just because they're gay, then thats unfair. you shouldnt be judging people on one sin, because everybody sins...

That's, more or less, my entire point..

Actually, it's more like "Judge not, lest ye be judged", still, either way, those doing the judging are not any better than those they are judging..
Author:  TrogdorTSL [ Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:36 am ]
Post subject: 
and thats also my thoughts. I think its wrong to judge people by wether they are gay or not. just because being gay is a sin, doesnt make gay people bad. Its not liek i dont talk to people just because they're gay. i never judge, and the only thing i'm trying to prove is that its a sin and it is wrong to do it. everybody sins though. so why judge?

toastpaint.
Author:  DeathlyPallor [ Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
and thats also my thoughts. I think its wrong to judge people by wether they are gay or not. just because being gay is a sin, doesnt make gay people bad. Its not liek i dont talk to people just because they're gay. i never judge, and the only thing i'm trying to prove is that its a sin and it is wrong to do it. everybody sins though. so why judge?


I wish more Christian people would keep this in mind. I mean, if they are going to so deeply scrutinize homosexuals... why don't they highly scrutinize the waitstaff at Red Lobster for giving people shellfish (it's a sin to eat shellfish) or seamstresses who use two different kind of fabrics?
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I wish more Christian people would keep this in mind. I mean, if they are going to so deeply scrutinize homosexuals... why don't they highly scrutinize the waitstaff at Red Lobster for giving people shellfish (it's a sin to eat shellfish) or seamstresses who use two different kind of fabrics?


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.
Author:  Jenny [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:19 am ]
Post subject: 
TrogdorTSL wrote:
the only thing i'm trying to prove is that its a sin and it is wrong to do it.

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.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:23 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Jenny [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:28 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:43 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Jenny [ Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:53 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  ilocano [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:24 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Evin290 [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:27 am ]
Post subject: 
TrogdorTSL wrote:
and thats also my thoughts. I think its wrong to judge people by wether they are gay or not. just because being gay is a sin, doesnt make gay people bad. Its not liek i dont talk to people just because they're gay. i never judge, and the only thing i'm trying to prove is that its a sin and it is wrong to do it. everybody sins though. so why judge?

toastpaint.


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...

;)
Author:  Kittie Rose [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:32 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Evin290 [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Kittie Rose wrote:
Nobody has provided any single good reason why homosexuality should be considered a sin.
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.

Kittie Rose wrote:
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.

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 :p )

Anyway, what I'm really trying to say is: why can't we all just be friends?
Author:  Kittie Rose [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:57 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Evin290 [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:07 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Mikes! [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Musachan [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:16 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Evin290 [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:35 am ]
Post subject: 
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...
Author:  Kittie Rose [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:41 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Jenny [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:33 am ]
Post subject: 
i agree with mu... burn teh labels

heh heh... fire is fun... :mrgreen:
Author:  fruiterian [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:31 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Quote:
I wish more Christian people would keep this in mind. I mean, if they are going to so deeply scrutinize homosexuals... why don't they highly scrutinize the waitstaff at Red Lobster for giving people shellfish (it's a sin to eat shellfish) or seamstresses who use two different kind of fabrics?


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.

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.
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
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.
Page 16 of 18 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/