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

Same-Sex Marriages
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=647		 Page 6 of 23
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Fhqwhgadshgnsdbkhsdabkfab wrote:
I think it's impossible to make a post on the R&P forum without someone saying something rude.


I hope you don't mean kef's post; he was simply responding, perhaps slightly rudely, to Tor Coolguy's extremely rude comment.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Fhqwhgadshgnsdbkhsdabkfab wrote:
because no one on this forum in polite, right?


Most of them are, just neither you nor I.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm almost always polite to people. I can be very rude to words, however.
Author:  AgentSeethroo [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah. What he said.

Just keep in mind that sticking a chicken up your butt does not make you feathery.


Was that right?

Anyway, back onto topic:

Do you think this issue is a real election-maker? I wonder how many gay people are completely p-o'd at the pres. right now...
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
fatpie wrote:
I thought this was interesting: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=6/3/2004


I thought it was typical, dull, and evading questions it implicitly raises. It also just tries to make this "agenda" and "movement" look bad and little else.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
AgentSeethroo wrote:
Do you think this issue is a real election-maker? I wonder how many gay people are completely p-o'd at the pres. right now...


I don't think this issue is going to have much of an effect, if any, on the election. Both candidates are avoiding it. Bush has nothing to gain at this point by condemning gay marriage. The people who hate gays enough for it to make or break their vote are already Bush supporters (and no, that's genuinely not a troll). Any gain he can get out of that he already got six months ago when it was an issue. And Kerry has little to gain by making gay marriage a campaign issue, either. The only candidate who's made a statement about it at all in the past 3 months is Cheney, who rather startlingly said that he believes all people who love eachother should be able to be married, and that it should be up to individuals and states. Which is about the least Darth Vader thing I've ever seen Cheney do. Of course, a couple weeks later at the RNC, when the whole Cheney family got up on stage for their photo op, Mary Cheney, Dick's lesbian daughter who was in fact in the crowd wasn't invited.
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
AgentSeethroo wrote:
Do you think this issue is a real election-maker? I wonder how many gay people are completely p-o'd at the pres. right now...


I don't know if it'll make elections. Iraq's a bigger issue to be sure; my grandfather is more or less an anti-gay bigot (on entirely non-religious grounds, at that) -- he once burst into tears because he misunderstood something I wrote and thought I was gay, heh. But it's apparent to me that he hardly considers it relevant to the election; he hated the war and my guess is he's going to vote for Kerry. If he doesn't, it's probably more out of loyalty to the Republican Party than to Bush.

Certainly a lot of gays think Bush is a nut, but I'm sure a lot of them did long before he proposed any kind of amendment. Gays tend not to be conservative, though of course that's only a generalization.

- Kef
Author:  AgentSeethroo [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cheney's stance on gay marriage makes me question a few things.

Do you think it's a problem if a pres. and vice pres. have drastically, and in this case, opposite views on an issue? I mean...if Cheney's speaking out against his boss's decision, what does that say about his trust in the rest of Bush's decisions?
Author:  racerx_is_alive [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 6:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
AgentSeethroo wrote:
Cheney's stance on gay marriage makes me question a few things.

Do you think it's a problem if a pres. and vice pres. have drastically, and in this case, opposite views on an issue? I mean...if Cheney's speaking out against his boss's decision, what does that say about his trust in the rest of Bush's decisions?


I think it's a good thing that they have different opinions on issues. I realize that this isn't as big (to the Bush campaign) as if Cheney were out saying "We made a mistake on Iraq", but at least they have a couple of viewpoints in discussions on policy. I don't think this is by itself a sign of deeper ideological splits over policies such as Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc. though.

On a sidenote, can you imagine the number of differences in ideas if the Kerry/McCain thing actually were to have panned out?
Author:  furrykef [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
AgentSeethroo wrote:
if Cheney's speaking out against his boss's decision


As far as I know, hardly any decision has been made. All I know is Bush is pushing an absurd admendment that has no hope in [heck] of passing. Nobody really cares about that.

- Kef
Author:  AgentSeethroo [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
AgentSeethroo wrote:
if Cheney's speaking out against his boss's decision


As far as I know, hardly any decision has been made. All I know is Bush is pushing an absurd admendment that has no hope in [heck] of passing. Nobody really cares about that.

- Kef


I was referring to his decision to push it.

Not a cop out answer, really, it's not!
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
You guys were right, I was cross the line and cross my own line.

I'ma go delete that now.
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Sep 18, 2004 12:57 am ]
Post subject: 
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote:
I'ma go delete that now.


You needn't regret words, even particularly ill-chosen words, if you realized your error. Just make it clear that you have realized your error.

- Kef
Author:  ooshmaster [ Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:16 am ]
Post subject: 
fatpie wrote:
Homosexuality is a problem because it is a mockery of God's creation.


Ughh.. do you think God would create someone to mock Himself? I think not. You're forgetting that He was the one who created homosexuals. He doesnt make mistakes. He makes every person just the way he wants them to be. You should know that. Two, your saying that gays will go to hell because they are sinning. Homosexuality is a sin, I do agree with that. But so is stealing, lying, killing, adultry, etc. etc. We ALL sin, we all have sinned, we all will sin. No matter how many times God forgives us, we can't stop. Thats our curse for eating from the tree of knowledge. So, are you saying that being gay is a "special" sin, which makes it far worse than stealing, or murder? How is it different? Hmm? AND, just because its a sin, doesn't mean that God will send the sinner to Hell.God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. Remember John 3:16? For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. There you go. God made homosexuals, and God loves homosexuals. And we all should too. If God had wanted gays to die, then He wouldn't have sent His only Son to die for ALL of us, including gays.

fatpie wrote:
That is not even mentioning the fact that it causes AIDS etc.

Wow. That's like saying kissing causes mononucleosis. Show me the smallest shred of scientific proof, or even evidence that homosexual activity causes AIDS, and I shall consider your point of veiw.
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Sep 18, 2004 4:56 am ]
Post subject: 
Ooshmaster:

You have a very valid point. Homosexuality is not the cardinal sin. Nor is it the most destructive sin committed by people today. Second, Scripture does teach that God loves sinners. As Rom 5 puts it, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." We are saved not by who we are or what we do, but by what Christ has done for us.

There is one weakness to your post. God created sinners, but he did not create us TO BE sinners. Sin is the nature of Fallen humanity, a humanity that no longer fits the image God intended for us when we were created. And the whole purpose of redemption--the incarnation, passion, and resurrection--are to conform us to that image once again. Granted, it will never be perfect in this world, but that is the intended purpose God has for our lives, that we be conformed to the image of Christ.

So does that mean that if someone doesn't quite fit, they go to hell? Of course not. I don't know a single person who does (except maybe one, and he sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty).

Fatpie:

AIDS is spread through contact with bodily fluids, which include blood, saliva, mucus, semen, etc. It is more commonly spread through the use of illegal drugs and illicit heterosexual contact (such as prostitution). At one time, the majority of victims were homosexual, but that was more or less coincidence.
Author:  ooshmaster [ Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes, I see now. Thankyou.
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:04 am ]
Post subject: 
No probalo.
Author:  ooshmaster [ Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:11 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, I cant think of anymore things to say, so I'm outta here.

Thanks again for pointing that out Didymus.
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Sep 18, 2004 1:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
fatpie wrote:
Homosexuality is a problem because it is a mockery of God's creation.


Ooh, I can't believe I missed that one! At least I think I did. If I didn't, I'm going to nitpick about it again.

Here's a big one: animals have clearly demonstrated homosexual behavior (both in captivity, where behavior may deviate from the norm for unusual reasons, and in the wild, where it probably doesn't). Do they mock God's creation because it's "unnatural", or is the assumption that it's "unnatural" the problem?

- Kef
Author:  Professor No [ Sat Sep 18, 2004 2:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
This is the argument against gay marriage by some people "homosexual marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage". I guess a married gay couple does more harm than a 5 minute Hollywood marriage...Just something to think about.
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Sep 18, 2004 2:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
My question is: what sanctity is there to ruin? We're not talking about people's relationships with God here, we're talking about two people signing papers. Marriage as the state sees it is inherently different from marriage how religion sees it, unless there's a hole in the First Amendment big enough to pilot a starship through.
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Professor No wrote:
This is the argument against gay marriage by some people "homosexual marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage". I guess a married gay couple does more harm than a 5 minute Hollywood marriage...Just something to think about.


Exactly... I would think that the "sanctity of marriage" argument would have gone by the wayside the day that 50% of marriages end in divorce. I mean, how sacred is it when people just get married because they think they feel like it?... As far as I can tell, there is no sanctity left to ruin. It's kinda like keying a car that's been crushed into one of those little cubes at the junkyard... What harm is it gonna do?
Like I said in the beginnning, if it is some sort of horrible sin, then God will punish them, and anything we could do on earth is meaningless next to the wrath of God. And, if it isn't a sin, then why punish them for it?
Until gay couples start going on multiple-state murder sprees to celebrate their marriages, I don't think they're gonna hurt anyone.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Big news today -- Spain has just legalized same-sex marriages!

They're the third country in the EU to pass such a measure. The Roman Catholic Church is predictably indignant.
Author:  StrongRad [ Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:25 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, just got back from the good ol' family reunion... I was happy, but mad at my family..
They welcomed my cousin Michelle's girlfriend into the family pretty openly, although I do suspect that there was a lot of talk behind her back.. The mad part, well, they didn't treat Michelle's sister's fiance so well... They had a bigger problem with a black guy than they did a lesbian... Personally, I don't really care, black, white, straight, bi, gay; it really don't matter... I mean, if you have the luck to find that one person on the planet that makes you the happiest you've ever been, I say go for it.

My family isn't a bunch of biggots, please don't judge them as such.... They're good people... Just strange. Personally, I was happy that they accepted Amy and Michelle as good as they did... I wish they would have welcomed Ben a lot more openly. He's a pretty pretty cool...

Interestingly enough, Michelle and Amy are planning to vote for Bush.. I found that kinda interesting. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
This thread has been quiet for awhile, but I wanted to point everybody at this NYT op-ed piece: God and Sex.

Quote:
If we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?
Author:  Didymus [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:03 am ]
Post subject: 
InterruptorJones wrote:
This thread has been quiet for awhile, but I wanted to point everybody at this NYT op-ed piece: God and Sex.
Quote:
If we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?

I read the article. This guy is no biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination. He does point out, however, that the Bible does in places condemn homosexuality.

His argument that the Bible actually describes a few gay relationships in a positive light is false. The biblical term "beloved" ("agapetos" in the Greek) means very close friend, trusted companion or family member. A husband and wife can be "agapetoi", but so can a father and a son, or a brother and a sister. As for David and Jonathan, people in the Middle East express natural brotherly affection the same way still today (some places in Europe, too). Only in America are we so uptight about natural affection that we automatically assume they are gay.

Even his opening statement, "So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof?" is entirely misleading. God did not create people with the intention of making them gay. You could just as easily ask the question, "So when God made people who brutally murder others, did he goof?" Sin is always the fault of a fallen, corrupt human race, not the Creator who made us.

That final remark about banning marriage is based on a gross exaggeration of St. Paul's message. St. Paul commends marriage, but he also recognizes celibacy as a legitimate lifestyle for those who choose it (he himself was celibate). He only recommends it for those who can live it; he does not require it.

Incidentally, the article's title is misleading. It's not about God's attitude toward sex, but about religious attitudes toward a specific sexual orientation. It says nothing about the nature of the physical union between a man and his wife, but there's a whole book dedicated to it (Song of Songs), not to mention all the places which speak of the two becoming one flesh. A better title might have been "The Bible and Homosexuality" or "Religious Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriages".
Author:  Professor No [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Another argument thats used by some against gay marriage is, that since the U.S. is quote a "Christian Nation" that gay marriage is illegal. Well its time to poke a hole in that, so once again lets read a quote from a good libertarian President Thomas Jefferson "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law". As is clear America is a secular republic, religious views don't affect laws... :usa:

One more thing its a state issue...
Author:  furrykef [ Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:14 am ]
Post subject: 
My idol Chris Crawford wrote an essay exploding the myth that this is a Christian nation. We may be a nation of (mostly) Christians, but we are not a Christian nation.

- Kef
Page 6 of 23 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/